Environmental Impact Assessment for the Establishment of the Wolseley Wind Farm, Western Cape Province

Home , Cape elephant shrew, Cyanella hyacinthoides, Leucadendron discolor, Phaneroglossa, Protea burchellii, Protea punctata

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WOLSELEY WIND FARM, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FAUNA & FLORA SPECIALIST STUDY PRODUCED FOR ARCUS GIBB ON BEHALF OF SAGIT ENERGY VENTURES BY SIMON TODD [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2012

FINAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I, Simon Todd as duly authorised representative of Simon Todd Consulting, hereby confirm my independence as well as that of Simon Todd Consulting as the ecological specialist for the Langhoogte/Wolseley Wind Farm and declare that neither I nor Simon Todd Consulting have any interest, be it business, financial, personal or other, in any proposed activity, application or appeal in respect of which Arcus GIBB was appointed as environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), other than fair remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act) for the Langhoogte/Wolseley Wind Farm I further declare that I am confident in the results of the studies undertaken and conclusions drawn as a result of it. I have disclosed, to the environmental assessment practitioner, in writing, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act. I have further provided the environmental assessment practitioner with written access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not. I am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any other specific and relevant legislation (national and provincial), policies, guidelines and best practice.

Signature: ______

Full Name: Simon Wallace Todd

Date: 05 November 2012 Title / Position: Sole Proprietor Qualification(s): MSc (Conservation Biology) Experience (years/ months): 15 years Registration(s): SACNASP (400425/11) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd. (GIBB) has been appointed by SAGIT Energy Ventures to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm in the Western Cape. GIBB has in turn subcontracted Simon Todd Consulting to provide specialist ecological input for the above EIA. This specialist study provides an assessment of the likely ecological (terrestrial fauna and flora) impacts that are likely to be associated with the development of the site as a wind energy facility. The development would consist of up to 30 wind turbines distributed across the site which is located approximately 10 km south of Wolseley towards Worcester along the R43. The site was visited in July and September 2012 in order to characterise the site and assess the presence of sensitive species and habitats at the site. As this is highly favourable time of year for the vegetation, a lot of confidence can be placed in the results.

Several highly threatened vegetation types occur at the site, particularly within the lowlands which have been highly impacted by transformation for intensive agriculture. As a result all remaining fragments of lowland vegetation at the site are considered highly sensitive and should not be impacted. There is however a large amount of transformed areas available at the site which would be suitable for development with little risk of generating significant ecological impact on flora and terrestrial fauna. The final sensitivity map generated for the site is depicted below.

Four different impacts were identified as being likely to be associated with the construction and operation of the wind energy facility at the site. These are:

Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant species; Negative impacts on fauna and their habitats; Indirect impacts to wetlands and hydrology as a result of erosion, Alien plant invasion with associated loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and Cumulative impacts to biodiversity and broad-scale ecological processes would occur as a result of the presence of a number of other facilities within the region.

The above impacts were assessed for each of the development phases of the development and the results suggest that while some impacts are potentially high on account of the sensitive features present within the site, all impacts can be mitigated to an acceptably low level, through avoidance and active mitigation. Given the nature of the contrasting sensitivity of the site, it is clear that an avoidance mitigation strategy should be the primary venue for reducing the impact of the development and the layout as depicted above performs well in avoiding the sensitive features of the site. Alien plant invasion and erosion are identified as the primary impacts likely to be associated with the development after construction and specific measures to manage these risks will be required. In addition, some of the turbines occur within lowland environments that are seasonally waterlogged and the potential of the development to impact surface and subsurface flows within these habitats is highlighted as a concern. The specialist wetland assessment which is being conducted independently is this study would however also shed more light on the identity and location of turbines which may pose a risk to these areas, and this study therefore defers to that study in this regard.

Overall, the wind energy facility is not likely to significantly impact the intact vegetation types at the site and the actual loss of intact vegetation would be very low based on the final layout. Therefore, the risk to the exceptional plant diversity of the area is likely to be low and the development would not be likely to result in significant net loss of plant biodiversity from the area. In terms of fauna, the situation is similar as the Critically Endangered Geometric Tortoise is known from the area, but the potential habitat of this species at the site is limited and well defined. Although the construction phase of the development is likely to generate a transient impact on fauna, there were no specialised faunal habitats within the development footprint and therefore it is not likely that the facility would generate significant long-term faunal impact.

Summary assessment of the different impacts for the different phases of the development, before and after mitigation Construction Operation Decomissioning Impact Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant High Low Low Low Medium Low species Medium- Medium- Negative impacts on fauna Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Impacts to wetlands and hydrology as a result of Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low erosion

Alien plant invasion Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED WOLSELEY WIND FARM, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE: FAUNA & FLORA SPECIALIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-3

1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE 5

2 INTRODUCTION 8

2.1 Background 8 2.1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development 8

2.2 Scope and limitations 9 2.2.1 Scope of Study 9 2.2.2 Limitations & Assumptions 10

2.3 Assessment Methodology 10 2.3.1 Data Sourcing and Review 10 2.3.2 Study Area Sensitivity Analysis 12

2.4 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge 13

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 14

3.1 Vegetation 14 3.1.1 Global & Regional Context 14 3.1.2 National Vegetation Types 14 3.1.3 Fine-Scale Habitat Types 16 3.1.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas 20 3.1.5 Listed Plant Species 20

3.2 Fauna 21 3.2.1 Mammals 21 3.2.2 Reptiles 22 3.2.3 Amphibians 23

3.3 Site Sensitivity Assessment 23

4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT 24

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

4.1 Introduction 24

4.2 Identification of Impacts 25 4.2.1 Construction phase 25 4.2.2 Operational phase 25 4.2.3 Decommissioning phase 25 4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 26 4.2.5 Identified Impacts to be Assessed 26

4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 27

4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology 28

4.5 Impact Assessment – Wind Energy Facility & Associated Infrastructure 30 4.5.1 Construction Phase 30 4.5.2 Operational phase 33 4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase 35 4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts 37

4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives 38 4.6.1 No Go Option 38

5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 38

6 APPENDIX 1. LIST OF MAMMALS 41

7 APPENDIX 2. LIST OF REPTILES 44

8 APPENDIX 3. LIST OF AMPHIBIANS 47

9 LIST OF PLANT SPECIES 48

10 REFERENCES 40

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location and layout of the Wolseley Wind Farm, illustrating the study farms in white as well as the various ESKOM lines which traverse the site. The wind farm will connect to the Romansrivier substation which can be seen towards the northern boundary of the site...... 9

Figure 2. The National Vegetation Map as produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) for the Wolseley Wind Farm area, including rivers and wetlands delineated by the NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011)...... 15

Figure 3.. The Fine-Scale Vegetation Map as produced by Helme (2006) for the Wolseley Wind Farm area, including rivers and wetlands delineated by the NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011)...... 16

Figure 4. Transformed habitats at the site range from old fields that have recovered a large amount of vegetation as in the left image, to areas that are currently being used for intensive agriculture and may even be under shade tunnels...... 17

Figure 5. Breede Shale Renosterveld in the left image and Romansriver Proteoid Renosterveld in the right. In both cases, the vegetation is being invaded by Acacia mearnsii and Pinus and are clearly suffering from lack of appropriate management...... 18

Figure 6. Romansriver Renosterveld Alluvium Fynbos.at left and Witzenberg Sandolien Renosterveld Fynbos on the right, both taken within Romansrivier. The area of Romansriver Renosterveld Alluvium Fynbos pictured left is currently being cleared for orchards. A large number of emergent pine trees can be seen in the right image and regular clearing will be required to prevent reinvasion of this area...... 18

Figure 7. Examples of wetland features at the Wolseley Site, with a semi-natural seasonal wetland in the left image and an artificial dam in the right. Both are important habitats for amphibians and reptiles at the site...... 19

Figure 8. Critical Biodiversity Areas Map for the Wolseley Wind Farm. A substantial amount of transformation has taken place since the fine-scale mapping was conducted and the majority of turbines falling within CBA areas in the map are in fact in areas that have since been transformed or have development authorisation...... 20

Figure 9. Ecological sensitivity of the Wolseley Wind Farm, illustrating the final turbine locations...... 24

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Sensitivity Classification used in the sensitivity analysis of the Wolseley Wind farm site. 12

Table 2. Vegetation types (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) which occur in and around the study area, with the conservation status according to Mucina & Rutherford (2006)/Driver et al. (2005) as well as according to the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011). 14

Table 4. Summary assessment of the different impacts for the different phases of the development, before and after mitigation 38

APPENDICES

7 APPENDIX 1. LIST OF MAMMALS 41

8 APPENDIX 2. LIST OF REPTILES 44

9 APPENDIX 3. LIST OF AMPHIBIANS 47

10 LIST OF PLANT SPECIES 48

ABBREVIATIONS

BGIS Biodiversity GIS (BGIS) website hosted by SANBI. CBA Critical Biodiversity Area as defined by a fine-scale conservation plan NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SARCA South African Reptile Conservation Assessment. SIBIS SIBIS is the gateway to SANBI's biodiversity information, and information shared by SANBI partners.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 5

1 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND EXPERTISE

P.O.Box 71 Nieuwoudtville 8180 [email protected] H: 027 218 1276 C: 082 3326 502

SIMON TODD Profession: Ecological Consultant Specialisation: Plant & Animal Ecology Years of Experience: 15 Years

Skills & Primary Competencies

Research & description of ecological patterns & processes in Fynbos, Succulent Karoo, Nama Karoo, Thicket, Arid Grassland 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

General Experience & Expertise Conducted a large number of fauna and flora specialist assessments distributed widely across South Africa. Projects have ranged in extent from <50 ha to more then 50 000 ha. Extensive experience in the field and exceptional level of technical expertise, particularly with regards to GIS capabilities which is essential with regards to producing high-quality sensitivity maps for use in the design of final project layouts. Strong research background which has proved invaluable when working on several ecologically sensitive and potentially controversial sites containing some of the most threatened fauna in South Africa. Published numerous research reports as well as two book chapters and a large number of papers in leading scientific journals dealing primarily with human impacts on the vegetation and ecology of South Africa. Maintain several long-term vegetation monitoring projects distributed across Namaqualand and the karoo. Guest lecturer at two universities and have also served as an external examiner. Reviewed papers for more than 10 international ecological journals. Past chairman and current committee member of the Arid Zone Ecological Forum. SACNASP registered as a Professional Natural Scientist, (Ecology) No. 400425/11.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 6

A selection of recent work is as follows:

Specialist Vegetation Assessment for EIA. The Proposed Commercial Concentrated Solar Power Tower Facility and Concentrated Photovoltaic Facility at Van Roois Vley Near Upington. WSP 2012. Proposed Mainstream South Africa Springfontein Wind Energy Facility: Terrestrial Fauna & Flora Specialist Study For EIA. Savannah Environmental 2012. Garob Wind Farm: Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Impact Assesment. Savannah Environmental 2012. ESKOM 300MW Kleinsee Wind Energy Facility. Fauna Specialist Report For Impact Assessment. Savannah Environmental. 2012. Karoshoek Solar Valley Development, Near Upington: Fauna & Flora Specialist Impact Assessment Report. Savannah Environmental. 2012. Project Blue Wind And Solar Energy Facility, Near Kliensee. Fauna Specialist Report For Impact Assessment. Savannah Environmental. 2012. O’Kiep 3 PV Solar Energy Facility on a Site In O’kiep Near Springbok, Northern Cape Province. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Savannah Environmental 2012. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Facility on Voëlklip, South of Springbok. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Savannah Environmental 2012. Namaqua Photovoltaic Solar Energy Facility on a Site North of Kamieskroon. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Savannah Environmental 2012. Rare Earth Separation Plant Near Vredendal, Western Cape Province. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Savannah Environmental 2012. Inca Graafwater Photovoltaic Solar Energy Facility, Graafwater, Western Cape Province. Faunal Ecology Specialist Report for Impact Assessment. Savannah Environmental 2012. Aberdeen Solar Facility. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Savannah Environmental. 2012. Venetia Solar Facility. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Savannah Environmental. 2012. Southern Cross Solar Energy Facility: Southern Farm 425. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Savannah Environmental. 2012. Tutwa Solar Energy Facility: Portion 4 of Narries 7. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Savannah Environmental. 2012. Karoshoek Grid Integration Infrastructure. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report For Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Savannah Environmental. 2012. Valleydora Photovolataic Solar Power Plant, Free State. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report. CSIR, 2012. Reddersburg Solar Facility - Fauna & Flora Specialist Assessment. CSIR, 2012. Melkvlei Photovolataic Solar Power Plant. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist report for ERM. 2012. Ruinte Photovolataic Solar Power Plant. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist report for ERM. 2012. Genoegsaam Solar Park. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist report for ERM. 2012. Genoegsaam Solar Park. Fauna & Flora Specialist EIA Report. Specialist report for ERM. 2012. Graspan Solar Facility. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Impact Assessment. Specialist report for ERM. 2012. Olyven Kolk Solar Power Plant, Northern Cape: Botanical and Faunal Specialist Assessment. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 2011. Klawer Wind Farm: Ecological and Biodiversity Assessment: Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna & Botanical Specialist Study. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management. 2011. Lambert’s Bay Wind Farm: Ecological and Biodiversity Assessment: Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna & Botanical Specialist Study. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management. 2011. Richtersveld Wind Farm: Ecological and Biodiversity Assessment: Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna & Botanical Specialist Study. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 2011.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 7

Roggeveld Wind Farm: Ecological and Biodiversity Assessment: Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna & Botanical Specialist Study. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 2011. Witberg Wind Farm: Ecological and Biodiversity Assessment: Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna & Botanical Specialist Study. Specialist Report for Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 2011. Skuitdrift Solar Facility. Fauna & Flora Specialist Report for Basic Assessment. Specialist Report for Cape EAPrac. 2012. Khoi-Sun Solar Facility. Fauna & Flora Specialist Scoping Report. Specialist Report for Cape EAPrac. 2012. Boesmanland Solar Farm. Fauna & Flora Specialist Scoping Study. Specialist Report for Cape EAPrac. 2012. Bitterfontein Solar Plant - Fauna & Flora Specialist Assessment. Specialist Report for Cape EAPrac. 2012. Beaufort West Solar Facility, Erf 7388 - Fauna & Flora Specialist Assessment. Specialist Report for Cape EAPrac. 2012. Improvements to the Ou Kaapse Weg / Silvermine Road Intersection. Specialist Faunal Study For Basic Assessment. Khula Environmental Consultants, 2012. Upgrading of Tourism Facilities at Goegap Nature Reserve. Specialist Ecological Assesment. Van Zyl Environmental Consultants. 2012. Plant Sweeps on Portion 2 of the Farm Demaneng 546, Kuruman District, Northern Cape Province for SA Manganese. 2011.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 8

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd. (GIBB) has been appointed by SAGIT Energy Ventures (SAGIT) to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Wolseley Wind Farm in the Western Cape. GIBB has in turn subcontracted Simon Todd Consulting to provide specialist ecological input for the above EIA. This specialist study provides an assessment of the likely ecological (terrestrial fauna and flora) impacts that are likely to be associated with the development of the site as a wind energy facility.

The broad terms of reference for the assessment of the development include the following:

Assess and detail the potential impacts of the proposed development on vegetation and terrestrial fauna at the site; Outline possible mitigation measures, rehabilitation procedures and or vegetation removal procedures that would reduce the potential impacts of the development; and Identify and rate the significance of potential impacts and outline any additional management guidelines that might be required.

The detailed terms of reference are described in Section 2.2 below.

2.1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development

A single site is being considered and alternative sites are not being assessed or compared to one another. The placement of the wind turbines has however been optimised based on the results of the various scoping studies, and in particular the ecological studies that have taken place. The proposed wind farm is situated between Wolseley (approximately 9 km north) and Worcester (approximately 27 km southeast) (Figure 1). The R43 road, which connects Wolseley and Worcester, bisects the western portion of the site. A 400 kV Eskom power line runs from west to east across the valley. It is anticipated that farming will continue on the site, with the exception of the areas affected by the access roads and the foundations of the wind turbines.

The project will include: 30 wind turbines, the exact details of which have yet to be finalised, but would fall within the following parameters: o Output: 2.3 – 3.6 MW / unit o Hub Height: 90-100 m o Blade length: 40-60 m 6 m wide access roads to the site and turbines; Underground cabling to link the turbines to the on-site substation; and A temporary construction camp.

At present it is anticipated that no new fencing will be required but a small substation adjacent to the existing ESKOM substation would be required. No new transmission line servitudes are therefore required. The wind farm will therefore be connected to the substation via underground cables.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 9

2.2 Scope and limitations

2.2.1 Scope of Study

Vegetation: Carry out fieldwork to locate and describe the vegetation on the study area, key focus on the impact footprint. Determine the species present and localities within each vegetation type present. Generate a vegetation map showing the sites in relation to any Critical Biodiversity Areas and links to ecological corridors and support areas. Determine whether the study area falls wholly or partially within the distribution range of species listed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered and Protected. Provide a description of the current state of the vegetation on site supported by relevant photographs. Identify and describe the conservation value and conservation planning frameworks relevant to this site (Regional Planning) for represented vegetation units. Describe the areas where indigenous vegetation has been transformed. Determine alien species present, their distribution within the study area and recommended management actions. Note and record the position of protected or unusually large specimens of trees.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 10

Provide a detailed vegetation sensitivity map (e.g. CBA) of the site, including mapping of disturbance and transformation on site. Provide monitoring requirements as input into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), as well as generic rehabilitation and re-vegetation guidelines.

Fauna: Describe and assesses 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); o or, are of cultural significance. Provide monitoring requirements as input into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for faunal related issues.

2.2.2 Limitations & Assumptions

Ideally a site should be visited several times across different seasons in order to capture the full complement of plant and animal species present. However this is seldom possible and so the adequacy of the data collected in reflecting the ecological patterns and processes at the site should be critically evaluated. In the current study, two site visits to the area took place during the course of the study, the first in July 2012 and the second in early September 2012. This captures the spring growing season of a large component of the vegetation and particularly geophytes which may not be visible at other times of the year. As the site has been sampled at a near optimal time, this significantly increases the confidence that can be associated with the results and the ecological patterns that have been derived.

All provisional turbine positions were observed during the site visits and those where there was potential conflict with biodiversity were specifically investigated in more detail to ascertain the vegetation and other features present within the footprint, and alternative potential locations were identified where necessary. The current assessment is therefore specific to the final layout that was provided to the consultant and if the layout deviates significantly from the current layout at a later date, the current assessment may no longer hold valid.

2.3 Assessment Methodology

2.3.1 Data Sourcing and Review

The data used in the scoping study includes the following:

(i).1 Flora Vegetation types for the area were extracted from the South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006), while their conservation status was obtained from both Mucina and

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 11

Rutherford (2006) as well as National list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa (2011). The fine-scale vegetation map produced for the area by Helme (2007) as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine- scale Biodiversity Planning Project was also consulted for additional information on the vegetation of the site as well as conservation priorities in the area. Information on plant species recorded for the Quarter Degree Squares (QDS) 3421 BB and BD was extracted from the SABIF/SIBIS database hosted by SANBI. The IUCN conservation status (Table 1) 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 (2011).

(i).2 Ecosytem Threatened Ecosystem data was extracted from the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2010). Freshwater and wetland information was extracted from the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment, NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011). The wetland areas identified by the NFEPA were however also verified in field and a detailed delineation of the wetlands at the site has also conducted independently in a separate specialist study for the site. Important catchments and protected areas expansion areas were extracted from the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2008 (NPAES). Critical Biodiversity Areas for the Witzenberg Municipality (Pence 2008) along with ancillary coverages were obtained from the SANBI BGIS website, http://bgis.sanbi.org/overberg/CBAs.asp.

(i).3 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 various spatial databases (SANBI’s SIBIS and BGIS databases). Literature consulted includes Branch (1988) and Alexander and Marais (2007) for reptiles, Du Preez and Carruthers (2009) for amphibians, Friedmann and Daly (2004) and Skinner and Chimimba (2005) for mammals. The list of reptiles for the site was augmented by generating a list of species recorded for the area from the SARCA website http://vmus.adu.org.za. 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. For each species, the likelihood that it occurs at the site was rated according to the following scale: . Low: The available habitat does not appear to be suitable for the species and it is unlikely that the species occurs at the site. . Medium: The habitat is broadly suitable or marginal and the species may occur at the site. . High: There is an abundance of suitable habitat at the site and it is highly probable that the species occurs there. . Definite: Species that were directly or indirectly (scat, characteristic diggings, burrows etc.) observed at the site.

(i).4 Conservation Status

The conservation status of each species is also listed, based on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1 (2012) (See Table 1) and where species have not been assessed under these criteria, the CITES status is reported where possible. These lists are adequate for mammals and

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 12

amphibians, the majority of which have been assessed, however the majority of reptiles have not been assessed and therefore, it is not adequate to assess the potential impact of the development on reptiles, based on those with a listed conservation status alone. In order to address this shortcoming, the distribution of reptiles was also taken into account such that any narrow endemics or species with highly specialized habitat requirements occurring at the site were noted.

Table 1. The IUCN Red List Categories for fauna and flora. Species which fall within the categories in red and orange below, are of conservation concern. IUCN Red List Category Critically Endangered (CR) Endangered (EN) Vulnerable (VU) Near Threatened (NT) Critically Rare Rare Declining Data Deficient - Insufficient Information (DDD) Data Deficient - Taxonomically Problematic (DDT) Least Concern

2.3.2 Study Area Sensitivity Analysis

In order to derive a sensitivity map of the study area, the different landscape units present were digitised from the satellite imagery of the site. This included a basic differentiation of the site into transformed areas, intact vegetation, drainage lines, dams and clumps of trees or other conspicuous vegetation features. The overall sensitivity of the different landscape units identified were then rated according to the sensitivity of the vegetation type, the current landuse, the likely faunal sensitivity of the area, the presence of sensitive habitats such as wetlands, the potential for the area to act as a corridor or movement corridor and the likely role of the area in maintaining ecosystem function. Drainage lines were double-buffered, by 50 and 100m and the areas within 50m classified as Very High Sensitivity and those within 100m as High Sensitivity. Similarly, dams and reservoirs were also buffered by 100m and classified as High Sensitivity. Those areas of intact vegetation in the lowlands were classified as Very High Sensitivity on account of the high threat status of the lowland vegetation types, while those areas of intact vegetation on the slopes were classified as High Sensitivity. All areas classified as CBAs or which form part of stewardship agreements with CapeNature were also classified as Very High sensitivity. There are also a number of areas at the site, which are currently in a natural to semi-natural state, and which are potentially sensitive, but which are currently being developed for intensive agriculture. An environmental authorisation to clear and develop these areas has already been obtained and therefore, these areas are not classified as High or Very Sensitivity as they will in all likelihood be completely transformed by the time construction on the current project would begin, should it be approved.

The different sensitivity classes used and their attributes are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1 Sensitivity Classification used in the sensitivity analysis of the Wolseley Wind farm site.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 13

Sensitivity Description

Units with a low sensitivity where there is likely to be a negligible impact on ecological processes and terrestrial biodiversity. This category is reserved specifically for areas where the natural vegetation has already been Low Sensitivity transformed, usually for intensive agricultural purposes such as cropping. Most types of development can proceed within these areas with little ecological impact.

Areas of natural or previously transformed land where the impacts are likely to be largely local and the risk of secondary impact such as erosion low. Medium Sensitivity Development within these areas can proceed with relatively little ecological impact provided that appropriate mitigation measures are taken.

Areas of natural or transformed land where a high impact is anticipated due to the high biodiversity value, sensitivity or important ecological role of the High Sensitivity area. Development within these areas is highly undesirable and should only proceed with caution as it may not be possible to mitigate all impacts appropriately.

Critical and unique habitats that serve as habitat for rare/endangered species or perform critical ecological roles. These areas are essentially no- Very High Sensitivity go areas from a developmental perspective and should be avoided at all costs.

2.4 Description of any assumptions made, uncertainties or gaps in knowledge

The site is very large and also encompasses several areas which can be considered, on basic conservation principles, unsuitable for the development of a wind energy facility. This includes areas which have been identified as biodiversity priority areas, critically endangered vegetation types or fall under conservation agreements such as stewardship. Most of these areas are well documented by fine-scale vegetation maps and the CBA maps for the area. As the sensitivity of these areas has already been well documented, these areas were not investigated in detail during the study, except where transformation had taken place since the mapping had occurred, in which case the current landuse and status of these areas was verified in the field. In contrast to these high sensitivity areas, the site also contains a large proportion of transformed habitats which retain little of their original biodiversity or ecological function. Development within these areas is not likely to pose significant ecological risk and could proceed with little impact on the terrestrial environment. Broadly speaking, the site consists of transformed areas which are largely of low sensitivity and areas of intact vegetation which are largely of very high sensitivity. Therefore given the contrasting nature of the site, a habitat level assessment was used as the primary approach for field assessment. This involved the validation of the CBA map for the area, which was outdated in several areas on account of recent transformation that has taken place. An attempt to derive a full species list for the entire site was not made, as the primary goal was to avoid impact to areas of intact vegetation. Nevertheless in the final layout not all areas of natural vegetation could be avoided and a small number of turbines fall within areas of natural or semi-natural vegetation. In such cases, these locations were specifically assessed in the field, and a full species list for the affected area was recorded. In addition, the site and the layout were also discussed with Rupert Koopman the botanist from CapeNature who is familiar with the area and with the distribution of species of conservation concern at the site. This aided in refining the sensitivity map as well as

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 14

ensuring that all known areas of potential concern were captured in the sensitivity map. The final sensitivity map of the site therefore represents the best current knowledge of biodiversity pattern within the study area and is thoroughly ground truthed and all sensitive features present have been mapped at a high level of detail and spatial accuracy.

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Vegetation

3.1.1 Global & Regional Context

The study area lies within the Cape Floral Kingdom, the smallest and relatively richest of only six such kingdoms in the world. The Cape Floristic Region is widely recognised as a global hotspot of plant diversity and endemism. The region contains almost 9000 plant species, 69% of which are endemic to the Cape Floristic Region, making it the richest temperate region in the world. An important characteristic of the exceptional diversity of the region is the very high level of species turnover across the landscape (beta diversity). A consequence of this is that many species are restricted in distribution and may only occur on a single mountain range or within a specific environment. The implication of this for development is that extra precautions to limit the impact of development on this globally significant heritage are warranted.

3.1.2 National Vegetation Types

There are eight vegetation types which occur in the vicinity of the Wolseley Wind Farm Site (Figure 1, Table 2). Of these, only four occur within the boundaries of the study area. Breede Shale Fynbos occurs on the mountain slopes which characterise the eastern side of the study area, while Breede Alluvium Fynbos dominates the central, lower-lying parts of the site, with lesser extents of Breede Shale Renosterveld and Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos along the western fringes of the site. Both Breede Alluvium Fynbos and Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos are listed as Endangered according the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011) (Table 2). The extent of Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos within the site boundaries is very small and would be easily avoided. The Breede Alluvium Fynbos occupies a large proportion of the central parts of the site within the preferred area for the location of the turbines, and will clearly be an important consideration in assessing the ecological sensitivity of this part of the site.

Vegetation Mucina & Conservation % % Type Vegetation Type Rurtherford NEMBA Listing Target Protected Remaining Extent Status (Km2) Breede Alluvium Fynbos 30% 0.2 43.1 Endangered Endangered 510 Western Coastal Shale Band 30% 43.2 93.9 Least threatened 135 Vegetation Breede Shale Fynbos 30% 6.2 71 Vulnerable 318

Hawequas Sandstone 30% 53.1 95.6 Least threatened Vulnerable 1051 Fynbos

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 15

Western Altimontane 29% 34.5 100 Least threatened 38 Sandstone Fynbos North Hex Sandstone 29% 34.4 93.7 Least threatened 394 Fynbos South Hex Sandstone 29% 16 99.5 Least threatened 321 Fynbos Breede Shale Renosterveld 27% 1.8 69.3 Vulnerable 1046

Wolseley/Langhoogte Wind Farm

SA Vegetation Types

# Turbine Locations Wind Farm Properties NFEPA Rivers NFEPA Wetlands # # # # Vegetation Types: # Breede Alluvium Fynbos Breede Shale Fynbos # Breede Shale Renosterveld Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos # North Hex Sandstone Fynbos # # # South Hex Sandstone Fynbos # Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos # Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation # # # #

# # # # #

# # # # N # # # # # 1 0 1 2 Kilometers

Produced for Arcus-Gibb November 2012

Figure 2. The National Vegetation Map as produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) for the Wolseley Wind Farm area, including rivers and wetlands delineated by the NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011).

Apart from the vegetation map produced by Mucina and Rutherford (2006), a fine-scale vegetation map for the area has also been produced by Helme (2007) as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning Project, implemented by CapeNature. The vegetation map produced by Helme (Figure 3), maps the vegetation units identified by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) at a finer scale, as well as identifies several new vegetation units. Dominant vegetation units within the study area include Witzenberg Sandolien Renosterveld Fynbos, Romansriver Proteoid Renosterveld and Breede Shale Renosterveld. Romansriver Proteoid Renosterveld is a particular conservation concern as it is rich in threatened species and is considered one of the top three conservation priorities in the area, by Helme (2006). Breede Shale Renosterveld is also considered a conservation priority due to the abundance of rare and endemic species as well as the impact intensive agriculture has had on the vegetation unit.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 16

Wolseley/Langhoogte Wind Farm

FSP Vegetation Types # Turbine Locations Wind Farm Properties NFEPA Rivers NFEPA Wetlands # # # # FSP Vegetation # Breede Alluvium Fynbos Breede Shale Fynbos Breede Shale Renosterveld # Hawequas Sandstone Fynbos Hex & Witzenberg Waboomveld # Limietberg Waboomveld # # # North Hex Sandstone Fynbos # Romansriver Proteoid Renosterveld Romansriver Renosterveld Alluvium Fynbos # Slanghoek Alluvium Fynbos # # # South Hex Sandstone Fynbos # Southern Afrotemperate Forest # # # Western Altimontane Sandstone Fynbos Western Coastal Shale Band Vegetation # # Witzenberg Sandolien Renosterveld Fynbos Wolseley Fynbos Renosterveld Worcester Sandolienveld

# # # # N # # # # # 1 0 1 2 Kilometers

Produced for Arcus-Gibb November 2012

Figure 3. The Fine-Scale Vegetation Map as produced by Helme (2006) for the Wolseley Wind Farm area, including rivers and wetlands delineated by the NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011).

3.1.3 Fine-Scale Habitat Types

In this section the different habitat types present at the Wolseley Wind Farm site are described. Vegetation types referred to are those of Helme (2007) rather than those of Mucina & Rutherford (2006).

Transformed Areas

The majority of the lowlands and lower slopes of the site have been transformed for agriculture. In some areas, the current land use is intensive agriculture with fruit trees, grape vines or cropping with wheat or oats. The use of herbicides and pesticides is common within these areas and they retain minimal plant and animal biodiversity. Such areas are not considered ecologically sensitive and development within such areas could proceed with little risk of ecological impact. However, within some areas, the intensity of agricultural activity is low and the primary activity is extensive livestock grazing with sheep and cattle. Within these areas, which are dominated by Cynodon dactylon some recolonisation of the old lands has taken place with species such as Elytropappus rhinocerotis, Athanasia trifurcata and Seriphium plumosum reinvading these areas. Some geophytes are also present including Moraea miniata, Gladiolus alatus and Oxalis purpurea. These areas are however heavily grazed which prevents further recovery by the indigenous vegetation. The majority of these areas are not of high sensitivity on account of their low diversity and highly impacted nature.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 17

Renosterveld

There are some very small remnant fragments of Breede Shale Renosterveld within the study area. These areas are dominated by Elytropappus rhinocerotis and Relhania fruticosa with other shrubs such as Eriocephalus africanus, Hermannia alnifolia, Hermannia diversistipula, Hermannia multiflora and an understorey of forbs and geophytes such as Moraea gawleri, Hesperantha falcata, Babiana melanops, Cyphia digitata and Oxalis bifida. The endangered Spiloxene minuta was also observed in this vicinity. This area is however partly invaded by aliens, mostly Pinus, Acacia mearnsii and Acacia longifolia, and without remedial action, the ecological value of this area will decline rapidly in the future as the density of woody invaders is increasing quickly. This area also has not burnt for a long time and has become quite moribund as a result. Although there were some turbines within this area, in draft layouts of the facility, it has not been impacted in the final layout.

Within the south of the site, there are some fragments of Romansriver Proteoid Renosterveld. The largest fragment within the site is under stewardship agreement with CapeNature and will not be impacted by the development. There are however some very small fragments outside this area, which are quite disturbed and also invaded by Pinus. Species observed within these fragments include Leucadendron lanigerum, Drosera cistiflora, Lachenalia lutea, Moraea fugascissima, Triglochin bulbosa, Lebeckia sepiaria, Relhania fruticosa, Stoebe plumosa, Moraea miniata, Ammocharis longifolia, Ornithogalum dubium. Alien species were also common in this area and included Echium plantagineum, Erodium cicutarium, Bromus japonicus and Avena fatua. As this vegetation type is Endangered (Breede Alluvium Fynbos of Mucina & Rutherford) and is considered one of the conservation priorities in the area (Helme 2006), all remaining fragments are considered sensitive and should be avoided. Under the final layout considered here, there are not turbines within this vegetation type and it will not be impacted by the development.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 18

Fynbos

The lower slopes of the site within the Romansrivier area consist of Romansriver Renosterveld Alluvium Fynbos. This is a dense fynbos vegetation dominated by Protea repens, Protea burchellii, Metalasia densa, Anthospermum spathulatum, Leucospermum cordifolium, Willdenowia incurvata, Leucadendron salignum, Lobostemon fruticosus and Syncarpha canescens. Although this is considered a highly sensitive vegetation type, the remaining fragments within the site are currently being developed as fruit orchards under environmental authorization and with an offset agreement with CapeNature. Consequently, these areas are not likely to be in a natural state by the time the current development proceeds. Therefore, although these areas are sensitive, the fact that they will imminently be cleared negates this sensitivity. However, if these areas are not cleared as a result of some unforeseen event, they would need to be considered highly sensitive and should be avoided.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 19

The upper slopes of the site consist largely of Witzenberg Sandolien Renosterveld Fynbos. Within the site, there is not a lot of Sandolien, Dodonaea angustifolia and the vegetation is rather dominated by species such as Protea repens, Metalasia densa, Euryops abrotanifolius, Syncarpha canescens subsp. canescens, Lobelia spartioides, Salvia chameleagna, Cliffortia ruscifolia, Muraltia heisteria, Searsia rosmarinifolia and Heterolepis aliena. The dominance of disturbance indicators such as Metalasia densa and Euryops abrotanifolius within the site suggests that a lot of the vegetation on the lower slopes has previously been disturbed, probably as a result of past alien plant invasion, pine and Hakea still being prominent in many areas. This is considered to be a moderately sensitive vegetation type. As it usually occurs on the steeper upper slopes of the site, it would also be vulnerable to erosion.

Wetlands

In this section, the wetlands present at the site are briefly described, with the purpose of outlining their broad characterisitics and value as habitat for other species. The reader is also directed to the specialist study of Dean Ollis which describes and delineates the wetlands of the site in greater detailed than contained here. Before transformation for agriculture, the majority of the lowlands of the site would have consisted of an extensive wetland system. Today, the drainage systems have been canalised, redirected and dammed, which has had a profound influence on the extent and distribution of wetlands at the site. The majority of current wetlands at the site are in fact anthropogenic in location or nature. Nevertheless, these areas are vulnerable to disturbance and should be avoided as much as possible. The wetlands are dominated by species such as Spiloxene aquatica, Aponogeton distachyos and Eleocharis limosa, while the larger dams are fringed by Phragmites australis and Typha capensis with various other sedges and wetland grasses. Most of the semi-natural vlei areas are seasonally flooded and would by dry by mid summer, while most of the dams are likely to hold water year-round. Although there may have historically been perennial water in some of the vlei areas, under the current circumstances, the dams provide a summer refuge for those species which require perennial water and probably contribute to increasing the amphibian diversity in the area. The wetland report by Dean Ollis provides an assessment of the condition and importance of the different wetland areas within the site, and therefore an attempt to provide such a categorisation is not provided here.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 20

It is also important to recognise that the lowlands of the site, are seasonally waterlogged which may have several implications for the development. These areas are probably impassable for several months of the year and significant hardened roads will be required to access these areas during construction and operation of the facility. Such roads are likely to interfere with the natural flow of water at the site and specific precautions should be taken to avoid these impacts. This could include careful routing of the service roads, restricting construction activities to the dry summer months and installing sufficient subsurface drainage to allow water to pass beneath the roads.

3.1.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas

A large proportion of the site lies within Critical Biodiversity areas (Figure 8). Many of the CBAs are required either in order to meet the conservation targets for the vegetation units present which been highly impacted by intensive agriculture, or due to the presence of restricted or red-listed plant taxa. Development within the CBAs is highly undesirable and represents a significant constraint on development within the area. Since the CBA map was produced, some recent transformation has taken place within CBAs, particularly around Romansrivier with the result that the affected areas no longer qualify as CBA. These areas have all been verified in the field and the sensitivity map reflects these changes.

Wolseley Wind Farm

# # # Critical Biodiversity Areas # # # Turbine Locations Wind Farm Properties Aquatic CBAs # Critical Biodiversity Area Critical Biodiversity Area Buffer NFEPA Rivers # NFEPA Wetlands # # # Terrestrial CBAs # Critical Biodiversity Area Stewardship Areas # National Protected Areas Other Natural Areas # # # Transformed Areas #

# # # N

# # 500 0 500 Meters

# # # # # #

# Produced for Arcus-Gibb # # November 2012

3.1.5 Listed Plant Species

A plant species list for the site was generated from the SIBIS data portal for the QDS 3319 AC, AD, CA and CB. This is a considerably larger area than the study area and consequently the list will contain more species than actually occur at the site. However this is conservative approach that

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 21

takes account of the fact that not all parts of the study will have been sampled in the past. The results indicate that approximately 3850 plant species are known to occur in the above four QDS, illustrating the exceptional diversity of the area (Table 3). This indicates that approximately 15% of the plant species recorded in South Africa are found within what amounts to less than 1% of the country. Of significance is the fact that 270 species are endangered, and an additional 259 are rare or otherwise of conservation concern.

Given the high abundance of listed plant species in the area, turbines located within natural vegetation pose a high risk to such species and specific measures to ensure that listed plant species are not impacted are required during development of the site.

Table 3. Categorisation of the plant species known from the vicinity of the Wolseley Wind Farm site, into the IUCN Red List Categories. The categories in red and orange below, are of conservation concern. IUCN Red List Category No. Species Critically Endangered (CR) 43 Endangered (EN) 98 Vulnerable (VU) 129 Near Threatened (NT) 82 Critically Rare 11 Rare 137 Declining 16 Data Deficient - Insufficient Information (DDD) 13 Data Deficient - Taxonomically Problematic (DDT) 65 Least Concern 3256 Total 3850

3.2 Fauna

3.2.1 Mammals

As many as 52 terrestrial mammals potentially occur at the site, including three species of conservation concern. Although the properties which make up the site include a large proportion of natural habitats that would be important for many of these species, the development itself is restricted to the lower-lying parts of the site which have been heavily impacted by agriculture. The species of conservation concern which may occur in the area include the White-tailed Mouse Mystromys albicaudatus (Endangered), Leopard Panthera pardus (Near Threatened) and the Honey Badger Mellivora capensis (SA RDB Endangered). The Leopard and Honey Badger are not likely to occur within the transformed lowland habitats and would be restricted to the natural areas and near-natural fringes of the developed areas. As such, the development of the site is not likely to have a significant impact on these species and the few turbines within the natural vegetation would not amount to significant local or regional habitat loss for these species. Given the high level of the transformation the area has experiences, it is also not likely to represent an important movement or migration corridor for larger fauna and so the potential disruption to broader-scale ecological processes is also very low. The White-tailed Mouse may be able to persist within the transformed areas, particularly those which retain some vegetation cover, such as many of the lowlands which were previously used for cropping, but are currently used for livestock grazing and

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 22

have been invaded by unpalatable shrubs or alien trees. However, even if the White-tailed Mouse occurs at the site, the area is not likely to be particularly important for this species and the relatively low total amount of habitat loss resulting from the development would not constitute a significant impact for this species, given its wide distribution range within South Africa.

Common middle-sized species which were observed to occur at the site include the Duiker, Grysbok, Cape Grey Mongoose, Cape Porcupine and Chacma Baboon. Although the construction phase of the development would be likely to generate a lot of noise and disturbance which may deter these species from the area, in the long-term impacts to these species are not likely to be significant. Most mammals are also likely to quickly become habituated to the presence of and noise generated by the turbines, especially given that the area is already subject to a lot of background noise on account of the R43 which runs past the site as well as the railway line and high levels of activity which characterise the area in general.

Smaller mammals observed at the site include the Cape Grey Mongoose Herpestes pulverulentus, Vlei Rat Otomys irroratus and Lesser Dwarf Shrew Suncus varilla. Although the development would result in some habitat loss for smaller mammals, the impact is not likely to be significant given the transformed nature of the majority of the site and the lack of specialized mammalian habitats within the development footprint.

Lesser Dwarf Shrew found underneath a rotting log in the lowlands of the site.

3.2.2 Reptiles The reptile diversity of the site is potentially very high, with as many as 56 different reptiles which may occur at the site. This comprises three tortoises, 1 terrapin, 26 snakes, 18 lizards and skinks, 1 chameleon and 7 geckos. Although a large proportion of these are likely to occur in the broad area, the actual number which are likely to occur within the affected parts of the site would be considerably less. In particular, those species associated with rocky habitats are not likely to occur within the affected area as there were no significant rocky outcrops which were observed in this area. Within the agricultural matrix, there was however an abundance of suitable habitat for more adaptable species, such as many snakes and skinks, in form of dense vegetated areas associated with drainage areas, wetlands and clumps of indigenous or alien bush. Consequently, within the transformed areas, diversity of reptiles is probably quite low, but abundance is likely to be quite high. Species observed during the site visits include the Angulate Tortoise Chersina angulata, Parrot-beaked Padloper Homopus areolatus, Marsh Terrapin Pelomedusa subrufa, Southern Rock Agama Agama atra and Cape Skink Mabuya capensis.

Species of conservation concern which may occur at the site include the Geometric Tortoise Psammobates geometricus (Endangered) as well as the Yellow-bellied House Snake Lamprophis fuscus (Lower Risk/Near Threatened). The Geometric Tortoise is restricted to lowland habitats and

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 23

although there are not many intact lowland areas remaining within the study area, any such fragments are potentially important habitat for this species. Since the lowland habitats are also highly significant from a flora perspective, this highlights the sensitivity of these areas and their high biodiversity value. There are no turbines within areas that would be important for the Geometric Tortoise, and it is highly unlikely that the development would impact this species in any way.

Parrot-beaked Padloper and Marsh Terrapin observed at the Wolseley Wind Farm site. Despite the transformed nature of a large proportion of the lowlands, the current landuse within those areas not used for intensive cropping is favourable for many reptiles.

3.2.3 Amphibians

The amphibian diversity of the site is potentially quite high and as many as thirteen frog species may occur within the site. There are a lot of semi-natural wetland habitats within the lowlands of the site and a large proportion of the less specialised species are likely to occur within these areas. Species observed include the Common Platanna Xenopus laevis and Cape River Frog Amietia fuscigula. The only listed species which may occur at the site is the Cape Caco Cacosternum capense which is listed as Vulnerable. This species is restricted to low-lying flat or gently undulating areas with poorly-drained clay or loamy soils and breeds in shallow, temporary rain-filled depressions, pans or cultivated land (du Preez & Carruthers 2009). It is therefore possible that this species occurs at the site. However, as with most other amphibians, the development would not have a significant impact on wetland and riparian habitats at the site, which have been avoided as far as possible by the development. Threats to amphibians which may stem from the development would include increased siltation of rivers and wetlands as result of increased erosion, as well as the risk of pollution, particularly during the construction phase of the development when there would be a lot of construction machinery and activity on site.

3.3 Site Sensitivity Assessment

The final sensitivity map for the Wolseley Wind Farm site is depicted below in Figure 9. As can be seen from the image, the site consists of areas of contrasting sensitivity with the transformed lowlands being classified as Low sensitivity and the intact remnants as Very High sensitivity. Those areas which are designated part of stewardship agreements are also classified as Very High sensitivity. Such areas should be considered no-go areas from a development perspective as it is not usually possible to mitigate impacts to such areas appropriately on account the unique biodiversity or important ecological function such areas may provide. As can be seen from the map

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 24

there is a single turbine which falls within an area classified as High sensitivity and overall, the layout performs well in avoiding the sensitive features of the site. The turbine within the High sensitivity area is on an access road, which will minimise its’ impact, but some disturbance and celaring of the surrounding vegetation during construction is still likely to occur.

Figure 9. Ecological sensitivity of the Wolseley Wind Farm, illustrating the final turbine locations.

4 IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

4.1 Introduction

The following activities and infrastructure elements which comprise the development are specifically considered in the assessment: Turbines with associated service areas; On-site sub-station; Access and service roads; Cable trenches for underground cabling to link the turbines to the grid; Construction activities including concrete works for foundations, temporary roads etc; and Overhead powerline to the Houhoek Sub-station.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 25

4.2 Identification of Impacts

Potential ecological impacts resulting from the development would stem from a variety of different activities and risk factors associated with the construction and operational phases of the project including the following:

4.2.1 Construction phase

The construction phase of the development is likely to directly or indirectly generate the bulk of the terrestrial impacts associated with the development of the site as a wind energy facility. The following activities associated with this phase of the development would generate or pose the greatest threats: The operation of heavy machinery at the site would generate a lot of physical disturbance at the site as well as noise. The presence of fuel, oil and other potential pollutants required for construction activities would pose a risk of spills and pollution of soil and water at the site. Vegetation clearing and possibly even rock blasting would be required for turbine foundations, service areas, roads, lay down areas and other permanent and temporary infrastructure. The laying down of underground cabling between the turbines would generate disturbance as well as destroy vegetation. The presence of a large construction crew would pose a significant risk of poaching of fauna, collection of flora and increased fire hazard.

4.2.2 Operational phase

Impacts related to the operational phase of the development are likely to be significantly reduced compared to the construction phase. However, many activities resulting from the construction phase will still pose a risk for some years into the operational phase of the development. This includes erosion risk and alien plant invasion risk which will persist until such time as the indigenous vegetation has recovered sufficiently to reduce invasion risk. Apart from these inherited risks, the presence and operation of the facility itself will generate some impact including: The presence and operation of the turbines will potentially impact fauna that may be wary of the movement or noise generated by the turbines. The presence of roads and other infrastructure will fragment faunal habitat as well as increase the risk of predation for some species such as tortoises when traversing open areas. Maintenance activities such as vegetation clearing may generate undesirable impacts if not conducted in a sensitive manner.

4.2.3 Decommissioning phase

Decommissioning of the project is expected after 20 years. This would involve the removal of the major infrastructure of the development. This would generate some disturbance at the site, the extent of which would depend on the manner and extent of the recovery of infrastructural components and whether or not the facility was recommissioned. The risks would however largely be similar to the construction phase of the development, but probably of a somewhat lower severity.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 26

The operation of heavy machinery at the site would generate a lot of physical disturbance at the site as well as noise. The presence of fuel, oil and other potential pollutants required for construction activities would pose a risk of spills and pollution of soil and water at the site. Inadequate rehabilitation of cleared areas would leave the site highly vulnerable to alien invasion.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts arise from the combined presence of several similar developments within an area which affect ecological processes operating at broader scales or which each have a small impact which becomes significant when combined. Potentially important cumulative impacts of wind energy facilities include habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and the loss of landscape connectivity and reduced ability of South Africa to meet its conservation targets and obligations.

There are at least seven other known wind energy facilities within 100 km of the Wolseley site, in various stages of development. Although some of these have already received preferred bidder status and are therefore highly likely to go ahead, the rest are still in the EIA or bid stage and it is therefore unknown which or how many of these will ultimately be constructed. These different facilities are summarized below, with information on their expected size as well as their distance from the current site.

Gouda 135.2 MW 46 turbines- Approved– 30 km Zen WEF near Saron – 60 turbines – EIA – 35km Kerriefontein 16 turbines – 20,8 MW – Approved – 80 km Rheboksfontein – 35 turbines– 105 MW – Approved – 80 km Caledon WEF (37 turbines). EIA application currently underway. 80 km Dassiesklip WEF (9 turbines). 26.19 MW EIA Approved. – 80 km Klipheuwel WEF (10 turbines). 27 MW EIA authorisation obtained.

From a terrestrial ecology perspective, there is not likely to be a large degree of cumulative impacts emanating from the development of the above facilities. The different sites are far enough apart that they would not share a large proportion of their flora and do not lie within a single corridor that might be important for the movement of terrestrial fauna. Thus although cumulative impacts on birds and bats are more likely on account of their mobility, terrestrial biota are less likely to suffer cumulative impacts, especially because all of the above facilities are also largely restricted to transformed habitats and cumulative habitat loss from the various developments is likely to remain low.

4.2.5 Identified Impacts to be Assessed

Based on the activities associated with each phase of the development and described above, the following impacts are identified as being the major impacts likely to be associated with the development. Each impact is assessed according to the different phases of the development, that is construction, operation and decommissioning.

1. Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant species. 2. Negative impacts on fauna and their habitat. 3. Indirect impacts to wetlands and hydrology as a result of erosion. 4. Alien plant invasion with associated loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. 5. Cumulative impacts to biodiversity and broad-scale ecological processes would occur as a result of the presence of a number of other facilities within the region.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 27

4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures

In order to ensure that impacts are avoided as far as possible and to implement effective mitigation at the site, the following mitigation hierarchy is used to prioritise mitigation actions:

Avoidance: impact is prevented or substantially prevented (most preferred) Reduction: impact is reduced in magnitude and/or significance Rectification: impact is mitigated after it has occurred e.g. rehabilitation of areas disturbed by construction Compensation: providing a substitute resource for a resource that has been lost because of the project (e.g. “conservation offsets”) No action (least preferred)

The final layout which is assessed here is the result of numerous iterations, aimed at avoiding the sensitive features of the site as well as the other constraints and specialist studies that have been conducted. Therefore, the major mitigation and most appropriate mitigation action that has been implemented is avoidance of areas which have been identified as being important for biodiversity and ecological process. This includes those areas of lowland Renosterveld and Fynbos which are highly threatened vegetation types, those areas in close proximity to wetlands and drainage lines as well as any other areas which were identified in the field as being of significance. However, as not all sensitive areas could be avoided and even within less sensitive areas, there are likely to be impacts resulting from the development, some reduction and rectification will still be required. The details of these mitigation actions are provided with each impact as it is assessed in the following section.

Under the final layout assessed in this report, only Turbine 10 is within an area which has been classified as being of High Sensitivity. This turbine is located on an existing road along the south western boundary of the site, within the Breede Shale Fynbos vegetation type of Mucina & Rutherford (2006) or the Witzenberg Sandolien Renosterveld Fynbos vegetation type of Helme (2007). As there is already an access road to the turbine location, it can be assumed that the road required to install the turbine will follow the same path and that the additional amount of transformation required will be very low. Therefore, the direct impacts of this turbine are likely to be quite low. This area is however classified as Critical Biodiversity Area as a result of the presence of red-data listed species in the vicinity. Therefore, should the developer choose to keep this turbine in this location, then specific precautions would be required to ensure that there are not any listed species within the development footprint. The CBA status of the area is an additional consideration in itself as the presence of the turbine within the CBA may not be desirable as it may impact the broader-scale ecological processes associated within the CBA such as its role as corridor for the maintenance of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal and migration. The CBA is however large and the presence of a single turbine within the CBA is not likely to significantly impact the ecological functioning of the CBA.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 28

4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impacts identified and described above are assessed in terms of the following criteria and scales as described in the table below, in order to derive the final impact significance rating for each identified impact.

Criteria Rating Scales Notes Positive This is an evaluation of the type of effect the construction, operation and management of the proposed development would Nature Negative have on the affected environment. Would it be positive, negative Neutral or neutral?

Low Site-specific, affects only the development footprint Extent Local (limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, This refers to the spatial scale at which the impact Medium including the surrounding towns and settlements within a 10 km will occur. radius); High Regional (beyond a 10 km radius) to national

Low Short-term: 0-5 years, typically impacts that are quickly reversible within the construction phase of the project Duration Medium Medium-term, 6-10 years, reversible over time

High Long-term, 10-60 years, and continue for the operational life span of the development Where the impact affects the environment in such a way that Low natural, cultural and social functions and processes are Intensity minimally affected This is a relative evaluation within the context of all Where the affected environment is altered but natural, cultural the activities and the other impacts within the and social functions and processes continue albeit in a modified framework of the project. Does the activity destroy Medium way; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or the impacted environment, alter its functioning, or communities are negatively affected render it slightly altered? The specialist studies must Where natural, cultural or social functions and processes are attempt to quantify the magnitude of the impacts altered to the extent that the impact will temporarily or and outline the rationale used. High permanently cease; and valued, important, sensitive or vulnerable systems or communities are substantially affected. Low Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will return to their pre-impacted state within the short-term. Degree of Reversibility Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will This considers the ability of the impacted Medium return to their pre-impacted state within the medium to long environment to return to its pre-impacted state once term. the cause of the impact has been removed. Impacted natural, cultural or social functions and processes will High never return to their pre-impacted state.

Potential for impact on irreplaceable resources Low No irreplaceable resources will be impacted. This refers to the potential for an environmental resource to be replaced, should it be impacted. A Medium Resources that will be impacted can be replaced, with effort. resource could possibly be replaced by natural processes (e.g. by natural colonisation from surrounding areas), through artificial means (e.g. by There is no potential for replacing a particular vulnerable reseeding disturbed areas or replanting rescued High resource that will be impacted. species) or by providing a substitute resource, in certain cases. In natural systems, providing

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 29

Criteria Rating Scales Notes substitute resources is usually not possible, but in social systems substitutes are often possible (e.g. by constructing new social facilities for those that are lost). Should it not be possible to replace a resource, the resource is essentially irreplaceable e.g. red data species that are restricted to a particular site or habitat of very limited extent. A combination of any of the following Intensity, duration, extent and impact on irreplaceable resources are all rated low Intensity, duration and extent are rated low but impact on Low irreplaceable resources is rated medium to high Intensity is low and up to two of the other criteria are rated medium Intensity is medium and all three other criteria are rated low Intensity is medium and one other criteria is rated high, with Consequence the remainder being rated low The consequence of the potential impacts is a Intensity is low and at least two other criteria are rated summation of above criteria, namely the extent, medium or higher duration, intensity and impact on irreplaceable Intensity is rated medium and at least two of the other criteria resources. Medium are rated medium or higher Intensity is high and at least two other criteria are medium or higher Intensity is rated low, but irreplaceability and duration are rated high Intensity and impact on irreplaceable resources are rated High high, with any combination of extent and duration Intensity is rated high, with all of the other criteria being rated medium or higher Probability Improbable. It is highly unlikely or less than 50 % likely that an The probability of the impact actually occurring, Low based on professional experience of the specialist impact will occur. with environments of a similar nature to the site and/or with similar projects. It is important to distinguish between probability of the impact occurring and probability that the activity causing a Distinct possibility. It is between 50 and 70 % certain that the Medium potential impact will occur. Probability is defined impact will occur. as the probability of the impact occurring, not as the probability of the activities that may result in the impact. The fact that an activity will occur does not necessarily imply that an impact will occur. For instance, the fact that a road will be built does not necessarily imply that it will impact on a wetland. If Most likely. It is more than 75 % certain that the impact will the road is properly routed to avoid the wetland, the High occur or it is definite that the impact will occur. impact may not occur at all, or the probability of the impact will be low, even though it is certain that the activity will occur. Significance Low consequence and low probability Low Low consequence and medium probability Impact significance is defined to be a combination of Low consequence and high probability the consequence (as described below) and probability of the impact occurring. The relationship Low consequence and high probability between consequence and probability highlights that Low to medium the risk (or impact significance) must be evaluated in Medium consequence and low probability terms of the seriousness (consequence) of the

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 30

Criteria Rating Scales Notes impact, weighted by the probability of the impact actually occurring. The following analogy provides an illustration of the relationship between Medium consequence and low probability consequence and probability. The use of a vehicle Medium consequence and medium probability may result in an accident (an impact) with multiple Medium Medium consequence and high probability fatalities, not only for the driver of the vehicle, but High consequence and low probability also for passengers and other road users. There are certain mitigation measures (e.g. the use of seatbelts, adhering to speed limits, airbags, anti-lock braking, etc.) that may reduce the consequence or probability or both. The probability of the impact is low enough that millions of vehicle users are prepared to accept the risk of driving a vehicle on a daily basis. Similarly, the consequence of an aircraft Medium to high High consequence and medium probability crashing is very high, but the risk is low enough that thousands of passengers happily accept this risk to travel by air on a daily basis.

In simple terms, if the consequence and probability of an impact is high, then the impact will have a high significance. The significance defines the level to which the impact will influence the proposed development and/or environment. It determines High High consequence and high probability whether mitigation measures need to be identified and implemented and whether the impact is important for decision-making. Degree of confidence in predictions Specialists are required to provide an indication of the degree of confidence (low, medium or high) that Low there is in the predictions made for each impact, Medium based on the available information and their level of knowledge and expertise. Degree of confidence is High not taken into account in the determination of consequence or probability.

4.5 Impact Assessment – Wind Energy Facility & Associated Infrastructure

The assessment of each impact is to be discussed and presented in tabular format as shown below for both “pre” and “post” mitigation. The different phases (Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning) of the development will need to be considered hence the following approach is proposed:

4.5.1 Construction Phase

Impact 1: Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant species

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Resources

Confidence

Reversibility Significance

Irreplaceable Consequence Impact Description:

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 31

There are threatened vegetation types within the study area as well as many listed plant species and the development is likely to pose some threat to these species and vegetation types on account of the transformation of habitat required by the development.

Without Long- Negative Regional Medium Low High Medium Probable High High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: Avoid high sensitivity parts of the site such as intact lowland vegetation types. Vegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum. No unnecessary vegetation to be cleared. All no-go areas should be clearly demarcated. Where roads and other infrastructure cross sensitive features such as drainage lines, caution should be exercised to ensure that impact to these features are minimised. The final development area should be surveyed for species suitable for search and rescue, which should be translocated prior to the commencement of construction. With Medium- Negative Local Low Low Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: The development would contribute to cumulative habitat loss and the destruction of endangered vegetation types in the area, with intensive agriculture being the primary cause of impact in the area. The loss of currently intact vegetation from the current development would however be low and the impact would not be significant.

Impact 2: Negative impacts on fauna

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: The development will result in some direct faunal mortality for species which are not able to move away from the construction activities, while some habitat loss will also occur as a result of the construction of roads and other infrastructure. During the construction phase there will also be the threat of poaching as a result of the presence of a lot of construction personnel on site as well as a high pollution risk from the presence of fuel, oil and other potential pollutants on-site. The development will also result in habitat fragmentation and the loss of landscape connectivity for fauna. Without Short- Negative Local High High Low Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: All construction staff should undergo an environmental induction from the ECO or other suitably qualified persons. Any fauna directly threatened by the construction activities should be removed to a safe location by the ECO or other suitably qualified person. The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. Personnel should not be allowed to wander off the construction site. Fires should only be allowed within fire-safe demarcated areas. No fuelwood collection should be allowed on-site. No dogs should be allowed on site. All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. No unauthorized persons should be allowed onto the site. All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. With Short- Medium- Negative Local Medium High Low Medium Probable High Mitigation term Low Cumulative Impact: The development would contribute to cumulative faunal impacts in terms of habitat loss and disturbance in the area. Cumulative impacts resulting from other wind farm developments would not be highly significant on account of the fact that the approved

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 32

development are all within landscapes that are already largely transformed..

Impact 3: Erosion risk and impact on wetlands and hydrological processes

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: The development will create a lot of disturbance at the site which will leave the site vulnerable to erosion, particularly on the steeper parts of the site. Should large amounts of sediment enter the drainage systems, this will impact water quality which will have a negative impact on aquatic fauna and the sediment may also smother aquatic vegetation and impact ecosystem function. Without Short- Negative Local Medium Low High Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: All roads and other hardened surfaces should have runoff control features which redirect water flow and dissipate any energy in the water which may pose an erosion risk. Regular monitoring for erosion after construction to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the disturbance. All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures and revegetation techniques. With Short- Negative Local Low Low Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: Erosion will contribute to cumulative degradation in the area. However, if mitigation measures are actively applied, there will be little residual impact and cumulative impacts related to erosion would not be of significance.

Impact 4: Alien plant invasion

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: The development will create a lot of disturbance at the site which will leave the site vulnerable to alien plant invasion. As there is already a lot of alien plants present in the area, this is highly likely to occur and the spread of woody invaders at the site would be highly undesirable and if extensive invasion occurs, this would result in a loss of ecosystem function and consequences for biodiversity as well. Without Long- Highly Negative Local Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High Mitigation term Probable Mitigation Description: Cleared areas which are not surfaced or required for construction should be revegetated with seed or plants of locally occurring species. Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint during construction With Medium- Negatve Local Low High Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: Alien invasion would contribute to cumulative habitat degradation in the area, but if alien species are controlled then, then cumulative impact from alien species would not be significant.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 33

4.5.2 Operational phase

Impact 1: Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant species

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Resources

Confidence

Reversibility Significance

Irreplaceable Consequence Impact Description: There are threatened vegetation types within the study area as well as many listed plant species and the development is likely to pose some threat to these species and vegetation types on account of the transformation of habitat required by the development. As the major impact would occur during the construction phase of the development, the operational phase would pose much less risk in this regard.

Without Long- Negative Local Low Low Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: All maintenance and operations staff should undergo environmental training which highlights the sensitive features of the site and the major risks posed by the development such as unplanned fires. Any vegetation management which occurs as part of operational and maintenance activities at the site, should ensure that listed plant species are not impacted. Any changes to the development footprint after construction should be cleared with a botanist before vegetation is impacted. With Long- Negative Local Low Low Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: The operation of the facility will not generate significant impact on flora as the major impact relates to the construction phase.

Impact 2: Negative impacts on fauna

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 34

Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: The development would contribute to cumulative faunal impacts in the area on account of increase human activity associated with the facility as well as increased noise levels which are likely to impact certain fauna, especially those which rely on hearing to find mates, avoid predators or find prey.

Impact 3: Erosion Risk and impact on wetlands and hydrological processes

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: The development is likely to pose a persistent erosion risk on account of the large amounts of runoff the roads and crane pads are likely to generate. Without Long- Negative Local Medium Low Medium Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: Regular maintenance of erosion control features at the site, not only on the roads themselves but also in those areas which receive runoff from the roads and other hardened surfaces of the facility. Regular monitoring for erosion after construction to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the disturbance. All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures and revegetation techniques. With Medium- Negative Local Low Medium Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: Erosion will contribute to cumulative degradation in the area. However, if mitigation measures are actively applied, there will be little residual impact and cumulative impacts related to erosion would not be of any significance.

Impact 4: Alien plant invasion

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: The development will create a lot of disturbance at the site which will leave the site vulnerable to alien plant invasion. As there are already a lot of alien plants present in the area, this is highly likely to occur and the spread of woody invaders at the site would be highly undesirable and if extensive invasion occurs, this would result in a loss of ecosystem function and consequences for biodiversity as well. Alien invasion is likely to be a persistent problem at the site, given its disturbed nature and the current abundance of alien species at the site. Without Long- Highly Negative Local Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High Mitigation term Probable Mitigation Description: Regular monitoring for alien plants within the site as a whole and not just within the development footprint. Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of herbicides should be avoided as far as possible. Alien management plan should be developed as part of the EMP for the development, it should aim to address alien plant problems within the whole site, not just the development footprint. With Medium- Negative Local Low High Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 35

Cumulative Impact: Alien invasion would contribute to cumulative habitat degradation in the area, but if alien species are controlled then, then cumulative impact from alien species would not be significant.

4.5.3 Decommissioning Phase

Impact 1: Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant species

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Resources

Confidence

Reversibility Significance

Irreplaceable Consequence Impact Description: Should the facility be decommissioned and the infrastructure of the development removed, then this would create a lot of disturbance at the site which pose a risk to intact vegetation and listed plant species in adjacent areas.

Without Long- Negative Regional Medium Low Medium Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: Disturbance footprint should be minimised. All no-go areas should be clearly demarcated prior to the commencement of activities. With Medium- Negative Local Low Low Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: This would potentially contribute to vegetation loss in the area, however if conducted responsibly, the impact on intact vegetation would be low and not of broader significance.

Impact 2: Negative impacts on fauna

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: Decomissioning would result in similar impacts on fauna to construction, but the duration would be likely to be less. This will result in some direct faunal mortality for species which are not able to move away from the construction activities. There will also be the threat of poaching as a result of the presence of a lot of construction personnel on site as well as a high pollution risk from the presence of fuel, oil and other potential pollutants on-site. The noise will also deter some fauna from the area for the duration of the activity. Without Medium- Negative Local Medium Medium Medium Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term Mitigation Description: Any fauna directly threatened by the construction activities should be removed to a safe location by the ECO or other suitably qualified person. The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. Personnel should not be allowed to wander off the construction site. Fires should only be allowed within fire-safe demarcated areas. No fuelwood collection should be allowed on-site. No dogs should be allowed on site. If the site must be lit at night for security purposes, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs),

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 36

which do not attract insects. All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. No unauthorized persons should be allowed onto the site. All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. With Short- Negative Local Low High Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: The decommissioning of the facility would ultimately result in a reduction in faunal impact and so while there may be transient negative impacts, provided that these are managed, then there will be no cumulative impact from decommissioning.

Impact 3: Erosion Risk and impact on wetlands and hydrological processes

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: Decommissioning will create a lot of disturbance at the site if the infrastructure is removed and so the impacts would be likely to be similar to the construction phase. This will leave the site vulnerable to erosion, particularly on the steeper parts of the site. Should large amounts of sediment enter the drainage systems, this will impact water quality which will have a negative impact on aquatic fauna and the sediment may also smother aquatic vegetation and impact ecosystem function. Without Long- Highly Negative Local Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Mitigation term Probable Mitigation Description: All cleared areas should be properly prepared and reseeded or replanted with a vegetation cover of locally occurring species. Regular monitoring for erosion after decommissioning to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the disturbance. All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures and revegetation techniques. With Medium- Negative Local Low High Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: Provided that the facility is decommissioned in a sensitive manner then there would be little long-term cumulative impact resulting from decommissioning.

Impact 4: Alien plant invasion

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: Decommissioning will create a lot of disturbance at the site if the infrastructure is removed and so the impacts would be likely to be similar to the construction phase. This will leave the site vulnerable to alien plant invasion. As there is already a lot of alien plants present in the area, this is highly likely to occur and the spread of woody invaders at the site would be highly undesirable and if extensive invasion occurs, this would affect the delivery of ecosystem services as well as biodiversity Without Long- Negative Local Medium Low Medium Medium Probable Medium High Mitigation term

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 37

Mitigation Description: All cleared areas should be properly prepared and reseeded or replanted with a vegetation cover of locally occurring species. Regular monitoring for alien plants within the site following decommissioning. Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of herbicides should be avoided as far as possible. Alien management plan should be developed as part of the EMP for the development, it should aim to address alien plant problems within the whole site, not just the development footprint. With Medium- Negative Local Low High Low Low Probable Low High Mitigation term Cumulative Impact: Alien invasion would contribute to cumulative habitat degradation in the area, but if alien species are controlled then, then cumulative impact from alien species would not be significant.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 5: Cumulative Impacts

Impact

Extent

Nature

Intensity

Duration

Impact on on Impact

Probability

Confidence

Resources

Reversibility Significance

Consequence Irreplaceable

Impact Description: There development will contribute of cumulative ecological impacts in the area, especially in terms of habitat fragmentation and the loss of landscape connectivity. Without Long- Negative Regional Medium Medium Medium Medium Probable Medium Medium Mitigation term Mitigation Description: Mitigation actions aimed at reducing habitat loss will also reduce the extent of cumulative impacts. Fencing and other obstacles to faunal movement such as hardened roads should be kept to a minimum. With Medium- Medium- Negative Local Medium Medium Low Probable Low Medium Mitigation term Low Cumulative Impact: The development would contribute very little to cumulative habitat loss and degradation in the area, as it is already heavily impacted by transformation for intensive agriculture. The additional loss of currently intact habitat resulting from the development would be very small and would not contribute significantly to habitat loss at the landscape scale. Furthermore, if the development were to contribute to alien clearing in the area, this would have a potential net benefit for biodiversity and ecological functioning in the area.

4.5.5 Summary Assessment

A summary assessment of the different assessed impacts associated with the development of the Wolseley Wind Farm is provided below for each of the different phases of the project. The construction phase will result in the highest potential impacts on account of the high levels of disturbance which will characterise this phase of the development. The impact on fauna cannot be mitigated to a low level as little can be done to avoid the impact that the noise and disturbance will have in fauna. This will however be a transient impact and most fauna are likely to return during the operation phase of the development. The impacts during operation are likely to be low after mitigation and the facility will not have a large impact on the terrestrial environment during this phase. Should the facility be decommissioned, this would potentially create similar levels of

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 38

disturbance to the construction phase, but in the longer-term and with appropriate management the environment would be likely to recover a large degree of ecological function.

Table 4. Summary assessment of the different impacts for the different phases of the development, before and after mitigation Construction Operation Decomissioning Impact Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Loss of endangered vegetation types and plant High Low Low Low Medium Low species Medium- Medium- Negative impacts on fauna Medium Low Medium Low Low Low Impacts to wetlands and hydrology as a result of Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low erosion

Alien plant invasion Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low

4.6 Impact Assessment - Alternatives

4.6.1 No Go Option

Under the no-go option, the area would be likely to continue under the current patterns of land use. Negative impacts that would be likely to occur include alien plant invasion and in some areas continued expansion and intensification of agriculture. Although the development poses some risks, it also presents some opportunities to address some of the ecological problems which characterise the area. In particular, the continued invasion of woody alien plants was observed in several areas of high biodiversity potential and the development could contribute to the management of these problems through the implementation of an alien management plan as part of the development. Together with a broader ecological management plan to improve the general management of the area, this could potentially have a potential net benefit for the area, as there appears to be little motivation to tackle these problems under the current circumstances.

5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The site consists of areas of contrasting ecological sensitivity. The lowland environments of the site have been highly impacted by intensive agriculture, with the transformed areas retaining little biodiversity value in contrast to the intact remnants which are all of very high sensitivity and may represent some of the only remaining examples their type. Development within the transformed areas could proceed with little long-term risk to the terrestrial ecology of the area. However, given the high threat status of the intact remnants, even a few turbines within such areas would be highly

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 39

undesirable. Given the nature of the contrasting sensitivity of the site, it is clear that an avoidance mitigation strategy should be the primary venue for reducing the impact of the development. In this regard, it is important to recognise that the final layout as assessed here resulted from an iterative process evolving through a variety of different layouts which increasingly moved towards the goal of avoiding all the sensitive features of the site. Under the final layout, only one turbine is within an area classified as High Sensitivity, but is not within a vegetation type that is listed under the National List of Threatened Ecosystems. Although specific precautions to limit the impact of this turbine are suggested, it lies on an existing road and the amount of vegetation transformation required for the turbine would amount to less than 1 ha.

The major impacts associated with the development which are likely to require active management are likely to be soil erosion and alien plant invasion. The construction of the facility would result in a lot of soil disturbance at the site which will encourage invasion and leave the site vulnerable to erosion for some time. There are already a large number of woody alien invasive plants present at the site and so the likelihood that these would increase at the site is very high. This impact could however be effectively countered through an alien plant management plan for the site, which could generate a long-term net benefit for the site if aliens across the site and not just within the development footprint are tackled.

An additional area of concern is that some of the turbines are located within the lowlands of the site in areas which are seasonally saturated (Particularly Turbines 15-20 and 25-30). The hardened access roads that will be required to access turbines in such locations could potentially interfere with the drainage pattern of these areas which would be undesirable as this may impact the local wetland ecosystems. Therefore, measures to ensure that this does not occur should be taken including the careful routing of access roads as well as incorporating sufficient subsurface drainage capacity into the design features of the roads within these areas. The wetland assessment for the site conducted by Dean Ollis would however also shed more light on the identity and location of turbines which may pose a risk to these areas, and this study therefore defers to that study in this regard.

Overall, the wind energy facility is not likely to significantly impact the intact vegetation types at the site and the actual loss of intact vegetation would be very low given the current layout. Therefore, the risk to the exceptional plant diversity of the area is likely to be low and the development would not be likely to result in significant net loss of plant biodiversity from the area. In terms of fauna, the situation is similar as the Critically Endangered Geometric Tortoise is known from the area, but the potential habitat of this species at the site is limited and well defined. The construction phase of the development is likely to generate a transient impact on fauna which are likely move away from the area during this time. However, as there were no specialised faunal habitats within the development footprint, it is not likely that the facility would generate significant long-term faunal impact.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 40

6 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. 3rd Edition. Struik, Cape Town.

Helme, N. A. 2007. Botanical report: Fine scale vegetation mapping in the Upper Breede River Valley. Report for CapeNature, as part of the C.A.P.E. programme.

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

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

IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 19 January 2012.

Marais, J. 2004. Complete Guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

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.

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 41

7 APPENDIX 1. LIST OF MAMMALS

List of terrestrial mammals which are likely to occur at the Wolseley Wind Farm.

Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Notes Likelihood Afrosoricida (Golden Moles):

Coastal parts of the Northern and Chrysochloris asiatica Cape Golden Mole LC High Western Cape Macroscledidea (Elephant Shrews):

Species of open country, with preference for shrub bush and sparse Macroscelides Round-eared grass cover, also occur on hard gravel LC Moderate proboscideus Elephant Shrew plains with sparse boulders for shelter, and on loose sandy soil provided there is some bush cover From rocky slopes, with or without Elephantulus Cape Rock vegetation, from hard sandy ground LC High edwardii Elephant Shrew bearing little vegetation, quite small rocky outcrops Tubulentata:

Wide habitat tolerance, being found in Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC open woodland, scrub and grassland, High especially associated with sandy soil Hyracoidea (Hyraxes)

Outcrops of rocks, especially granite Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC formations and dolomite intrusions in High the Karoo. Also erosion gullies Lagomorpha (Hares and Rabbits):

Dry, open regions, with palatable bush Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC High and grass Common in agriculturally developed areas, especially in crop-growing areas Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC High or in fallow lands where there is some bush development. Rodentia (Rodents):

Cape Dune Mole Restricted to sandy habitats along the Bathyergus suillus LC High Rat coast or alluvial sand Wide diversity of substrates, from sandy Cryptomys African Mole Rat LC soils to heavier compact substrates such High hottentotus as decomposed schists and stony soils Sandy soils, in coastal dunes, in sandy Georychus capensis Cape Mole Rat LC alluvium along river systems and High montane regions of the Western Cape Hystrix Cape Porcupine LC Catholic in habitat requirements. High africaeaustralis Associated with sandstones of Cape Fold Spectacled Graphiurus ocularis LC mountains, which have many vertical High Dormouse and horizontal crevices. Assocaited with rocky areas on Acomys subspinosus Cape Spiny Mouse LC High mountain slopes in Fynbos

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 42

Essentially a grassland species, occurs in Four-striped Grass Rhabdomys pumilio LC wide variety of habitats where there is High Mouse good grass cover. Desert Pygmy Wide habitat tolerance within areas of Mus indutus LC Mouse 200-700 mm rainfall Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC Wide habitat tolerance High Myomyscus Scrub on grassy hillsides and riverine Verreaux's Mouse LC High verreauxii forest Catholic in their habitat requirements, Aethomys Namaqua Rock but where there are rocky koppies, LC High namaquensis Mouse outcrops or boulder-strewn hillsides they use these preferentially Grassland species occurring in Otomys laminatus Laminate Vlei Rat LC submontane and coastal areas. Relictual Moderate Western Cape population in Paarl Valley. Abundant in habitats associated with Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat LC damp soil in vleis or along streams and High rivers. Shrub and fynbos associations in areas with rocky outcrops Tend to avoid damp Otomys unisulcatus Bush Vlei Rat LC High situations but exploit the semi-arid Karoo through behavioural adaptation. Tend to occur on hard ground, unlike Desmodillus Cape Short-tailed LC other gerbil species, with some cover of High auricularis Gerbil grass or karroid bush Gerbils associated with Nama and Hairy-footed Succulent Karoo preferring sandy soil or Gerbillurus paeba LC High Gerbil sandy alluvium with a grass, scrub or light woodland cover Confined to areas of loose, sandy soils of Gerbilliscus afra Cape Gerbil LC sandy alluvium. Common on cultivated High lands. Mystromys White-tailed Variable vegetation, but live in cracks or EN Moderate albicaudatus Mouse burrows in the soil Found predominantly in Nama and Malacothrix typica Gerbil Mouse LC Succulent Karoo biomes, in areas with a Moderate mean annual rainfall of 150-500 mm. Often associated with stands of tall grass Dendromus Grey Climbing LC especially if thickened with bushes and High melanotis Mouse other vegetation Dendromus Brants' Climbing Associated with rank vegetation, LC High mesomelas Mouse especially tall grass and scrub Steatomys krebsii Krebs's Fat Mouse LC Prefer a sandy substrate. High Primates:

Can exploit fynbos, montane grasslands, Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon LC riverine courses in deserts, and simply High need water and access to refuges. Eulipotyphla (Shrews):

Myosorex varius Forest Shrew LC Prefers moist, densely vegetated habitat High Lesser Dwarf Often associated with termitaria, little Suncus varilla LC High Shrew else known Occurs in relatively dry terrain, with a Reddish-Grey Crocidura cyanea LC mean annual rainfall of less than 500 High Musk Shrew mm. Occur in karroid scrub and in

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 43

fynbos often in association with rocks.

Greater Red Musk Crocidura flavescens LC Wide habitat tolerance High Shrew Carnivora:

Common in the 100-600mm rainfall range of country, Nama-Karoo, Proteles cristata Aardwolf LC Moderate Succulent Karoo Grassland and Savanna biomes Caracals tolerate arid regions, occur in Caracal caracal Caracal LC High semi-desert and karroid conditions Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC Wide habitat tolerance. High Wide habitat tolerance, associated with Panthera pardus Leopard NT areas of rocky koppies and hills, High mountain ranges and forest Small-spotted Genetta genetta LC Occur in open arid associations High genet Large-spotted Fynbos and savanna particularly along Genetta tigrina LC High genet riverine areas Herpestes Cape Grey LC Wide habitat tolerance High pulverulentus Mongoose Associated with open country, open Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC grassland, grassland with scattered Moderate thickets and coastal or semi-desert scrub Black-backed Wide habitat tolerance, more common Canis mesomelas LC Low Jackal in drier areas. Open country with mean annual rainfall Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC Moderate of 100-600 mm African Clawless Predominantly aquatic and do not occur Aonyx capensis LC High Otter far from permanenet water Primarily a savanna species that have an African Striped annual rainfall of more than 600 mm, Poecilogale albinucha LC Low Weasel although they have been recorded from drier areas. Widely distributed throughout the sub- Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC High region Ratel/Honey IUCN LC/SA RDB Mellivora capensis Catholic habitat requirements High Badger EN Rumanantia (Antelope):

Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC Presence of bushes is essential High Associated with rocky hills, rocky Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok LC mountainsides, mountain plateaux with Low good grass cover. Raphicerus Steenbok LC Inhabits open country, High campestris Thick scrub bush, particularly along the Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok LC High lower levels of hills Oreotragus Klipspringer LC Closely confined to rocky habitat. Low oreotragus

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 44

8 APPENDIX 2. LIST OF REPTILES

List of reptiles which are likely to occur at the Wolseley Wind Farm.

Scientific Name Common Name Distribution Status Habitat Likelihood Tortoises and Terrapins:

Varied: coastal fynbos; karroid broken Homopus areolatus Parrot-Beaked Tortoise Endemic Not Evaluated Confirmed veld & valley bushveld

Sandy coastal regions, incl valley Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise Endemic Not Evaluated bushveld & coastal fynbos, scarcer in Confirmed arid hinterland

Low lying coastal renoterveld with Psammobates geometricus Geometric Tortoise Endemic Endangered isolated populations around Ceres Low and Worcester

Slow-moving & still water, incl Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin Widespread Not Evaluated Confirmed temporary pans Snakes:

Delalande's Beaked Blind Varied: semi-desert, coastal bush, Rhinotyphlops lalandei Endemic Not Evaluated High Snake fynbos & savannah Fynbos, thicket, grassland and Rhinotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake Endemic Low sananna Leptotyphlops gracilior Slender Thread Snake Endemic Not Evaluated Fynbos and Karoo scrub High Temperate distribution from the Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Water Snake Endemic Not Evaluated High southwestern Cape Common in highveld grassland & arid karroid regions, but found Lamprophis capensis Brown House Snake Widespread Not Evaluated High everywhere & tolerant of urban sprawl Moist savanna, lowland forest and Lamprophis inornatus Olive House Snake Widespread Not Evaluated High fynbos

Damp localities in grasslands moist Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake Widespread LC Low savanna, lowland forest and fynbos

Inland mnts of Cape & Cape fold Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake Endemic Not Evaluated High mnts, extending into S.Namibia

Yellow-bellied House Fynbos scrub to arid savanna and Lamprophis fuscus Endemic LR/nt Low Snake grassland

Sandy scrubland in SW Cape, highveld Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Widespread Not Evaluated grassland & mountainous & desert High regions

Largely grassland but also moist Duberria lutrix Common Slug Eater Widespread LC High savanna, lowland forest and fynbos

Reed beds and riverside vegetation in Amplorhinus multimaculatus Many-spotted Snake Widespread Not Evaluated Moderate fynbos

Dry areas, incl savannah woodlands, Prosymna sundevalli Sundevall’s Shovel-Snout Endemic Not Evaluated highveld & karroid areas, entering High valley bushved & fynbos in the Cape

Spotted Or Rhombic Highland grassveld & fynbos, entering Psammophylax rhombeatus Widespread Not Evaluated High Skaapsteker karroid areas Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand or Whip Snake Widespread Not Evaluated Arid scrubland & karroid regions High Psammophis leightoni Cape Whip Snake Endemic Not Evaluated Coastal fynbos, desert and semi- Low

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 45

desert

Highveld and montane grassland Psammophis crucifer Montane Grass Snake Endemic Not Evaluated High entering fynbos

Common/Rhombic Egg Absent only from true desert & Dasypeltis scabra Widespread LC High Eater closed-canopy forest

Terrestrial but more common in Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald Snake Widespread Not Evaluated High wetlands Dispholidus typus Boomslang Widespread Not Evaluated Widespread arboreal species High

Deserted termite mounds or under Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake Endemic Not Evaluated rocks in fynbos, coastal scrub, High sananna and grassland

Karroid & sandveld regions, entering Aspidelaps lubricus Coral Shield Cobra Widespread Not Evaluated High dry valley plains in S and E Cape Arid karroid regions, particularly along river courses, entering well Naja nivea Cape Cobra Widespread Not Evaluated High drained open areas along the southern coast Grassland from the coast up to 2500 Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Endemic LC High m Bitis arietans Puff Adder Widespread Not Evaluated Absent only from desert & mnt tops High Mountain fynbos to montane Bitis atropos Berg Adder Widespread LC High grassland, from sea level to 3000m Lizard and Skinks:

Acontias lineatus Striped Legless Skink Endemic Not Evaluated Sandy, arid soils Moderate

Coastal & fynbos vegetation & richer Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink Endemic Not Evaluated soils associated with dr river courss & High inland escarpment Silvery Dwarf Burrowing Scelotes bipes Endemic Not Evaluated Coastal strandveld Low Skink Very varied: arid karroid veld, moist Mabuya capensis Cape Skink Widespread Not Evaluated High coastal bush, montane grassland, etc

coastal bush, fynbos and riverine Mabuya homalocephala Red-sided Skink Widespread Not Evaluated High vegetation Pedioplanis burchelli Burchells’ Sand Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated Rocky montane grassland High Very varied: karroid veld, valley Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated High bushveld & arid & mesic savannah Tropidosaura gularis Cape Mountain Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated Fynbos-covered mountain summits Moderate Tropidosaura montana Common Mountain Lizard Widespread Not Evaluated Fynbos and montane grassland High Cordylosaurus subtessellatus Dwarf Plated Lizerd Endemic LC Sandy areas among rocks Low Yellow-throated Plated Montane grassland, savanna, Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Widespread Not Evaluated Moderate Lizard bushveld and low open coastal forest Tetradactylus tetradactylus Common Long-tailed Seps Endemic Not Evaluated Montane grassland and fynbos High Chmaesaura anguina Cape Grass Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated Grassy or fynbos covered slopes Moderate Diverse, coastal cliffs, rock plateaus in Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated High fynbos and montane grassland.

Karroid regions, coastal renosterveld Cordylus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated High and succulent karoo Pseudocordylus capensis Graceful Crag Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated Prefers mountain fynbos High Pseudocordylus Mountain plateaus & upper slopes in Cape Crag Lizard Endemic Not Evaluated High microlepidotus fynbos or montane grassland

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 46

Semi-desert to fynbos, from sea level Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Endemic Not Evaluated High to mountain tops Chameleons: Not Evaluated

Bradypodion pumilum Cape Dwarf Chameleon Endemic Not Evaluated Low coastal bushes and reed beds High Geckos: Not Evaluated

Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated Coastal and montane fynbos High Coastal fynbos, succulent & Goggia lineata Striped Leaf-Toed Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated transitional karroid veld, montane High grassland Small-scaled Leaf-toed Goggia microlepidota Endemic Not Evaluated Restricred to mountain summits Low Gecko Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Tubercled Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated Rocky outcrops, cliffs and large trees High Debris, rotting logs, loose lark, Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated High moribund termitaria Flat sandy plains with sparse Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Thick-toed Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated High vegetation Semi-desert and succulent karroid Pachydactylus rugosus Rough Thick-toed Gecko Endemic Not Evaluated Low veld

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 47

9 APPENDIX 3. LIST OF AMPHIBIANS

List of amphibians which are likely to occur at the Wolseley Wind Farm.

Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Distribution Likelihood Strawberry Rain Not Montane Fynbos and Afromontaine Breviceps acutirostris Endemic Low Frog Threatened forest Cape Mountain Not Breviceps montanus Fynbos mountains Endemic Low Rain Frog Threatened Amietophrynus Not Rivers and stream in grassland and Raucous Toad Endemic High rangeri Threatened fynbos Vandijkophrynus Not Temporary rain-filled depressions in Cape Sand Toad Endemic High angusticeps Threatened sandy soils Not Perennial mountain streams that Heleophryne purcelli Cape Ghost Frog Endemic Low Threatened receive midday sunlight Common Not Xenopus laevis Any more or less permanent water Widespread High Platanna Threatened Permanently moist positions within Bainskloof Moss Not Artholeptella bicolor dense restios and accumulated organic Endemic Low Frog Threatened matter Restricted to low lying flat or gently Cacosternum Cape Caco Vulnerable undulating areas with poorly drained Endemic Moderate capense clay or loamy soils Not Cacosternum platys Flat Caco Flooded grassland and seepages Endemic High Threatened Not Large still bodies of water or Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog Widespread High Threatened permanent streams and rivers. Strongylopus Banded Stream Not Mountain ranges of the Western Cape Endemic High bonaespei Frog Threatened Clicking Stream Not Winter and summer rainfall areas in Strongylopus grayii Widespread High Frog Threatened the fynbos, Succulent and Nama Karoo Tomopterna Not Lowlands in fynbos and Succulent Cape Sand Frog Endemic High delalandii Threatened Karoo

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 48

10 LIST OF PLANT SPECIES

List of plant species which are known to occur in the vicinity of the Wolseley Wind Farm according to the SANBI SIBIS database. Species observed at the site are highlighted in Bold.

Family Species IUCN Status ACHARIACEAE Kiggelaria africana LC AIZOACEAE Acrosanthes anceps LC AIZOACEAE Acrosanthes angustifolia LC AIZOACEAE Aizoon sarmentosum LC AIZOACEAE Galenia africana LC AIZOACEAE Galenia ecklonis LC AIZOACEAE Tetragonia microptera LC AIZOACEAE Tetragonia nigrescens LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Ammocharis longifolia LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia bosmaniae LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia elandsmontana CR AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia marginata LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia orientalis LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia striata LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Crossyne guttata LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Cyrtanthus angustifolius LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Gethyllis afra LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Haemanthus coccineus LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Haemanthus pubescens subsp. pubescens LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Haemanthus pumilio EN AMARYLLIDACEAE Haemanthus sanguineus LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Nerine humilis LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Nerine ridleyi Rare AMARYLLIDACEAE Strumaria tenella subsp. tenella LC ANACARDIACEAE Heeria argentea LC ANACARDIACEAE Searsia angustifolia LC ANACARDIACEAE Searsia incisa var. incisa LC ANACARDIACEAE Searsia rosmarinifolia LC ANACARDIACEAE Searsia scytophylla var. dentata LC ANACARDIACEAE Searsia scytophylla var. scytophylla LC ANEMIACEAE Mohria caffrorum LC ANTHERICACEAE Chlorophytum rigidum LC APIACEAE Anginon difforme LC APIACEAE Annesorhiza nuda LC APIACEAE Arctopus monacanthus LC APIACEAE Centella linifolia var. linifolia LC APIACEAE Centella virgata var. congesta LC APIACEAE Chamarea gracillima LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 49

APIACEAE Hermas quinquedentata LC APIACEAE Lichtensteinia obscura LC APOCYNACEAE Microloma sagittatum LC APOCYNACEAE Microloma tenuifolium LC APOCYNACEAE Secamone alpini LC APOCYNACEAE Stapelia hirsuta var. hirsuta LC APOCYNACEAE Xysmalobium undulatum var. undulatum LC APONOGETONACEAE Aponogeton angustifolius VU AQUIFOLIACEAE Ilex mitis var. mitis Declining ARACEAE Zantedeschia aethiopica LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus africanus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus capensis var. capensis LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus fasciculatus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus retrofractus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus scandens LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus undulatus LC ASPHODELACEAE Aloe perfoliata LC ASPHODELACEAE Aloe plicatilis LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine cepacea LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine favosa LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine longifolia LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine monophylla CR ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine praemorsa LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine succulenta LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbinella cauda-felis LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbinella trinervis LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbinella triquetra LC ASPHODELACEAE Gasteria carinata var. carinata LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra chlamydophylla LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra flexifolia LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra hirsuta LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra hirsutiflora LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra hispida LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra oligotricha LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra revoluta LC ASTERACEAE Amphiglossa tomentosa LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis acaulis LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis adpressa LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis lanceolata LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis leptorhiza LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis undulata LC ASTERACEAE Athanasia adenantha EN ASTERACEAE Athanasia crenata EN ASTERACEAE Athanasia flexuosa LC ASTERACEAE Athanasia trifurcata LC ASTERACEAE Athrixia crinita LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 50

ASTERACEAE Brachylaena ilicifolia LC ASTERACEAE Brachylaena neriifolia LC ASTERACEAE Capelio caledonica Rare ASTERACEAE Capelio tomentosa LC ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. canescens LC ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata LC ASTERACEAE Cineraria alchemilloides subsp. alchemilloides Rare ASTERACEAE Cineraria lobata subsp. lobata Declining ASTERACEAE Conyza scabrida LC ASTERACEAE Corymbium africanum subsp. scabridum var. scabridum LC ASTERACEAE Corymbium congestum LC ASTERACEAE Corymbium glabrum var. glabrum LC ASTERACEAE Corymbium villosum LC ASTERACEAE Cotula bipinnata LC ASTERACEAE Cotula filifolia CR ASTERACEAE Cotula pusilla NT ASTERACEAE Cotula turbinata LC ASTERACEAE Cullumia ciliaris subsp. angustifolia LC ASTERACEAE Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis LC ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca pluvialis LC ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca sinuata LC ASTERACEAE Disparago ericoides LC ASTERACEAE Edmondia fasciculata LC ASTERACEAE Edmondia sesamoides LC ASTERACEAE Elytropappus hispidus LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus africanus var. africanus LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus africanus var. paniculatus LC ASTERACEAE Euryops abrotanifolius LC ASTERACEAE Euryops brevipapposus LC ASTERACEAE Euryops serra Rare ASTERACEAE Euryops thunbergii LC ASTERACEAE Felicia bergeriana LC ASTERACEAE Felicia dubia LC ASTERACEAE Felicia ferulacea LC ASTERACEAE Felicia minima LC ASTERACEAE Felicia tenella subsp. cotuloides LC ASTERACEAE Felicia tenella subsp. pusilla LC ASTERACEAE Felicia tenella subsp. tenella LC ASTERACEAE Gazania krebsiana subsp. arctotoides LC ASTERACEAE Gerbera crocea LC ASTERACEAE Gorteria personata subsp. gracilis LC ASTERACEAE Gorteria personata subsp. personata LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum cylindriflorum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum dasyanthum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum felinum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum foetidum var. foetidum LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 51

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum helianthemifolium LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum indicum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum lambertianum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum litorale LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum odoratissimum var. odoratissimum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum oxybelium LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum revolutum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum sphaeroideum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum stellatum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum teretifolium LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum zeyheri LC ASTERACEAE Heterolepis aliena LC ASTERACEAE Hippia pilosa LC ASTERACEAE Hymenolepis parviflora LC ASTERACEAE Inuloides tomentosa LC ASTERACEAE Lachnospermum fasciculatum LC ASTERACEAE Lasiospermum bipinnatum LC ASTERACEAE Lasiospermum pedunculare LC ASTERACEAE Leysera gnaphalodes LC ASTERACEAE Lidbeckia pectinata Rare ASTERACEAE Marasmodes oligocephala CR ASTERACEAE Marasmodes undulata CR ASTERACEAE Metalasia cephalotes LC ASTERACEAE Metalasia densa LC ASTERACEAE Metalasia dregeana LC ASTERACEAE Metalasia fastigiata LC ASTERACEAE Metalasia octoflora EN ASTERACEAE Metalasia rogersii LC ASTERACEAE Monoculus monstrosus LC ASTERACEAE Nephrotheca ilicifolia LC ASTERACEAE Oedera squarrosa LC ASTERACEAE Oedera viscosa NT ASTERACEAE Oldenburgia papionum LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum junceum LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum polygaloides var. polygaloides LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum rigidum var. rigidum LC ASTERACEAE Othonna amplexifolia LC ASTERACEAE Othonna ciliata VU ASTERACEAE Othonna heterophylla LC ASTERACEAE Othonna parviflora LC ASTERACEAE Othonna pinnata LC ASTERACEAE Phaenocoma prolifera LC ASTERACEAE Phaneroglossa bolusii Rare ASTERACEAE Printzia polifolia LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia divaricata LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia hirsuta LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 52

ASTERACEAE Pteronia incana LC ASTERACEAE Relhania fruticosa LC ASTERACEAE Rhynchopsidium sessiliflorum LC ASTERACEAE Senecio albifolius Rare ASTERACEAE Senecio aloides LC ASTERACEAE Senecio angustifolius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio arenarius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio erysimoides DDT ASTERACEAE Senecio paarlensis LC ASTERACEAE Senecio paniculatus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio pinifolius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio pinnulatus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio pubigerus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio rigidus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio scapiflorus LC ASTERACEAE Seriphium plumosum LC ASTERACEAE Steirodiscus gamolepis EN ASTERACEAE Stoebe capitata LC ASTERACEAE Stoebe fusca LC ASTERACEAE Syncarpha canescens subsp. canescens LC ASTERACEAE Syncarpha gnaphaloides LC ASTERACEAE Syncarpha variegata LC ASTERACEAE Syncarpha vestita LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia anethoides LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia anthemoides subsp. anthemoides LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia cakilefolia LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia chrysanthemoides LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia coronopifolia Rare ASTERACEAE Ursinia nudicaulis LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia paleacea LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia pinnata LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia sericea LC ASTERACEAE Vellereophyton dealbatum LC ASTERACEAE Zyrphelis lasiocarpa LC ASTERACEAE Zyrphelis perezioides LC BLECHNACEAE Blechnum punctulatum var. punctulatum LC BORAGINACEAE Echiostachys ecklonianus EN BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon argenteus LC BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon capitatus VU BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon decorus LC BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon glaucophyllus LC BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon trichotomus LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila africana LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila arenaria var. acocksii LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila carnosa LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila cornuta var. cornuta LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 53

BRASSICACEAE Heliophila cornuta var. squamata LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila crithmifolia LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila digitata LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila macowaniana LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila nubigena LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila patens DDT BRASSICACEAE Heliophila pinnata LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila pusilla var. macrosperma LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila scoparia var. scoparia LC BRUNIACEAE Berzelia ecklonii Rare BRUNIACEAE Berzelia lanuginosa LC BRUNIACEAE Berzelia squarrosa LC BRUNIACEAE Brunia noduliflora LC BRUNIACEAE Lonchostoma pentandrum LC BRUNIACEAE Nebelia paleacea LC BRUNIACEAE Nebelia tulbaghensis DDT BRUNIACEAE Pseudobaeckea africana LC BRUNIACEAE Thamnea diosmoides LC BRUNIACEAE Thamnea hirtella Rare BRUNIACEAE Tittmannia laxa var. langebergensis Rare CAMPANULACEAE Merciera tetraloba EN CAMPANULACEAE Microcodon glomeratum LC CAMPANULACEAE Prismatocarpus diffusus LC CAMPANULACEAE Prismatocarpus implicatus Rare CAMPANULACEAE Prismatocarpus pedunculatus LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia capensis LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia cernua LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia ecklonii LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia hispidula LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia rubioides var. rubioides LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Cerastium capense LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Dianthus bolusii LC CELASTRACEAE Cassine parvifolia LC CELASTRACEAE Cassine schinoides LC CELASTRACEAE Maytenus oleoides LC CHENOPODIACEAE Exomis microphylla var. axyrioides LC COLCHICACEAE Baeometra uniflora LC COLCHICACEAE Colchicum capense subsp. capense LC COLCHICACEAE Colchicum capense subsp. ciliolatum LC COLCHICACEAE Wurmbea capensis VU COLCHICACEAE Wurmbea inusta VU COLCHICACEAE Wurmbea recurva LC CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus capensis LC CONVOLVULACEAE Cuscuta angulata LC CONVOLVULACEAE Cuscuta nitida LC CRASSULACEAE Adromischus hemisphaericus LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 54

CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata var. orbiculata LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula bergioides NT CRASSULACEAE Crassula capensis var. capensis LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula dejecta LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula dentata LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula fascicularis LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula filiformis LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula flava LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula lanceolata subsp. lanceolata LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula roggeveldii Rare CRASSULACEAE Crassula rupestris subsp. rupestris LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula strigosa LC CYPERACEAE Carpha capitellata LC CYPERACEAE Cyathocoma ecklonii LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus congestus LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus longus var. tenuiflorus LC CYPERACEAE Eleocharis limosa LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia acuminata LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia brevifolia LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia bulbosa LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia deusta LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia indica LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia levynsiae LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia nigrescens LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia polystachya LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia tristachya LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis hystrix LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis incomtula LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis marginata LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis prolifera LC CYPERACEAE Isolepis striata LC CYPERACEAE Neesenbeckia punctoria LC CYPERACEAE Tetraria bromoides LC CYPERACEAE Tetraria crinifolia LC CYPERACEAE Tetraria nigrovaginata LC CYPERACEAE Tetraria ustulata LC CYPERACEAE Trianoptiles capensis LC DROSERACEAE Drosera capensis LC DROSERACEAE Drosera cistiflora LC DROSERACEAE Drosera ramentacea LC DROSERACEAE Drosera trinervia LC DRYOPTERIDACEAE Polystichum monticola LC EBENACEAE Diospyros glabra LC EBENACEAE Euclea tomentosa LC ERICACEAE Erica abietina subsp. aurantiaca LC ERICACEAE Erica arachnocalyx LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 55

ERICACEAE Erica artemisioides LC ERICACEAE Erica articularis var. articularis LC ERICACEAE Erica axillaris LC ERICACEAE Erica bergiana var. bergiana LC ERICACEAE Erica bicolor LC ERICACEAE Erica blandfordii LC ERICACEAE Erica bruniades LC ERICACEAE Erica calycina var. calycina LC ERICACEAE Erica capitata VU ERICACEAE Erica cerinthoides var. cerinthoides LC ERICACEAE Erica cernua LC ERICACEAE Erica chionophila LC ERICACEAE Erica coarctata var. coarctata LC ERICACEAE Erica coccinea subsp. coccinea LC ERICACEAE Erica corifolia var. bracteata LC ERICACEAE Erica corifolia var. corifolia LC ERICACEAE Erica cristiflora var. blanda LC ERICACEAE Erica cristiflora var. cristiflora LC ERICACEAE Erica curvistyla LC ERICACEAE Erica cuscutiformis LC ERICACEAE Erica cylindrica LC ERICACEAE Erica daphniflora var. daphniflora LC ERICACEAE Erica daphniflora var. muscari LC ERICACEAE Erica daphniflora var. pedicellata LC ERICACEAE Erica denticulata var. denticulata LC ERICACEAE Erica denticulata var. grandiloba LC ERICACEAE Erica distorta LC ERICACEAE Erica doliiformis Rare ERICACEAE Erica eremioides subsp. eremioides LC ERICACEAE Erica eriocephala LC ERICACEAE Erica eugenea LC ERICACEAE Erica flacca LC ERICACEAE Erica glutinosa var. glutinosa LC ERICACEAE Erica haemastoma DDT ERICACEAE Erica hispidula var. hispidula LC ERICACEAE Erica imbricata LC ERICACEAE Erica inaequalis LC ERICACEAE Erica inflata LC ERICACEAE Erica involucrata LC ERICACEAE Erica lateralis LC ERICACEAE Erica lavandulifolia LC ERICACEAE Erica leucanthera LC ERICACEAE Erica lucida var. lucida LC ERICACEAE Erica melastoma subsp. melastoma LC ERICACEAE Erica mitchellensis Rare ERICACEAE Erica multumbellifera LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 56

ERICACEAE Erica muscosa LC ERICACEAE Erica nana VU ERICACEAE Erica nudiflora LC ERICACEAE Erica oxysepala VU ERICACEAE Erica palliiflora LC ERICACEAE Erica paniculata LC ERICACEAE Erica parilis var. parilis LC ERICACEAE Erica parviflora var. hispida DDT ERICACEAE Erica parviflora var. parviflora LC ERICACEAE Erica parviflora var. puberula DDT ERICACEAE Erica phillipsii LC ERICACEAE Erica pinea LC ERICACEAE Erica placentiflora LC ERICACEAE Erica plukenetii subsp. breviflora LC ERICACEAE Erica plukenetii subsp. plukenetii LC ERICACEAE Erica plumosa LC ERICACEAE Erica pubescens var. pubescens LC ERICACEAE Erica pudens LC ERICACEAE Erica quadrangularis LC ERICACEAE Erica rehmii VU ERICACEAE Erica rigidula LC ERICACEAE Erica rubens LC ERICACEAE Erica selaginifolia LC ERICACEAE Erica sessiliflora LC ERICACEAE Erica sonderiana LC ERICACEAE Erica sphaerocephala LC ERICACEAE Erica taxifolia LC ERICACEAE Erica tenuis LC ERICACEAE Erica thunbergii var. thunbergii LC ERICACEAE Erica totta LC ERICACEAE Erica trichroma var. trichroma LC ERICACEAE Erica triflora var. triflora LC ERICACEAE Erica urceolata LC ERICACEAE Erica verecunda LC ERICACEAE Erica villosa LC ERICACEAE Erica walkeri var. walkeri LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum alcicorne LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum brevipes LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum cernuum LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum dielsianum subsp. dielsianum LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum lanceifolium LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum paradoxum LC ERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum pumilum LC EUPHORBIACEAE Clutia alaternoides var. brevifolia LC EUPHORBIACEAE Clutia pubescens LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia burmannii LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 57

EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia corymbosa DDT EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia genistoides LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia mira LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia rhombifolia LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia silenifolia LC FABACEAE Argyrolobium filiforme LC FABACEAE Argyrolobium lunare subsp. sericeum LC FABACEAE Aspalathus abietina LC FABACEAE Aspalathus aculeata VU FABACEAE Aspalathus acuminata subsp. acuminata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus acuminata subsp. pungens LC FABACEAE Aspalathus alpestris LC FABACEAE Aspalathus araneosa VU FABACEAE Aspalathus attenuata EN FABACEAE Aspalathus bracteata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus brevicarpa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus caledonensis LC FABACEAE Aspalathus callosa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus ciliaris LC FABACEAE Aspalathus corrudifolia LC FABACEAE Aspalathus crenata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus densifolia DDD FABACEAE Aspalathus divaricata subsp. divaricata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus ericifolia subsp. minuta LC FABACEAE Aspalathus filicaulis LC FABACEAE Aspalathus flexuosa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus galeata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus heterophylla LC FABACEAE Aspalathus hirta subsp. hirta LC FABACEAE Aspalathus hispida subsp. hispida LC FABACEAE Aspalathus horizontalis CR FABACEAE Aspalathus juniperina subsp. juniperina LC FABACEAE Aspalathus lanceifolia LC FABACEAE Aspalathus laricifolia subsp. laricifolia LC FABACEAE Aspalathus lenticula CR FABACEAE Aspalathus leptocoma LC FABACEAE Aspalathus linearifolia LC FABACEAE Aspalathus linearis LC FABACEAE Aspalathus muraltioides EN FABACEAE Aspalathus neglecta LC FABACEAE Aspalathus nigra LC FABACEAE Aspalathus parviflora LC FABACEAE Aspalathus pedicellata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus perforata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus pinea subsp. pinea LC FABACEAE Aspalathus quinquefolia subsp. virgata LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 58

FABACEAE Aspalathus retroflexa subsp. angustipetala LC FABACEAE Aspalathus rugosa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus rupestris LC FABACEAE Aspalathus spicata LC FABACEAE Aspalathus spinosa subsp. flavispina LC FABACEAE Aspalathus spinosa subsp. spinosa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus tridentata subsp. rotunda LC FABACEAE Aspalathus tridentata subsp. staurantha LC FABACEAE Aspalathus triquetra LC FABACEAE Aspalathus tulbaghensis CR FABACEAE Aspalathus ulicina subsp. ulicina LC FABACEAE Aspalathus uniflora LC FABACEAE Aspalathus varians EN FABACEAE Aspalathus villosa LC FABACEAE Aspalathus willdenowiana LC FABACEAE Bolusafra bituminosa LC FABACEAE Cyclopia buxifolia LC FABACEAE Cyclopia falcata LC FABACEAE Dipogon lignosus LC FABACEAE Dolichos decumbens LC FABACEAE Hypocalyptus sophoroides LC FABACEAE Indigofera amoena LC FABACEAE Indigofera concava LC FABACEAE Indigofera digitata LC FABACEAE Indigofera dillwynioides LC FABACEAE Indigofera filicaulis LC FABACEAE Indigofera frutescens LC FABACEAE Indigofera heterophylla LC FABACEAE Indigofera humifusa LC FABACEAE Indigofera incana LC FABACEAE Indigofera procumbens LC FABACEAE Indigofera psoraloides VU FABACEAE Lebeckia meyeriana EN FABACEAE Lebeckia plukenetiana EN FABACEAE Lebeckia sepiaria LC FABACEAE Lebeckia simsiana LC FABACEAE Lessertia capensis LC FABACEAE Lessertia excisa LC FABACEAE Lessertia herbacea LC FABACEAE Lessertia pappeana LC FABACEAE Lotononis complanata EN FABACEAE Lotononis involucrata subsp. involucrata LC FABACEAE Lotononis oxyptera LC FABACEAE Lotononis parviflora LC FABACEAE Lotononis prostrata NT FABACEAE Lotononis rigida VU

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 59

FABACEAE Lotononis rostrata subsp. rostrata LC FABACEAE Melolobium adenodes LC FABACEAE Otholobium bolusii NT FABACEAE Otholobium candicans LC FABACEAE Otholobium hirtum LC FABACEAE Otholobium striatum LC FABACEAE Otholobium trianthum LC FABACEAE Otholobium uncinatum NT FABACEAE Otholobium virgatum LC FABACEAE Podalyria amoena LC FABACEAE Podalyria biflora LC FABACEAE Podalyria cordata VU FABACEAE Podalyria leipoldtii LC FABACEAE Podalyria myrtillifolia LC FABACEAE Psoralea affinis LC FABACEAE Psoralea aphylla LC FABACEAE Psoralea glaucescens LC FABACEAE Psoralea imbricata LC FABACEAE Psoralea pinnata var. pinnata LC FABACEAE Psoralea tenuissima Rare FABACEAE Psoralea verrucosa LC FABACEAE Rafnia acuminata LC FABACEAE Rafnia amplexicaulis LC FABACEAE Rafnia capensis subsp. ovata LC FABACEAE Rafnia crispa CR FABACEAE Rafnia lancea LC FABACEAE Rafnia ovata LC FABACEAE Sutherlandia frutescens LC FABACEAE Sutherlandia microphylla LC FABACEAE Wiborgia monoptera LC FABACEAE Wiborgia mucronata LC FABACEAE Wiborgia tenuifolia NT FABACEAE Xiphotheca tecta LC GENTIANACEAE Chironia baccifera LC GENTIANACEAE Orphium frutescens LC GENTIANACEAE Sebaea aurea LC GENTIANACEAE Sebaea exacoides LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium alpinum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium anethifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium asarifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium auritum var. auritum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium capillare LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium chamaedryfolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium chelidonium EN GERANIACEAE Pelargonium grandiflorum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium iocastum LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 60

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium longicaule var. longicaule LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium longifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium myrrhifolium var. myrrhifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium papilionaceum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium patulum var. grandiflorum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium patulum var. patulum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium patulum var. tenuilobum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium pinnatum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium proliferum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium rapaceum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium ribifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium sublignosum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium tabulare LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium ternatum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium ternifolium NT GERANIACEAE Pelargonium trifoliolatum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium triste LC GLEICHENIACEAE Gleichenia polypodioides LC GRUBBIACEAE Grubbia rourkei Rare GRUBBIACEAE Grubbia tomentosa LC HAEMODORACEAE Dilatris corymbosa LC HAEMODORACEAE Dilatris ixioides LC HAEMODORACEAE Dilatris pillansii LC HAEMODORACEAE Dilatris viscosa LC HAEMODORACEAE Wachendorfia brachyandra VU HAEMODORACEAE Wachendorfia multiflora LC HAEMODORACEAE Wachendorfia paniculata LC HEMEROCALLIDACEAE Caesia contorta LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca aurea LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca juncifolia subsp. juncifolia LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca longipes LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca maxima LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca spiralis LC HYACINTHACEAE Drimia convallarioides LC HYACINTHACEAE Drimia physodes LC HYACINTHACEAE Drimia pusilla LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia anguinea LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia campanulata LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia cernua LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia contaminata NT HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia elegans var. elegans LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia ensifolia LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia longibracteata Declining HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia lutea LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia mediana var. rogersii EN HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia mutabilis LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 61

HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia orchioides var. orchioides LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia pallida Declining HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia perryae LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia polyphylla EN HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia purpureo-caerulea CR HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia pustulata NT HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia trichophylla LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia unicolor LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia unifolia var. unifolia LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum dregeanum LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum dubium LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum hispidum subsp. hispidum LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum juncifolium var. juncifolium LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum maculatum LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum multifolium LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum pilosum LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum suaveolens LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum thyrsoides LC HYPOXIDACEAE Empodium plicatum LC HYPOXIDACEAE Pauridia minuta NT HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene alba VU HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene aquatica LC HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene capensis LC HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene flaccida LC HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene minuta EN HYPOXIDACEAE Spiloxene schlechteri LC IRIDACEAE Aristea africana LC IRIDACEAE Aristea bracteata LC IRIDACEAE Aristea cantharophila VU IRIDACEAE Aristea lugens EN IRIDACEAE Aristea nigrescens EN IRIDACEAE Babiana ambigua LC IRIDACEAE Babiana angustifolia NT IRIDACEAE Babiana melanops VU IRIDACEAE Babiana mucronata subsp. mucronata LC IRIDACEAE Babiana odorata EN IRIDACEAE Babiana patula Declining IRIDACEAE Babiana ringens LC IRIDACEAE Babiana rubrocyanea VU IRIDACEAE Babiana sambucina subsp. sambucina LC IRIDACEAE Babiana secunda CR IRIDACEAE Babiana stricta NT IRIDACEAE Babiana villosa NT IRIDACEAE Babiana villosula EN IRIDACEAE Bobartia fasciculata NT IRIDACEAE Bobartia gladiata subsp. gladiata LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 62

IRIDACEAE Chasmanthe floribunda LC IRIDACEAE Ferraria uncinata LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza aspera LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza confusa LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza furva EN IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza heterostyla LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza imbricata subsp. bicolor NT IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza imbricata subsp. imbricata LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza inflexa LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza juncea LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza ornithogaloides subsp. marlothii LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza ornithogaloides subsp. ornithogaloides LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza purpureolutea VU IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza ramosa LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza scillaris LC IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza setacea EN IRIDACEAE Geissorhiza tulbaghensis EN IRIDACEAE Gladiolus alatus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus brevifolius LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus carinatus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus carneus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus cylindraceus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus exilis NT IRIDACEAE Gladiolus hirsutus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus inflatus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus maculatus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus recurvus VU IRIDACEAE Gladiolus tristis LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus undulatus LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus watsonius NT IRIDACEAE Hesperantha falcata LC IRIDACEAE Hesperantha pilosa LC IRIDACEAE Hesperantha radiata LC IRIDACEAE Hesperantha spicata subsp. spicata VU IRIDACEAE Ixia campanulata EN IRIDACEAE Ixia capillaris LC IRIDACEAE Ixia dubia Declining IRIDACEAE Ixia erubescens LC IRIDACEAE Ixia flexuosa LC IRIDACEAE Ixia lutea var. ovata EN IRIDACEAE Ixia metelerkampiae Rare IRIDACEAE Ixia mostertii EN IRIDACEAE Ixia odorata var. odorata LC IRIDACEAE Ixia polystachya var. polystachya LC IRIDACEAE Ixia rapunculoides var. rigida LC IRIDACEAE Ixia rapunculoides var. subpendula LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 63

IRIDACEAE Ixia scillaris var. subundulata LC IRIDACEAE Ixia stricta LC IRIDACEAE Ixia trifolia LC IRIDACEAE Ixia vinacea EN IRIDACEAE Ixia viridiflora var. minor CR IRIDACEAE Ixia viridiflora var. viridiflora EN IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia anceps LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia azurea EN IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia corymbosa Declining IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia divaricata LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia fabricii LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia falcata LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia jacquinii LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia micrantha LC IRIDACEAE Lapeirousia pyramidalis subsp. pyramidalis LC IRIDACEAE Melasphaerula ramosa LC IRIDACEAE Micranthus alopecuroides LC IRIDACEAE Micranthus junceus LC IRIDACEAE Micranthus tubulosus LC IRIDACEAE Moraea angulata CR IRIDACEAE Moraea angusta LC IRIDACEAE Moraea ciliata LC IRIDACEAE Moraea citrina LC IRIDACEAE Moraea cooperi VU IRIDACEAE Moraea flaccida LC IRIDACEAE Moraea fugacissima LC IRIDACEAE Moraea fugax subsp. fugax LC IRIDACEAE Moraea galaxia LC IRIDACEAE Moraea gawleri LC IRIDACEAE Moraea gracilenta LC IRIDACEAE Moraea inconspicua LC IRIDACEAE Moraea lewisiae subsp. lewisiae LC IRIDACEAE Moraea longifolia LC IRIDACEAE Moraea longistyla LC IRIDACEAE Moraea lugubris LC IRIDACEAE Moraea macrocarpa LC IRIDACEAE Moraea macronyx LC IRIDACEAE Moraea miniata LC IRIDACEAE Moraea minor LC IRIDACEAE Moraea neglecta LC IRIDACEAE Moraea ochroleuca LC IRIDACEAE Moraea pallida LC IRIDACEAE Moraea papilionacea LC IRIDACEAE Moraea ramosissima LC IRIDACEAE Moraea tricolor EN IRIDACEAE Moraea tripetala LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 64

IRIDACEAE Moraea tulbaghensis EN IRIDACEAE Moraea umbellata LC IRIDACEAE Moraea vegeta LC IRIDACEAE Moraea versicolor VU IRIDACEAE Moraea villosa subsp. elandsmontana VU IRIDACEAE Moraea villosa subsp. villosa VU IRIDACEAE Moraea virgata subsp. virgata LC IRIDACEAE Nivenia corymbosa LC IRIDACEAE Romulea flava var. flava LC IRIDACEAE Romulea hirsuta var. hirsuta LC IRIDACEAE Romulea rosea var. rosea LC IRIDACEAE Romulea saxatilis LC IRIDACEAE Romulea setifolia var. aggregata LC IRIDACEAE Romulea tabularis LC IRIDACEAE Romulea triflora LC IRIDACEAE Sparaxis bulbifera LC IRIDACEAE Sparaxis grandiflora subsp. fimbriata LC IRIDACEAE Sparaxis grandiflora subsp. grandiflora EN IRIDACEAE Sparaxis pillansii Rare IRIDACEAE Sparaxis variegata LC IRIDACEAE Sparaxis villosa LC IRIDACEAE Thereianthus ixioides LC IRIDACEAE Thereianthus juncifolius LC IRIDACEAE Thereianthus longicollis Rare IRIDACEAE Thereianthus minutus LC IRIDACEAE Thereianthus spicatus LC IRIDACEAE Tritonia undulata LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis antholyza LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis burchellii LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis elongata EN IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis lata var. lata LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis nervosa LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis parviflora var. parviflora LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis ramosa var. ramosa LC IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis unguicularis LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia angusta LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia borbonica subsp. ardernei VU IRIDACEAE Watsonia dubia EN IRIDACEAE Watsonia fourcadei LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia humilis CR IRIDACEAE Watsonia marginata LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia meriana var. bulbillifera LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia paucifolia LC IRIDACEAE Watsonia spectabilis LC ISOETACEAE Isoetes capensis EN ISOETACEAE Isoetes stellenbossiensis NT

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 65

ISOETACEAE Isoetes stephansenii CR JUNCACEAE Juncus cephalotes LC JUNCACEAE Juncus punctorius LC JUNCACEAE Juncus stenopetalus LC JUNCAGINACEAE Triglochin bulbosa LC LAMIACEAE Ballota africana LC LAMIACEAE Leonotis leonurus LC LAMIACEAE Salvia africana-caerulea LC LAMIACEAE Salvia chamelaeagnea LC LAMIACEAE Salvia lanceolata LC LAMIACEAE Stachys aethiopica LC LANARIACEAE Lanaria lanata LC LAURACEAE Cryptocarya angustifolia LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia bulbosa var. bulbosa LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia digitata subsp. digitata LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia incisa var. incisa LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia phyteuma var. phyteuma LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia volubilis var. volubilis LC LOBELIACEAE Cyphia zeyheriana LC LOBELIACEAE Grammatotheca bergiana var. bergiana LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia capillifolia LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia coronopifolia LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia erinus LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pinifolia LC LOBELIACEAE Monopsis flava LC LOBELIACEAE Monopsis lutea LC LOBELIACEAE Monopsis variifolia EN LYCOPODIACEAE Lycopodiella caroliniana LC LYCOPODIACEAE Lycopodiella cernua LC MALVACEAE Anisodontea bryoniifolia LC MALVACEAE Hermannia alnifolia LC MALVACEAE Hermannia althaeoides LC MALVACEAE Hermannia confusa LC MALVACEAE Hermannia cuneifolia var. cuneifolia LC MALVACEAE Hermannia diversistipula var. diversistipula LC MALVACEAE Hermannia multiflora LC MALVACEAE Hermannia scabra LC MALVACEAE Hermannia sisymbriifolia LC MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus major LC MENISPERMACEAE Cissampelos capensis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Aethephyllum pinnatifidum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Antimima aristulata VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Antimima mucronata VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Antimima triquetra LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Apatesia sabulosa LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpanthea pomeridiana LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 66

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus edulis subsp. edulis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Circandra serrata CR MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Cleretum papulosum subsp. papulosum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Dorotheanthus bellidiformis subsp. bellidiformis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum calycinum NT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum eburneum DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum floribundum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum framesii LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum hispifolium VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum opacum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum papillatum DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum worcesterense Thr* MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Erepsia aperta LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Erepsia bracteata LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Erepsia gracilis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Erepsia patula VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Esterhuysenia drepanophylla LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Hymenogyne glabra LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus argillosus DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus berghiae DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus coccineus CR MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus debilis EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus deflexus DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus diffusus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus dilutus EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus dregeanus VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus elegans LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus emarginatoides DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus emarginatus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus falcatus DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus filicaulis VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus glaucoides LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus leptaleon EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus multiradiatus LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus peacockiae VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus purpureus DDD MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus recurvus DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus reptans EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus scaber EN MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus sociorum VU MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Lampranthus spiniformis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Oscularia deltoides LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Oscularia major LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Oscularia vernicolor DDT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Phyllobolus resurgens LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 67

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Phyllobolus splendens subsp. splendens LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Prenia pallens subsp. lancea LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia diversifolia LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia rigidicaulis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia tardissima LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschiella argentea LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschiella lunulata LC MOLLUGINACEAE Adenogramma glomerata LC MOLLUGINACEAE Limeum africanum subsp. africanum LC MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum incanum LC MOLLUGINACEAE Polpoda capensis LC MONTINIACEAE Montinia caryophyllacea LC MORACEAE Ficus sur LC MYRICACEAE Morella integra LC MYRTACEAE Metrosideros angustifolia LC OLEACEAE Olea europaea subsp. africana LC OLINIACEAE Olinia ventosa LC ORCHIDACEAE Acrolophia capensis LC ORCHIDACEAE Bartholina burmanniana LC ORCHIDACEAE Bartholina etheliae LC ORCHIDACEAE Ceratandra atrata LC ORCHIDACEAE Ceratandra bicolor LC ORCHIDACEAE Ceratandra venosa NT ORCHIDACEAE Corycium bicolorum LC ORCHIDACEAE Corycium crispum LC ORCHIDACEAE Corycium excisum LC ORCHIDACEAE Corycium orobanchoides LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa atricapilla LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa atrorubens VU ORCHIDACEAE Disa bivalvata LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa bracteata LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa caulescens LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa comosa LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa elegans LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa esterhuyseniae Rare ORCHIDACEAE Disa filicornis LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa harveiana subsp. longicalcarata LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa maculata LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa multifida LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa neglecta LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa physodes CR ORCHIDACEAE Disa spathulata subsp. spathulata DDD ORCHIDACEAE Disa tenella subsp. pusilla Rare ORCHIDACEAE Disa tenella subsp. tenella EN ORCHIDACEAE Disa triloba LC ORCHIDACEAE Disa uncinata LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 68

ORCHIDACEAE Disperis bolusiana subsp. bolusiana LC ORCHIDACEAE Disperis capensis var. capensis LC ORCHIDACEAE Disperis circumflexa subsp. circumflexa LC ORCHIDACEAE Disperis villosa LC ORCHIDACEAE Holothrix cernua LC ORCHIDACEAE Pterygodium alatum LC ORCHIDACEAE Pterygodium caffrum LC ORCHIDACEAE Pterygodium catholicum LC ORCHIDACEAE Pterygodium platypetalum LC ORCHIDACEAE Pterygodium volucris LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium bicallosum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium bicorne LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium bracteatum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium coriifolium LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium erectum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium humile LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium pumilum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium retusum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium stenopetalum subsp. brevicalcaratum LC ORCHIDACEAE Satyrium striatum VU ORCHIDACEAE Schizodium bifidum LC ORCHIDACEAE Schizodium flexuosum NT ORCHIDACEAE Schizodium inflexum LC ORCHIDACEAE Schizodium longipetalum CR ORCHIDACEAE Schizodium satyrioides Declining OROBANCHACEAE Alectra sessiliflora var. sessiliflora LC OROBANCHACEAE Harveya bodkinii LC OROBANCHACEAE Harveya bolusii LC OROBANCHACEAE Harveya purpurea subsp. purpurea LC OROBANCHACEAE Harveya squamosa LC OROBANCHACEAE Hyobanche glabrata LC OROBANCHACEAE Hyobanche sanguinea LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis amblyodonta LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis bifida LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis capillacea LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis compressa var. compressa LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis droseroides VU OXALIDACEAE Oxalis glabra LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis goniorrhiza DDT OXALIDACEAE Oxalis hirta var. hirta LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis leptocalyx DDT OXALIDACEAE Oxalis leptogramma LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis livida var. livida LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis meisneri VU OXALIDACEAE Oxalis multicaulis LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis natans CR

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 69

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis pardalis DDT OXALIDACEAE Oxalis pes-caprae var. pes-caprae LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis purpurea LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis versicolor var. flaviflora LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis viscosa LC PENAEACEAE Stylapterus ericoides subsp. ericoides Rare PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago cafra LC PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata LC PLUMBAGINACEAE Plumbago tristis LC POACEAE Andropogon eucomus LC POACEAE Aristida diffusa subsp. diffusa LC POACEAE Aristida junciformis subsp. junciformis LC POACEAE Bromus pectinatus LC POACEAE Cymbopogon marginatus LC POACEAE Cynodon dactylon LC POACEAE Cynodon incompletus LC POACEAE Digitaria natalensis LC POACEAE Ehrharta calycina LC POACEAE Ehrharta capensis LC POACEAE Ehrharta longiflora LC POACEAE Ehrharta longifolia LC POACEAE Ehrharta microlaena LC POACEAE Ehrharta ottonis LC POACEAE Ehrharta ramosa subsp. aphylla LC POACEAE Ehrharta ramosa subsp. ramosa LC POACEAE Ehrharta thunbergii LC POACEAE Ehrharta villosa var. maxima LC POACEAE Ehrharta villosa var. villosa LC POACEAE Eragrostis capensis LC POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas LC POACEAE Eragrostis curvula LC POACEAE Festuca scabra LC POACEAE Heteropogon contortus LC POACEAE Hyparrhenia hirta LC POACEAE Hyparrhenia poecilotricha LC POACEAE Koeleria capensis LC POACEAE Melinis nerviglumis LC POACEAE Merxmuellera arundinacea LC POACEAE Merxmuellera rufa LC POACEAE Merxmuellera stricta LC POACEAE Panicum stapfianum LC POACEAE Pennisetum macrourum LC POACEAE Pennisetum sphacelatum LC POACEAE Pentaschistis acinosa LC POACEAE Pentaschistis alticola LC POACEAE Pentaschistis ampla LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 70

POACEAE Pentaschistis aristidoides LC POACEAE Pentaschistis colorata LC POACEAE Pentaschistis curvifolia LC POACEAE Pentaschistis densifolia LC POACEAE Pentaschistis ecklonii EN POACEAE Pentaschistis eriostoma LC POACEAE Pentaschistis malouinensis LC POACEAE Pentaschistis pallida LC POACEAE Pentaschistis patula LC POACEAE Pentaschistis pusilla LC POACEAE Pentaschistis reflexa LC POACEAE Pentaschistis rigidissima LC POACEAE Pentaschistis rosea subsp. purpurascens LC POACEAE Pentaschistis triseta LC POACEAE Prionanthium ecklonii EN POACEAE Sporobolus africanus LC POACEAE Stipagrostis zeyheri subsp. macropus LC POACEAE Stipagrostis zeyheri subsp. zeyheri LC POACEAE Themeda triandra LC POACEAE Tribolium acutiflorum LC POACEAE Tribolium echinatum LC POACEAE Tribolium hispidum LC POACEAE Tribolium uniolae LC PODOCARPACEAE Podocarpus elongatus LC PODOCARPACEAE Podocarpus falcatus LC PODOCARPACEAE Podocarpus latifolius LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia acicularis LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia alopecuroides LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia angulosa LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia divaricata LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia heisteria LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia macropetala VU POLYGALACEAE Muraltia mitior EN POLYGALACEAE Muraltia pauciflora LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia polyphylla LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia spicata VU POLYGALACEAE Muraltia squarrosa LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia trinervia NT POLYGALACEAE Polygala lehmanniana LC POLYGALACEAE Polygala ludwigiana LC POLYGALACEAE Polygala scabra LC POLYGONACEAE Persicaria decipiens LC PROTEACEAE Aulax pallasia NT PROTEACEAE Brabejum stellatifolium LC PROTEACEAE Diastella myrtifolia CR PROTEACEAE Diastella parilis CR

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 71

PROTEACEAE Leucadendron arcuatum LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron chamelaea CR PROTEACEAE Leucadendron corymbosum VU PROTEACEAE Leucadendron daphnoides EN PROTEACEAE Leucadendron discolor VU PROTEACEAE Leucadendron dubium LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron eucalyptifolium LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron glaberrimum subsp. glaberrimum LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron gydoense EN PROTEACEAE Leucadendron lanigerum var. laevigatum CR PROTEACEAE Leucadendron lanigerum var. lanigerum EN PROTEACEAE Leucadendron nitidum LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron rubrum LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron salicifolium LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron salignum LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron sessile NT PROTEACEAE Leucadendron spissifolium subsp. spissifolium LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron stellare CR PROTEACEAE Leucospermum calligerum LC PROTEACEAE Leucospermum catherinae EN PROTEACEAE Leucospermum cordifolium NT PROTEACEAE Leucospermum innovans EN PROTEACEAE Leucospermum lineare VU PROTEACEAE Leucospermum oleifolium LC PROTEACEAE Leucospermum reflexum NT PROTEACEAE Leucospermum tomentosum VU PROTEACEAE Leucospermum tottum var. tottum NT PROTEACEAE Leucospermum vestitum NT PROTEACEAE Mimetes cucullatus LC PROTEACEAE Paranomus lagopus LC PROTEACEAE Protea acaulos LC PROTEACEAE Protea angustata EN PROTEACEAE Protea burchellii VU PROTEACEAE Protea compacta NT PROTEACEAE Protea coronata NT PROTEACEAE Protea cynaroides LC PROTEACEAE Protea effusa NT PROTEACEAE Protea eximia LC PROTEACEAE Protea glabra LC PROTEACEAE Protea grandiceps NT PROTEACEAE Protea laurifolia LC PROTEACEAE Protea lorea NT PROTEACEAE Protea magnifica LC PROTEACEAE Protea mucronifolia CR PROTEACEAE Protea nana LC PROTEACEAE Protea neriifolia LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 72

PROTEACEAE Protea nitida LC PROTEACEAE Protea piscina LC PROTEACEAE Protea pityphylla NT PROTEACEAE Protea punctata LC PROTEACEAE Protea recondita NT PROTEACEAE Protea repens LC PROTEACEAE Protea scabra NT PROTEACEAE Protea scolopendriifolia LC PROTEACEAE Protea scolymocephala VU PROTEACEAE Protea scorzonerifolia VU PROTEACEAE Protea subulifolia LC PROTEACEAE Protea witzenbergiana LC PROTEACEAE Serruria acrocarpa LC PROTEACEAE Serruria candicans EN PROTEACEAE Serruria cygnea LC PROTEACEAE Serruria fasciflora NT PROTEACEAE Serruria furcellata CR PROTEACEAE Serruria pedunculata LC PROTEACEAE Serruria phylicoides LC PROTEACEAE Serruria rosea NT PROTEACEAE Serruria rubricaulis NT PROTEACEAE Serruria triternata NT PROTEACEAE Sorocephalus imbricatus CR PROTEACEAE Sorocephalus lanatus LC PROTEACEAE Spatalla incurva LC PTERIDACEAE Adiantum aethiopicum LC PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes contracta LC PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes hastata LC PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes multifida var. multifida LC RESTIONACEAE Anthochortus crinalis LC RESTIONACEAE Askidiosperma insigne LC RESTIONACEAE Askidiosperma nitidum LC RESTIONACEAE Askidiosperma paniculatum LC RESTIONACEAE Calopsis esterhuyseniae LC RESTIONACEAE Calopsis hyalina LC RESTIONACEAE Calopsis membranacea LC RESTIONACEAE Calopsis rigorata LC RESTIONACEAE Calopsis viminea LC RESTIONACEAE Cannomois grandis LC RESTIONACEAE Cannomois parviflora LC RESTIONACEAE Cannomois saundersii LC RESTIONACEAE Cannomois virgata LC RESTIONACEAE Ceratocaryum decipiens LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia asperiflora LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia capensis LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia equisetacea LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 73

RESTIONACEAE Elegia extensa EN RESTIONACEAE Elegia filacea LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia fistulosa LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia hutchinsonii LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia recta NT RESTIONACEAE Elegia rigida LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia stokoei LC RESTIONACEAE Elegia vaginulata LC RESTIONACEAE Hydrophilus rattrayi LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus albo-aristatus LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus argenteus LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus aristatus LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus laevigatus LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus neesii LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus rugosus LC RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus striatus LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis capensis LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis coactilis VU RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis curviramis LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis macer LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis monanthos LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis ocreata LC RESTIONACEAE Ischyrolepis pratensis EN RESTIONACEAE Nevillea obtusissima LC RESTIONACEAE Platycaulos depauperatus LC RESTIONACEAE Restio bifarius LC RESTIONACEAE Restio cymosus LC RESTIONACEAE Restio distichus LC RESTIONACEAE Restio filiformis LC RESTIONACEAE Restio pedicellatus LC RESTIONACEAE Restio stereocaulis LC RESTIONACEAE Restio triticeus LC RESTIONACEAE Staberoha aemula LC RESTIONACEAE Staberoha cernua LC RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus bachmannii LC RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus gracilis LC RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus lucens LC RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus sporadicus LC RESTIONACEAE Willdenowia arescens LC RESTIONACEAE Willdenowia glomerata LC RESTIONACEAE Willdenowia incurvata LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica aemula var. aemula LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica ambigua LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica cryptandroides LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica excelsa var. excelsa LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica nervosa LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 74

RHAMNACEAE Phylica odorata LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica plumigera LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica plumosa var. horizontalis VU RHAMNACEAE Phylica plumosa var. plumosa Declining RHAMNACEAE Phylica spicata var. spicata LC RHAMNACEAE Phylica stenopetala var. stenopetala EN RHAMNACEAE Phylica trachyphylla Rare RHAMNACEAE Phylica vulgaris var. major LC RHAMNACEAE Trichocephalus stipularis LC RORIDULACEAE Roridula dentata LC ROSACEAE Cliffortia juniperina var. juniperina LC ROSACEAE Cliffortia lanata DDT ROSACEAE Cliffortia ruscifolia var. purpurea Rare ROSACEAE Cliffortia sericea LC ROSACEAE Cliffortia strobilifera LC RUBIACEAE Anthospermum aethiopicum LC RUBIACEAE Anthospermum bicorne LC RUBIACEAE Nenax acerosa subsp. acerosa LC RUBIACEAE Nenax divaricata LC RUBIACEAE Nenax hirta subsp. calciphila NT RUTACEAE Acmadenia macradenia NT RUTACEAE Adenandra marginata subsp. marginata LC RUTACEAE Adenandra marginata subsp. serpyllacea LC RUTACEAE Adenandra villosa subsp. apiculata Rare RUTACEAE Adenandra villosa subsp. umbellata LC RUTACEAE Adenandra villosa subsp. villosa LC RUTACEAE Agathosma adenandriflora NT RUTACEAE Agathosma alpina LC RUTACEAE Agathosma asperifolia LC RUTACEAE Agathosma bifida LC RUTACEAE Agathosma capensis LC RUTACEAE Agathosma ciliata LC RUTACEAE Agathosma corymbosa EN RUTACEAE Agathosma crenulata Declining RUTACEAE Agathosma lancifolia DDD RUTACEAE Agathosma marifolia NT RUTACEAE Agathosma odoratissima LC RUTACEAE Agathosma ovata LC RUTACEAE Agathosma pulchella VU RUTACEAE Agathosma serpyllacea LC RUTACEAE Agathosma virgata LC RUTACEAE Coleonema juniperinum LC RUTACEAE Diosma aspalathoides NT RUTACEAE Diosma hirsuta LC RUTACEAE Diosma pedicellata NT RUTACEAE Empleurum unicapsulare LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 75

RUTACEAE Euchaetis flexilis LC RUTACEAE Euchaetis pungens VU SALICACEAE Pseudoscolopia polyantha NT SALICACEAE Salix mucronata subsp. mucronata LC SANTALACEAE Osyris compressa LC SANTALACEAE Thesium aggregatum LC SANTALACEAE Thesium frisea var. frisea DDT SANTALACEAE Thesium hispidulum var. hispidulum LC SANTALACEAE Thesium patulum LC SANTALACEAE Thesium spicatum LC SANTALACEAE Thesium strictum LC SANTALACEAE Thesium subnudum var. subnudum LC SAPINDACEAE Dodonaea viscosa var. angustifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Alonsoa unilabiata LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma uncinatum LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Chenopodiopsis hirta LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia elongata LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Dischisma capitatum LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Dischisma ciliatum subsp. ciliatum LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Freylinia lanceolata LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Globulariopsis stricta LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Halleria ovata Rare SCROPHULARIACEAE Hebenstretia paarlensis LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Hemimeris racemosa LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Hemimeris sabulosa LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Ixianthes retzioides LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Manulea cheiranthus LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Microdon dubius LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Microdon parviflorus LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia brevicalcarata LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia gracilis LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Phyllopodium heterophyllum LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Phyllopodium phyllopodioides LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Polycarena capensis NT SCROPHULARIACEAE Polycarena rariflora LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago densifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago gracilis LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago spuria LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago subglabra LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago verbenacea LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Pseudoselago violacea LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago fruticosa LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago mundii LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago venosa LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Teedia pubescens LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya divaricata LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study

P a g e | 76

SELAGINELLACEAE Selaginella pygmaea LC STILBACEAE Stilbe albiflora LC TECOPHILAEACEAE Cyanella hyacinthoides LC TECOPHILAEACEAE Cyanella lutea LC THELYPTERIDACEAE Thelypteris confluens LC THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia humilis EN THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia inconspicua LC THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia oppositifolia LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea eriocephala LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea filamentosa LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea globulifera subsp. globulifera LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea gracilis LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea grandiflora VU THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea pomposa LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea pusilla VU THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea ruscifolia LC THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea uniflora VU THYMELAEACEAE Passerina corymbosa LC THYMELAEACEAE Passerina truncata subsp. truncata LC THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola ciliata LC THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola fasciata LC THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola striata LC VISCACEAE Viscum capense LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum fulvum LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Zygophyllum sessilifolium LC

Proposed Wolseley Wind Farm November 2012 Fauna & Flora Specialist Study