UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

PROPOSED UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR UITENHAGE, NELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY AND SUNDAYS RIVER VALLEY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE DEFF Reference Number: TBC

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PREPARED FOR:

UMOYILANGA WIND POWER (PTY) LTD

A subsidiary of

EDF RENEWABLES (PTY) LTD

Waterfront Business Park, Building 5, Ground Floor, 1204 Humerail Road, Humerail, 6001

Tel.: +27 (0)41 506 4900 | Website: edf-re.co.za

PREPARED BY:

COASTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD (TRADING AS “CES”)

67 African Street, Grahamstown, 6140

Tel.: +27 (0)46 622 2364 | Website: www.cesnet.co.za

MARCH/APRIL 2021

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

This document contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of Coastal and Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd (trading as “CES”) and the specialist consultants. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for submission to Umoyilanga Wind Power (Pty) Ltd and EDF Renewables (Pty) Ltd, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of

South Africa.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE ii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Ecological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure near Uitenhage, Eastern Cape Province. Client Name & Umoyilanga Wind Power (Pty) Ltd. Address: Waterfront Business Park, Building 5, Ground Floor, 1204 Humerail Road, Humerail, 6001

Status: Final

Issue Date: March 2021

Authors: Ms Nicole Wienand [email protected] Ms Amber Jackson [email protected]

Reviewer: Ms Tarryn Martin

No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies Umoyilanga Wind Power (PTY) 0 1 Ltd. 0 1 DEFF 0 Available on the All I&APs CES website for download

Report Version Date March/April 2021

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by

its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No www.cesnet.co.za person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or

rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE iii

SPECIALIST TEAM

Ms Nicole Wienand, Botanical Specialist and Report Author (SACNASP Reg No. 130289)

Ms Nicole Wienand is an Environmental Consultant based in the Port Elizabeth branch. Nicole obtained her BSc Honours in Botany (Environmental Management) from Nelson Mandela University (NMU) in December 2018. She also holds a BSc Degree in Environmental Management (Cum Laude) from NMU. Nicole’s honours project focused on the composition of subtidal marine benthic communities on warm temperate reefs off the coast of Port Elizabeth and for her undergraduate project she investigated dune movement in Sardinia Bay. Nicole’s key interests include marine ecology, botanical specialist assessments, GIS Mapping, the general EIA process, Public Participation Process (PPP) and Ecological Impact Assessments.

Ms Tarryn Martin, Principal Environmental Consultant and Botanical Specialist (400018/14)

Tarryn holds a BSc (Botany and Zoology), a BSc (Hons) in African Vertebrate Biodiversity and an MSc with distinction in Botany from Rhodes University. Tarryn’s Master’s thesis examined the impact of fire on the recovery of C3 and C4 Panicoid and non-Panicoid grasses within the context of climate change for which she won the Junior Captain Scott-Medal (Plant Science) for producing the top MSc of 2010 from the South African Academy of Science and Art as well as an Award for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Range and Forage Science from the Grassland Society of Southern Africa. She conducts vegetation assessments including vegetation and sensitivity mapping to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts on sensitive vegetation. Tarryn has undertaken several vegetation and impact assessments in Mozambique (to IFC standards) which include the Lurio Forestry Project in Nampula, the Syrah Graphite Mine in Cabo Delgado and the Baobab Iron Ore Mine in Tete, Mozambique. She has undertaken critical habitat assessments, to IFC standards, for a solar farm in Cameroon and a graphite mine in Mozambique. She has co-designed and implemented the Terrestrial Monitoring Program for the Kenmare Namalope heavy minerals mine in Mozambique and has recently developed a Biodiversity Management Plan and monitoring plan for the Kenmare Pilivilli deposit. She has also worked on the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority botanical baseline survey for Phase 2 of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

Ms Amber Jackson, Principal Environmental Consultant and Faunal Specialist

Amber is a Principal Environmental Consultant and has been employed with CES since September 2011. She holds a Masters in Environmental Management and has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her honours and undergraduate degree focused on Ecology, Conservation and Environment with reference to landscape effects on Herpetofauna, while her masters focused on the environmental management of social and ecological systems. With a dissertation in food security that investigated the complex food system of informal and formal distribution markets. During her time at CES Amber has worked extensively in Mozambique managing several Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Amongst which she has conducted large scale faunal impact assessments in the both South Africa and northern of Mozambique to both national standards and international lenders standards (AfDB, EIB and IFC), alone and assisted by and to Prof Bill Branch. Her interests include, lenders requirements, range limitation, island biogeography, ecology as well as land use and natural resource management.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Umoyilanga 132kV Overhead Line iv

Contact Details: Botanical Specialist and Lead Author

Name Ms Nicole Wienand Designation Junior Botanical Specialist, CES E-mail [email protected]

Contact Details: Faunal Specialist and Co-Author

Name Ms Amber Jackson Designation Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]

Contact Details: Reviewer

Name Ms Tarryn Martin Designation Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]

Contact Details: Project Manager

Name Ms Caroline Evans Designation Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]

Contact Details: EAP/Study Leader

Name Dr Alan Carter Designation Executive and Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]

www.cesnet.co.za

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Umoyilanga 132kV Overhead Line v

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

ACRONYM LIST

AOO Area of Occupancy

ADU Animal Demography Unit

BA Basic Assessment

BI Biodiversity Importance

BSP Biodiversity Sector Plan

CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CES Coastal and Environmental Services

CESA Critical Ecosystem Support Area

CI Conservation Importance

CR Critically Endangered

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DEFF Department of Environment, Fisheries and Forestry

EA Environmental Authorisation

ECBCP Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan

ECO Environmental Control Officer

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EN Endangered

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

ESA Ecological Support Area

EOO Extent of Occupancy

FI Functional Integrity

GIS Geographical Information System

GN Government Notice

IBA Important Birding Areas

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LC Least Concern

NBA National Biodiversity Assessment

NBSAP National Biodiversity and Strategy Action Plan

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE vi

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Ancillary Areas

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

NNR No Natural Habitat Remaining

NPAES National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy

NT Near Threatened

OHL Overhead Line

ONA Other Natural Area

PA Protected Area

PNCO Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance

POSA Plants of Southern Africa

PPC Pretoria Portland Cement

PPP Public Participation Process

RR Receptor Resilience

SCC Species of Conservation Concern

SOTER Soil and Terrain

QDS Quarter Degree Square

VU Vulnerable

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SAPAD South Africa Protected Areas Database

SEI Site Ecological Importance

TOPS Threatened and Protected Species

WEF Wind Energy Facility

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE vii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

DEFINITIONS

Alien Invasive Species refers to an exotic species that can spread rapidly and displace native species causing damage to the environment.

Biodiversity is the term that is used to describe the variety of life on Earth and is defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005).

Habitat Fragmentation occurs when large expanses of habitat are transformed into smaller patches of discontinuous habitat units isolated from each other by transformed habitats such as farmland.

Key Biodiversity Area are globally recognised sites that contain significant concentrations of biodiversity.

Natural Habitat refers to habitats composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native origin and/or where human activity has not essentially modified an area’s primary ecological function and species composition.

Protected Area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (IUCN Definition 2008).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE viii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

SPECIALIST CHECK LIST

The contents of this specialist report complies with the legislated requirements as described in the Protocol for the Specialist Assessment and Minimum Report Content Requirements for Environmental Impacts on Terrestrial Plant and Animal Species (GN R.1150).

SPECIALIST REPORT REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO GN R. 320 SECTION OF REPORT 3.1 The Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment Report must contain, as a minimum, the following information: 3.1.1 Contact details of the specialist, their SACNASP registration number, Page iv – ix, their field of expertise and a curriculum vitae; Appendix 6 3.1.2 A signed statement of independence by the specialist; Appendix 7 3.1.3 A statement of the duration, date and season of the site inspection Section 2.1 and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; 3.1.4 A description of the methodology used to undertake the site verification and impact assessment and site inspection, including Chapter 2 equipment and modelling used, where relevant; 3.1.5 A description of the assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge or data as well as a statement of the timing and intensity Section 1.4 of site inspection observations; 3.1.6 A location of the areas not suitable for development, which are to be Chapter 4 avoided during construction and operation (where relevant); and Chapter 6 3.1.7 Additional environmental impacts expected from the proposed Chapter 5 development; 3.1.8 Any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed Chapter 5 development; 3.1.9 The degree to which the impacts and risks can be mitigated; 3.1.10 The degree to which the impacts and risks can be reversed; Chapter 5 3.1.11 The degree to which the impacts and risks can cause loss of irreplaceable resources; 3.1.12 Proposed impact management actions and impact management Chapter 5 outcomes proposed by the specialist for inclusion in the and Section Environmental Management Programme (EMPr); 6.2 3.1.13 A motivation must be provided if there were development footprints identified as per paragraph 2.3.6 above that were identified as having N/A a “low” terrestrial biodiversity sensitivity and that were not considered appropriate; 3.1.14 A substantiated statement, based on the findings of the specialist assessment, regarding the acceptability, or not, of the proposed Chapter 6 development, if it should receive approval or not; and 3.1.15 Any conditions to which this statement is subjected. Section 6.2 3.2 The findings of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment must be incorporated into the Basic Assessment Report or the Environmental Impact ✓ Assessment Report, including the mitigation and monitoring measures as identified, which must be incorporated into the EMPr where relevant. 3.3 A signed copy of the assessment must be appended to the Basic Assessment ✓ Report or Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE ix

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1

1.1 Project Description and Locality ...... 1 1.2 Site Sensitivity Verification and Minimum Report Content Requirements ...... 2 1.3 Objectives and terms of Reference ...... 1 1.4 Limitations and Assumptions ...... 1 1.5 Public Consultation ...... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 3

2.1 The Assessment ...... 3 2.2 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 3 2.3 Sampling Protocol ...... 4 2.4 Vegetation Mapping ...... 4 2.5 Sensitivity assessment...... 5 2.6 Ecological Impact assessment ...... 6 2.6.1 Impact rating methodology ...... 6 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 7

3.1 Description of the Biophysical Environment ...... 7 3.1.1 Climate ...... 7 3.1.2 Topography, Soils and Geology ...... 7 3.1.3 Geology and Soils ...... 8 3.1.4 Surface Water Features ...... 11 3.2 Land Cover ...... 11 3.2.1 South African National Land-Cover Map (2018) ...... 11 3.2.2 Addo Biodiversity Sector Plan (BSP, 2012) Land-Cover ...... 13 3.2.3 NMBM Conservation Assessment and Plan (2009) Land-Cover ...... 13 3.3 The current land use ...... 14 3.4 Description of the Vegetation and Floristics ...... 14 3.4.1 National Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP2018): Expected Vegetation Types ... 14 3.4.2 NMBM Conservation Assessment and Plan (2009) Vegetation Types ...... 17 3.4.3 Vegetation types recorded on site ...... 17 3.4.4 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 21 3.4.5 Alien Invasive Species Present on site...... 30 3.5 Description of Fauna ...... 31 3.5.1 Amphibians ...... 31

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE x

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3.5.2 Reptiles ...... 31 3.5.3 Mammals ...... 34 4 SITE SENSITIVITY ...... 36

4.1 Critical Biodiversity Areas ...... 36 4.2 Ecosystem Threat Status ...... 40 4.3 Protected areas ...... 41 4.4 Site Sensitivity ...... 43 5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 47

5.1 Impact Assessment ...... 48 6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 65

6.1 Conclusions ...... 65 6.2 Conditions of EMPr, EA and Monitoring ...... 65 6.3 Ecological Statement and Opinion of the Specialist ...... 66 7 REFERENCE LIST ...... 67

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA...... 71

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES...... 78

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF REPTILE SPECIES...... 79

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF MAMMAL SPECIES...... 82

APPENDIX 5: IMPACT RATING SCALE ...... 86

APPENDIX 6: CURRICULUM VITAE OF PROJECT TEAM ...... 89

APPENDIX 7: SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS ...... 104

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Criteria for establishing Site Ecological importance and description of criteria. 5 Table 3.1: List of plant SCC likely to occur within the project area. 22 Table 3.2: Alien Invasive species recorded within the project area. 30 Table 3.3: Eastern Cape Endemic Reptile of SCC. 32 Table 3.4: Mammal Species of Conservation Concern. 34 Table 4.1: Biodiversity Priority areas affected by the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure. 39 Table 4.2: Criteria for establishing Site Ecological importance and description of criteria. 43 Table 4.3: Evaluation of Site Ecological Importance (SEI) of habitat and SCC. 44

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE xi

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Table 5.1: Assessment of impacts associated with the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure. 48

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Locality Map of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure...... 2 Figure 1.2: Layout Map of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure...... 3 Figure 2.1: Sampling locations within the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure (S1 & S2 = Sundays Valley Thicket; G1 & G2 = Grassridge Bontveld)...... 4 Figure 3.1:Contour Map of the study area...... 8 Figure 3.2: Elevation profile of the study site from east to west for (a) the BESS, Thermal, O&M Building and Substation and (b) the Buffer Yard and Construction Compound...... 8 Figure 3.3: Geology Map of the study site...... 10 Figure 3.4: SOTER SAF Soil Map of the project area...... 10 Figure 3.5: Surface water features affected by the proposed development...... 11 Figure 3.6: South African National Land-Cover (SANLC, 2018) Map of the project area. .... 12 Figure 3.7: Addo BSP (2012) Land-Cover Map of the Project Area...... 13 Figure 3.8: NMBM (2009) Land-Cover Map of the project area...... 14 Figure 3.9: National vegetation map for the project site...... 16 Figure 3.10: NMBM (2009) Vegetation Types of the Project Area...... 17 Figure 3.11: Distribution of Sensitive Species 18 (SARCA, 2014)...... 32 Figure 4.1: NMBM (2009/2014) Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area...... 37 Figure 4.2: ECBCP (2019) CBAs located within the project area...... 37 Figure 4.3: ECBCP (2019) Aquatic CBAs within the Project Area...... 38 Figure 4.4: Addo BSP (2012) CBAs within the project area...... 39 Figure 4.5: Threatened Ecosystem Map of the Project Area...... 41 Figure 4.6: NPAES Focus Areas and Protected Areas surrounding the Project Area...... 42 Figure 4.7: Sensitivity map showing areas of high and moderate sensitivity...... 46 Figure 6.1: Pie charts summarising the number of high, moderate and low impacts before and after mitigation...... 65

LIST OF PLATES Plate 3.1: Grassridge Bontveld of the Project Area...... 18 Plate 3.2: Grazing halo surrounding thicket bush clumps within the Grassridge Bontveld of the Project Area...... 19 Plate 3.3: Sundays Valley Thicket Vegetation of the Project Area...... 20

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE xii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCALITY

Umoyilanga (Pty) Ltd. is proposing the construction of Ancillary Infrastructure near Kariega (Uitenhage) in the Sundays River Valley Local Municipality (SRVLM) and the Nelson Mandela Bay Muncipality (NMBM), Eastern Cape Province. The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure consists of the following:

→ Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Building of approximately 0.5 ha; → Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) of approximately 0.8 ha; o With a storage capacity of 157.5 MWh (3.5 hours); and o Lithium-ion batteries. → Thermal of approximately 0.8 ha; → A temporary construction area, a buffer yard, which will be a laydown area for the concrete tower sections. An area of 7.5 ha which includes a 1.5 ha exclusion zone for a population of identified Rhombophyllum rhomboideum (classified as Endangered)has been assessed for this Ecological Impact Assessment. However, the buffer yard will only cover an area of 3.5 ha within the 7.5 ha area.

CES has been appointed by Umoyilanga (Pty) Ltd to apply for Environmental Authorisation (EA) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998 and subsequent amendments) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (2014 and subsequent amendments) by means of conducting a Basic Assessment (BA) Process, inclusive of the relevant specialist studies. This Ecological Impact Assessment report forms part of the BA Process for the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1.1: Locality Map of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure.

1.2 SITE SENSITIVITY VERIFICATION AND MINIMUM REPORT CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

In terms of the Protocol for the Specialist Assessment and Minimum Reporting Content Requirements for Environmental Impacts on Terrestrial Biodiversity (GN R. 320 of 2020) and Terrestrial Animal and Plant Species (GN R. 1150), prior to the commencement of a specialist assessment, the current use of the land and the potential environmental sensitivity of the site under consideration as identified by the screening tool, must be confirmed by undertaking a site sensitivity verification. The results of the screening tool, together with the site sensitivity verification, ultimately determines the minimum report content requirements.

According to the results of the Screening Report generated for the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure, the relative terrestrial biodiversity theme sensitivity is classified as VERY HIGH due to portions of the development occurring within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) 1 and 2. The Animal Species Theme is classified as HIGH while the Plant Species Theme is classified as Medium Sensitivity. According to Section 3 (1) of GN R. 320, ‘an applicant intending to undertake an activity identified in the scope of this protocol, on a site identified on the screening tool as being of “very high sensitivity” for terrestrial biodiversity, must submit a Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment’.

Due to the very high sensitivity rating of the site, a full Terrestrial Ecological Impact Assessment (this report) has been undertaken as part of the BA Process for the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1.2: Layout Map of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The objectives for the ecological assessment are as follows: • Describe and map the vegetation types in the study area. • Describe the biodiversity and ecological state of each vegetation unit. • Establish and map sensitive vegetation areas showing the suitability for development and no-go areas. • Identify plant and animal species of conservation concern (Red Data List, PNCO and TOPS lists). In the case of the fauna, this was done at a desktop level. • Identify alien plant species, assess the invasive potential and recommend management procedures. • Identify and assess the impacts of development on the site’s natural vegetation and faunal species in terms of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of key ecosystems and, where feasible, provide mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

1.4 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This report is based on current available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit: • The report is based on a project description received from the client. • A detailed faunal survey was not conducted. The faunal survey was primarily a desktop study, using information from previous ecological surveys conducted in the area, supplemented by recording animal species that were observed during the site survey. • Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are difficult to find and difficult to identify, thus species described in this report do not comprise an exhaustive list. It is almost certain that additional SCCs will be found during construction and operation of the development. • Sampling could only be carried out at one stage in the annual or seasonal cycle. The survey was conducted in Summer when most plants were at the end of the flowering stage. Early flowering species, specifically geophytes could therefore not be identified. However, the time available in the field, and information gathered during the survey was sufficient to provide enough information to determine the status of the affected area. • It should be noted that the density of the Sundays Valley Thicket Vegetation made it difficult to access certain areas of the proposed development site. As such, sampling sites were limited to areas within the thicket vegetation that could be accessed. However, the vegetation sampled in these areas were representative of the vegetation of the study site and the information gathered was sufficient to describe the dominant species present.

1.5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The Public Participation Process (PPP) followed to date has been described in detail in the BAR. The Draft BAR, together with the Ecological Impact Assessment Report, will be made available for a 30-day commenting and public review period. Any comments received relating

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

to the Ecological Impact Assessment Report will be addressed by the Ecological Specialists and included in the Comments and Response Report in the Final BAR.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 THE ASSESSMENT

A site visit was undertaken on the 11-14th of January 2021 to assess the site-specific ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visits also served to identify potential impacts of the proposed development, and its impact on the surrounding ecological environment. The findings from this site visit were supplemented with data from the initial Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken for the Umoyilanga WEF (CES, 2014).

In addition to the site visit, key resources that were consulted include the following:

➢ South African Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP) (Mucina et al., 2018); ➢ Council for Geoscience (2013); ➢ Soil and Terrain (SOTER) Database of South Africa (2008); ➢ Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2019); ➢ Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) Metropolitan Open Space System (MOSS) (2009); ➢ The National Freshwater Ecosystem Ancillary Areas (NFEPA, 2011); ➢ The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), 2004: List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011); ➢ National Biodiversity Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) List of Threatened or Protected Species (2005); ➢ The National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES, 2010); ➢ Review of the SANBI Red Data List; ➢ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); ➢ The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (SANBI, 2018); ➢ The Animal Demography Unit (ADU); ➢ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); ➢ Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO); ➢ Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) database – Quarter degree square level; ➢ National Biodiversity Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) Alien and Invasive Species Lists (2014); and ➢ Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) List of Protected Trees (2014).

2.2 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

Data on the known distribution and conservation status for each potential species of conservation concern has to be obtained to develop a list of ‘Species of Concern’. These species are those that may be impacted significantly by the proposed activity. In general, these will be species that are already known to be threatened or at risk, or those that have restricted distributions (endemics) with a portion (at least 50%) of their known range falling within the study area i.e. strict endemic and near endemic species. Species that are afforded special protection, notably those that are protected by NEMBA (No. 10 of 2004), PNCO (1975), the

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

List of Protected Tree Species under the National Forest Act (No. 84 of 1998) or which occur on the South African Red Data List as species of conservation concern fall within this category.

2.3 SAMPLING PROTOCOL

The footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure was visually surveyed to evaluate vegetation composition and to provide detailed information on the plant communities present. The aim of the site visit was to characterise and describe each vegetation community within the study site as well as identify areas of high sensitivity and SCC. Prior to the site visit, sampling locations representative of each vegetation type were identified (Figure 2.1). At these sampling locations, vegetation types within the study area were assessed and surveyed using plant identification guides and other published literature. Vegetation communities were then described according to the dominant set of species recorded from each type. These were mapped and assigned a sensitivity score using the methodology outlined in the Species Environmental Assessment Guideline Document.

S1 S2 G2

G1

Figure 2.1: Sampling locations within the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure (S1 & S2 = Sundays Valley Thicket; G1 & G2 = Grassridge Bontveld).

2.4 VEGETATION MAPPING

The revised SA VEGMAP (2018) was established in order to “provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.” The map was developed using a wealth of data provided by a network of ecologists, biologists and conservation planners that make periodic contributions to the

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 4

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

project. These contributions have allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. The SANBI Vegetation map informs finer scale bioregional plans and includes an additional 47 new vegetation units since its refinement in 2012.

The SA VEGMAP project has two main aims:

1. To determine the variation in and units of Southern African vegetation based on the analysis and synthesis of data from vegetation studies throughout the region, and 2. To compile a vegetation map. The aim of the map was to accurately reflect the distribution and variation on the vegetation and indicate the relationship of the vegetation with the environment. For this reason, the collective expertise of vegetation scientists from various universities and state departments were harnessed to make this project as comprehensive as possible.

The map and accompanying book describes each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species, including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important.

The SA VEGMAP is compared to actual conditions of vegetation observed onsite during the site assessment through mapping from aerial photographs, satellite images, literature descriptions (e.g. SANBI and ECBCP) and related data gathered on the ground.

2.5 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

The Species Environmental Assessment guideline (SANBI, 2020) was applied to assess the Site Ecological Importance (SEI) of the project area. The habitats and the species of conservation concern in the project area were assessed based on their conservation importance, functional integrity and receptor resilience (Table 2.1). The combination of these resulted in a rating of SEI and interpretation of mitigation requirements based on the ratings.

The sensitivity map was developed using available spatial planning tools as well as by applying the SEI sensitivity based on the field survey.

Table 2.1: Criteria for establishing Site Ecological importance and description of criteria. Criteria Description

Conservation The importance of a site for supporting biodiversity features of Importance (CI) conservation concern present e.g. populations of IUCN Threatened and Near-Threatened species (CR, EN, VU & NT), Rare, range- restricted species, globally significant populations of congregatory species, and areas of threatened ecosystem types, through predominantly natural processes.

Functional A measure of the ecological condition of the impact receptor as Integrity (FI) determined by its remaining intact and functional area, its connectivity to other natural areas and the degree of current persistent ecological impacts.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 5

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Biodiversity Importance (BI) is a function of Conservation Importance (CI) and the Functional Integrity (FI) of a receptor.

Receptor The intrinsic capacity of the receptor to resist major damage from Resilience (RR) disturbance and/or to recover to its original state with limited or no human intervention.

Site Ecological Importance (SEI) is a function of Biodiversity Importance (BI) and Receptor Resilience (RR)

2.6 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.6.1 Impact rating methodology

To ensure a balanced and objective approach to assessing the significance of potential impacts, a standardized rating scale was adopted which allows for the direct comparison of specialist studies. This rating scale has been developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014 and subsequent 2017 amendments).

The details of this rating scale are included in Appendix 5.

.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 6

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1.1 Climate

The information provided herewith is based on the climate data for Uitenhage – the nearest urban area in proximity to the project area. The climate of Uitenhage is classified as BSh (hot semi-arid) by Köppen and Geiger. The average annual temperature is 18.2°C, reaching an average maximum temperature in February (22.5°C), and an average minimum temperature in July (13.8°C). Uitenhage receives an average of around 427 mm of rainfall per annum, with most of the rainfall occurring in October (48 mm) (Climate-Data.org).

3.1.2 Topography, Soils and Geology

Vegetation types are influenced by a range of biotic and/or abiotic factors at different spatial and temporal scales, which together influence the distribution, composition, structure and diversity of plant communities (Rodrigues et al., 2016). Among the abiotic factors influencing vegetation types, topography (landform), geology, and soils are considered three of the major factors determining habitat heterogeneity and species diversity.

Topography

The topography of the broader area is characterised by low to moderately undulating hills. The site for the proposed O&M Building, Substation, Thermal and BESS is located approximately 240 m above sea level while the site for the proposed Construction Compound and Buffer Yard is located approximately 318 m above sea level. The average slope of the sites are 3.7% and 2%, respectively (Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 7

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.1:Contour Map of the study area.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.2: Elevation profile of the study site from east to west for (a) the BESS, Thermal, O&M Building and Substation and (b) the Buffer Yard and Construction Compound.

3.1.3 Geology and Soils

The footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is underlain by sedimentary deposits of the Alexandria and Kirkwood Formations.

Kirkwood Formation

The Kirkwood Formation is one of four formations belonging to the Uitenhage Group of the Algoa Basin, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. It reaches a thickness of 2 000

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 8

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

meters in parts of the basin and consists of porous and permeable, coarse- to medium-grained lithic sandstones interbedded with red and greyish-green siltstones and mudrocks. The depositional environment of the Kirkwood Formation is that of a fluvial setting, with point-bar sand deposits, overbank mud accumulations and subaerial exposure of recently deposited sediments (Johnson et al., 2006).

Alexandria Formation

The Alexandria Formation of the Algoa Group comprises of a 13 m thick package consisting of basal conglomerates rich in oyster shells, calcareous sandstones, pebbly coquina (cemented shells) and thin conglomerates typical of coastal and estuarine environments. The deposition of these layers is thought to have occurred during the marine transgression and regression cycles of the middle Miocene to Pliocene age. Consequently, the Alexandria Formation contains an abundance of marine invertebrate fossils such as bivalves, gastropods, corals, bryozoans, brachiopods and echinoids. Aeolianites of the Nanaga, Nahoon and Schelm Hoek Formatins overlie the Alexandria formation in some places within the broader area (Johnson et al., 2006).

Soils

According to SOTER (1995), the soils within the study area are classified as Eutric Regosols (Figure 3.4). Regosols are typically ‘young’ soils with poorly developed horizons, except for an ochric (surface) horizon which is generally thin and low in organic matter. These soils are highly permeable and have a low water holding capacity making them unfavourable for agricultural purposes and sensitive to drought. Regosols are prone to erosion, particularly on sloping surfaces, and often form a hard surface crust during dry periods that prevents the infiltration of water and the emergence of seedlings. These soils are typically used for extensive grazing. The term ‘eutric’ refers to soils with a base saturation (in 1 M NH4OAc at pH 7.0) of 50% or more within 20-100 cm from the soil surface.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 9

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.3: Geology Map of the study site.

Figure 3.4: SOTER SAF Soil Map of the project area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 10

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.1.4 Surface Water Features

The aquatic sensitivity of the proposed site is classified as VERY HIGH in the Screening Report due to the western portion of the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure falling within a strategic water source area. The project area falls within the N40E and M30A quaternary catchments of the Mzimvubu to Tsitsikama Water Management Area (WMA 7). The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure does not traverse a NBA (2018) or NFEPA (2011/14) river or a non-perennial river (drainage line). However, the authorised substation and the thermal falls within the 500 m regulatory buffer of a NBA (2018) wetland.

Figure 3.5: Surface water features affected by the proposed development.

3.2 LAND COVER

3.2.1 South African National Land-Cover Map (2018)

According to the South African National Land-Cover (2018) spatial dataset, the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure occurs within two major land classes, including Dense Forest & Woodland (35%-75% continuous cover) (Sundays Valley Thicket) and Natural Grassland (Grassridge Bontveld). Patches of Open Woodland (10-35% continuous cover) most likely representing the open/degraded areas of Sundays Valley Thicket occur within the Dense Forest & Woodland (Figure 3.6).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 11

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.6: South African National Land-Cover (SANLC, 2018) Map of the project area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 12

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.2.2 Addo Biodiversity Sector Plan (BSP, 2012) Land-Cover

According to the Addo BSP (2012) Land-Cover Map (Figure 3.7), the proposed UmoyilangaAncillary Construction Compound and the authorised Buffer Yard occurs within a Natural area.

Figure 3.7: Addo BSP (2012) Land-Cover Map of the Project Area.

3.2.3 NMBM Conservation Assessment and Plan (2009) Land-Cover

The Nelson Mandela Bay Conservation Assessment and Plan (2009) for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality underpins the gazetted Nelson Mandela Bay Municipal Bioregional Plan (2015). According to the NMBM (2009) Conservation Assessment and Plan, the proposed BESS, O&M Building, Thermal and approved Substation as well as a small portion of the approved road, occurs within one major land use: Donut (Figure 3.8). Donut land uses are known as “natural areas/vacant land” or “no-man’s land” which has not yet been developed (CES, 2017).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 13

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.8: NMBM (2009) Land-Cover Map of the project area.

3.3 THE CURRENT LAND USE

The properties on which the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is located are currently utilised for game farming and forms part of the approved site for the Umoyilanga WEF.

3.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION AND FLORISTICS

The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure falls within the Albany Thicket Biome (Mucina et al., 2018). This species-rich, evergreen, scrubland covers an estimated 2.2% of South Africa’s total land surface area and occurs throughout most of the Eastern Cape Province, particularly in incised river valleys. The biome is characterised by sparse to dense, semi-succulent, spiny shrub vegetation often accompanied by a tree component and an herbaceous and grassy undergrowth. Unfortunately, this biome has become highly fragmented due to clearing for cultivation and its poor ability to regenerate once disturbed (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012).

3.4.1 National Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP2018): Expected Vegetation Types

The South African Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP) of 2018 is an important resource for biodiversity monitoring and conservation management in South Africa. Under the custodianship of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) the SA VEGMAP, (2018) was updated in order to ‘provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before’. The map

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 14

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

provides a detailed description of each of South Africa’s unique vegetation types along with a comprehensive list of the important species associated with each, including endemic and biologically important species.

According to SANBI’s National Vegetation Map (2018), the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure occurs within two (2) vegetation types, namely Grassridge Bontveld and Sundays Valley Thicket (Figure 3.9).

Sundays Valley Thicket

Sundays Valley Thicket occurs exclusively in the Eastern Cape Province, primarily in the lower Sundays River Valley which stretches from Kleinpoort in the west to Paterson and Colchester in the East. This vegetation type typically occurs on undulating plains, low foothills and mountain slopes on deep loamy-clayey soils underlain by the Kirkwood Formation, Sundays River Formation and the Enon Formation. Sundays Valley Thicket vegetation is characterised by medium-sized to tall (3-5 m) dense thicket dominated by a well-developed woody tree, shrub, and succulent component with many spinescent species. There is no distinct differentiation between the upper and lower canopy, as a wide variety of lianas typically link the understorey with the upper canopy. Although emergents are uncommon, species such as Euphorbia grandidens, E. triangularis, and occasionally Cussonia gamtoosensis and C. spicata emerge above the canopy. The structure of Sundays Valley thicket varies considerably depending on soil conditions and aridity, with the dominance of Portulacaria afra increasing in abundance in relation to aridity.

The Ecosystem Threat Status of Sundays Valley Thicket is Least Concern, while the Ecosystem Protection Level is considered Moderately Protected (Skowno et al., 2019) with large portions of this vegetation type conserved in the Addo Elephant National Park and the Cape Floral Region Protected Areas (Baviaanskloof area). According to SANBI’s National Vegetation Map (2018), the conservation target for Sundays Valley Thicket is 19%. Approximately 11.86% of this vegetation type has been transformed due to cultivation, urban sprawl, and erosion (Grobler et al., 2018).

Grassridge Bontveld

Grassridge Bontveld occurs exclusively in the Eastern Cape Province, predominantly in the areas north east of Port Elizabeth around Coega, and small patches near Addo Elephant National Park. This vegetation type is characterised by a matrix of low (0.2-0.8 m) grassy dwarf shrubland dominated by Fynbos, Grassland and Karroid elements, interspersed by thicket bush clumps of various sizes (Grobler et al., 2018). The thicket bush clumps form as a consequence of the weathering of the underlying geology, where the infiltration of surface and groundwater causes the dissolution of the underlying limestone, forming circular depressions known as dolines. These dolines trap windblown sediments resulting in a deeper soil depth in which thicket tree and shrub species thrive.

Grassridge Bontveld is classified as Least Concern (Skowno et al., 2019), with a Conservation Target of 19%. It is considered Moderately Protected, however 9.53% of the area has been transformed mainly due to cultivation, mining, urban sprawl, roads and erosion. Portions of this vegetation type is conserved in the Addo Elephant National Park and the Kaapse Grysbok Private Nature Reserve (Grobler et al., 2018).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 15

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.9: National vegetation map for the project site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 16

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.4.2 NMBM Conservation Assessment and Plan (2009) Vegetation Types

The vegetation types within the project area identified in the NMBM Bioregional Plan (2015) includes Grassridge Bontveld and Sundays Valley Thicket (Figure 3.10) which is in line with the findings of the National Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP2018) (see Section 3.4.1 above). The Ancillary Infrastructure is located within Sundays Valley Thicket.

Figure 3.10: NMBM (2009) Vegetation Types of the Project Area.

3.4.3 Vegetation types recorded on site

While National level vegetation maps have described broad vegetation types, local conditions and micro-habitats (rainfall, soil structure, rocky outcrops, etc.) can result in variations in plant composition. As such, site surveys are critical for the verification of desktop findings and establishing the baseline ecological conditions of a site.

The site visit conducted from the 11th to the 14th of January 2021 confirmed that the vegetation of the project area is Grassridge Bontveld and Sundays Valley Thicket.

Grassridge Bontveld occurred a higher altitude on a flat hilltop underlain by limestone belonging to the Alexandria Formation. This vegetation type was characterised by a matrix of low (0.2-0.8 m) grassy dwarf shrubland dominated by Themeda triandra, Merxmuellera disticha, and Pentachistus pallida interspersed with fynbos and succulent species such as Acmadenia obtusata, Pachypodium bispinosum, Asparagus spp., Hermannia sp., and Lampranthus sp. amongst others. Thicket bush clumps of various sizes dominated by Sideroxylon inerme, Carissa bispinosa, Euclea undulata,

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 17

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Searsia spp. and Osteospermum moniliferum were scattered throughout the Grassrdige Bontveld (Plate 3.1). A large number of Rhombophyllum rhomboideum was observed in the matrix of the Grassridge Bontveld. This large population was confirmed to be a newly discovered fifth and unrecorded population of R. rhomboideum by Tony Dold, curator of the Selmar Schonland Herbarium.

Scattered Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia aurantiaca were observed within the thicket bush clumps and overgrazing was evident due to the presence of ‘grazing halos’ observed around thicket bush clumps (Plate 3.2).

The Buffer Yard (3.5 ha) is located within the Grassridge Bontveld.

Plate 3.1: Grassridge Bontveld of the Project Area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 18

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Grazing Halo

Plate 3.2: Grazing halo surrounding thicket bush clumps within the Grassridge Bontveld of the Project Area.

The undulating plains, low foothill and gentle slope adjacent to the Grassridge Bontveld was covered by Sundays Valley Thicket. The Sundays Valley Thicket vegetation was dominated by species such as C. bispinosa, S. inerme, Euphorbia spp., Schotia afra, Searsia spp., Gymnosporia buxifolia, Euclea undulata, Putterlickia pyracantha, Crassula spp., and Cotyledon spp. The thicket vegetation was generally in good condition and relatively impenetrable except for the trails created due to the frequent access by game. Scattered O. ficus-indica and O. aurantiaca were observed throughout the project area (Plate 3.3).

The O&M Building (0.5 ha), BESS (0.8ha) and Thermal (0.8ha) are located within the Sundays Valley Thicket directly adjacent to the authorised substation.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 19

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3.3: Sundays Valley Thicket Vegetation of the Project Area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 20

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.4.4 Species of Conservation Concern

Sixteen (16) species of conservation concern (SCC) were recorded for the site, eight (8) of which were confirmed during the site survey. In addition, three (3) of the Twelve (16) SCC recorded for the site which were not confirmed are highly likely to occur on site based on their habitat requirements and known distribution, including Euryops ericifolius, Selago zeyheri, Indigofera tomentosa. Hoodia pilifera, classified as Vulnerable, is unlikely to occur on site based on its habitat requirements and known distribution range. The likelihood of the remaining four (4) species occurring on site is considered moderate based on habitat requirements.

The below species list has been compiled using records obtained from the Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) website and from the National Screening Tool Report. The likelihood of each species occurring within the project area is assessed in Table 3.1 below.

A full list of species likely to be found at the site has been included in Appendix 1.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 21

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Table 3.1: List of plant SCC likely to occur within the project area. Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements EOO 102 km², AOO<102 km², four locations are known. The habitat of this range-restricted species is rapidly Rhombophyllum Schedule Aizoaceae EN EN - - being transformed by Confirmed rhomboideum 4 urban and industrial development around Gqeberha, St George's Bay, Motherwell and Coega.

Although not endemic to South Africa, this species is declining due to habitat loss and unsustainable harvesting. However, this species is long lived, widely distributed and can Boophone Schedule Amaryllidaceae - LC - - colonise a new site Confirmed disticha 4 due to its tumbleweed like inflorescence. Habitats include Thicket, Fynbos, Grassland, Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, Nama Karoo, Savanna, Succulent Karoo.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 22

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements

This species is endemic to South Africa and widespread throughout the Eastern Cape Cyrtanthus Schedule Amaryllidaceae - LC - - Province. Is typically Confirmed smithiae 4 occurs in arid grassland and valley thicket vegetation. Its population trend is classified as stable.

This species is not endemic to South Africa. It is found in wooded areas throughout the Carissa Schedule Apocynaceae - LC - - Eastern Cape, Confirmed bispinosa 4 Gauteng, KwaZulu- Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West, and Western Cape Provinces.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 23

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements

This species is endemic to South Africa and occurs widely in Southern and Eastern Cape Pachypodium Schedule Province, occurring Apocynaceae - LC - - Confirmed bispinosum 4 predominantly on rocky slopes that are not impacted by land transformation. The population trend is classified as stable.

Aloe africana is a South African Endemic with a restricted distribution range (EOO 10 754 km²), but it is locally very common. It has no severe threats and Schedule Asphodelaceae Aloe africana - LC - - is not in danger of Confirmed 4 extinction. It occurs in the Eastern Cape Province, from the Gamtoos River to Port Alfred and inland to Fort Brown and along the Great Fish River Valley.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 24

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements This species is endemic to South Africa, widely spread, common and not in danger of extinction. Its habitat is highly variable, but it generally occurs on stony slopes in dry Schedule karroid shrubland, Asphodelaceae Aloe striata - LC - - Confirmed 4 valley bushveld and grassland. It is found in the Western and Eastern Cape Province, from Worcester to the Kei River and inland as far as Graaff-Reinet, Cradock and Queenstown.

This species is not endemic to South Africa and commonly occurs in dune forests, coastal woodland and littoral forests along Sideroxylon Appendix Protected Sapotaceae - LC - the coasts from Confirmed inerme 2 Tree Western Cape through to the KwaZulu-Natal Province. It also occurs in Limpopo, Gauteng and Mpumalanga.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 25

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements

EOO 1300 km², known from six locations. Declining due to Schedule quarrying and illegal Strelitziaceae Strelitzia juncea - VU - Moderate 4 collection for the horticultural trade, it is also threatened by invasive alien plants.

Extinct in several parts of its former range, notably west of Gqeberha and near Kariega. It has a restricted distribution Sensitive Schedule but does not qualify for - EN EN - EN Moderate species 12681 3 EN in terms of the B criterion because there are more than five subpopulations that are not severely fragmented. Overall decline is difficult to

1 Some SCC are sensitive to illegal harvesting. As such, their names are obscured and listed as “Sensitive species #”. As per the best practice guideline that accompanies the protocol and screening tool, the name of the sensitive species may not appear in any BAR or EIA report, nor any specialist reports released into the public domain.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 26

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements judge, but is estimated as being over 50% based on habitat loss and declines recorded in repeat photographs. This species is endemic to South Africa and has a restricted distribution range, with an extent of occurrence (EOO) of 5594 km². It is known from eight locations and is declining for unknown reasons. Its habitat typically includes Eastern Gwarrieveld, Willowmore Schedule Gwarrieveld, Apocynaceae Hoodia pilifera - VU - - Low 4 Steytlerville Karoo, Prince Albert Succulent Karoo, Gamka Karoo, and Eastern Lower Karoo. It occurs on flat areas between low hills on gravelly ground. Based on this species habitat requirements and known distribution, it is unlikely that this species will occur on site. This species is Euryops Asteraceae - EN - - - endemic to the High ericifolius Eastern Cape

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 27

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements Province and highliy to the area between Motherwell and Coega (EOO 119 km²). The population trend is classified as Declining due to overgrazing of its habitat by cattle and the expansion of low- cost housing developments. Its habitat includes low altitude flats and slopes dominated by Sundays Valley Thicket, Motherwell Karroid Thicket, Grassrdige Bontveld . A rare, range- restricted species (EOO 601 km²), known from fewer than 10 locations and declining due to ongoing habitat loss and degradation. It Scrophulariaceae Selago zeyheri VU VU - - - High occurs in Albany Alluvial Vegetation, Koedoeskloof Karroid Thicket and Grass Ridge Bontveld on dry stony flats and lower slopes in grassy vegetation. This species is Indigofera endemic to South Fabaceae NT NT - - - High tomentosa Africa and known to occur within coastal

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 28

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Probability of SA Habitat, distribution occurrence on Protected Photograph Family Species IUCN Red PNCO NEMBA and population trend site based on Tree List (SANBI Red List) habitat requirements fynbos. It is currently only known from nine locations however, it is suspected that the species is under sampled. Approximately 50% of its habitat has been transformed. This widespread (EOO 38 869 km²) species is endemic to South Africa, but localized habitat specialist of estuaries and coastal pans Limonium Plumbaginaceae NT NT - - - (AOO <800 km²). Moderate linifolium Although still fairly common, estimated to occur at between 15 and 20 locations, it is declining due to ongoing habitat degradation. This species is endemic to the Eastern Cape Province with an EOO <5000 km², less than Agathosma 10 locations continue Rutaceae VU VU - - - Moderate stenopetala to decline due to urban development and alien plant invasion. Its habitat includes Algoa Sandstone Fynbos, St Francis Dune Thicket.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 29

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.4.5 Alien Invasive Species Present on site

An “invasive species” is any species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural distribution range (i) threatens ecosystems, habitats or other species or has a demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species; and (ii) may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive alien plant species are globally considered as one of the greatest threats to the environment, biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and the economy.

According to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (No. 43 of 1983 - Regulation 15, 30 March 2001) (CARA), for agricultural land, and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), for natural areas, invasive alien plant species should be controlled and eradicated with an emphasis on urgent action in biodiversity Ancillary areas. NEMBA published a list of Alien and Invasive Species (No 599) in 2014 which regulates the management of alien and invasive plants in natural environments.

During the site visit, the following alien invasive species were recorded within and surrounding the project area:

Table 3.2: Alien Invasive species recorded within the project area. NEMBA NATIONAL LIST OF INVASIVE CARA (Act No. 43 FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME SPECIES IN of 1983) TERMS SECTIONS 70(1), 71(3) and 71A Cactaceae Opuntia ficus-indica Prickly Pear Category 1 Category 1b Cactaceae Opuntia aurantiaca Jointed Cactus Category 1 Category 1b Fabaceae Acacia mearnsii Black wattle Category 2 Category 2

NEM:BA Category 1b: Invasive Species

Both Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia aurantiaca are listed under Category 1b of the NEMBA: National List of Invasive Species in Terms Sections 70(1), 71(3) and 71A. Plants classified as Category 1b alien invasive species are prohibited from:

➢ Being imported into the Republic; ➢ Growing or in any other way propagating any specimen; ➢ Conveying, moving or otherwise translocating any specimen; ➢ Spreading or allowing the spread of any specimen; and ➢ Releasing any specimen.

NEM:BA Category 2: Invasive Species

Acacia mearnsii is listed under Category 2 of the NEMBA: National List of Invasive Species. Category 2 invasive species are regulated by area. A permit is required to import, posses, grow breed, move, sell, buy or accept as a gift any species listed under Category 2.

CARA Category 1: Declared weeds Both O. ficus-indica and O. aurantiaca are listed under Category 1 of CARA. Plants classified as Category 1 in CARA are Declared Weeds. These are prohibited plants, which must be

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 30

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

controlled or eradicated where possible (except in biocontrol reserves, which are areas designated for the breeding of biocontrol agents). CARA Category 2: Invader Plants A. mearnsii is listed under Category 2 of CARA. Plants classified as Category 2 are declared Invader Plants and may only be grown under controlled conditions if a permit is acquired. No trade in these plants is permitted. * All alien and invasive plant species must be controlled during all phases of development according to the recommendations outline in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).

3.5 DESCRIPTION OF FAUNA

During the site visit, a number of large game species were observed within the broader project area including springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), zebra (Equus sp.), Wildebeest (Connochaetes sp.), ostriches (Struthio camelus), impala (Aepyceros melampus), bush bucks (Tragelaphus scriptus), dassies (Procavia capensis), termite mounds and vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus). Small rodents and a variety of insects and reptiles are also expected to occur on site.

3.5.1 Amphibians

The Eastern Cape hosts 54 amphibian species, 21 of these species have a distribution which coincides with the project area (Appendix 2) (IUCN, 2021; Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017). Consultation of the ADU historical records confirms that 18 amphibian species have been recorded within the QDS (3325CB, 3325DA) and are likely to occur within the project area, all of which are considered Least Concern (Appendix 2).

Three endemic species have a distribution which includes the project area, two are endemic to South African (Cape River Frog (Amietia fuscigula) and Delalande's Sand Frog (Tomopterna delalandii)) and one is endemic to the Eastern Cape (Eastern Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pardalis)). This species inhabits open grassy bushveld areas, thickets and agricultural areas and breeds in large, permanent, usually deep pools (IUCN SSC ASG, 2016).

3.5.2 Reptiles

The Eastern Cape is home to 133 reptile species, 69 species have a distribution that coincides with the project area (Appendix 3) (IUCN, 2021; Branch, 1998; Bates et al. 2014). Consultation of the ADU historical records for QDS (3325CB, 3325DA) and iNatuarlist indicates that 57 species have been confirmed to occur within the study area. Four reptile species are endemic to the EC and have a distribution which includes the project area (Table 3.3: Eastern Cape Endemic Reptile of SCC.Table 3.3) and two chameleon (Bradypodion) species have yet to be described.

Sensitive Species 18 is listed as Endangered and is poorly protected (Tolley, et. al., 2018). It is endemic to South Africa and very restricted to inland areas of Algoa Bay in the Eastern Cape Province (Figure 3.11). The only known population is found in bontveld vegetation on limestone (Nanaga formation) and calcareous paleodunes (Cenozoic Algoa Group) (Maritz, et. al., 2018).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 31

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3.11: Distribution of Sensitive Species 18 (SARCA, 2014).

Table 3.3: Eastern Cape Endemic Reptile of SCC. Red list Category Name Habitat Distribution Map (SARCA 2014)

Essex's Shale and sandstone rock Pygmy outcrops with low vegetation Gecko LC cover in karroid thicket and

grassy fynbos (Bates & (Goggia Branch, 2018). essexi)

Very little is known about the Albany ecology of this seemingly Sandveld rare lizard. Observed on soft Lizard and hard soils and shale in LC mesic environments, where (Nucras it may burrow in at the base taeniolata) of bushes or shelter under rock slabs (Burger & Tolley, 2018).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 32

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Algoa Bay Endemic to the Algoa Bay Legless region of the Eastern Cape, Skink South Africa. LC Fossorial, found in alluvial (Acontias soils in inland valleys (Bauer lineicauda) & Conradie, 2018).

Algoa Dwarf Burrowing Fynbos Biome thicket Skink LC (Bauer, et. al., 2018).

(Scelotes anguineus)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 33

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

3.5.3 Mammals

The Eastern Cape is home to 166 mammal species, 100 of which have a distribution which includes the Project Area (IUCN, 2021; Stuart & Stuart, 2015; Child et al., 2016). Approximately 42 mammal species have been recorded within the project area QDS (3325CB, 3325DA) (FitzPatrick, 2021) (Appendix 4).

Eight threatened species and four near threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Mammal Species of Conservation Concern. Red list Possibility of Name category Habitat occurrence (Possible, Probable, (2016) Unlikely) Inhabit high-altitude grasslands (1,500- Unlikely unless 5,000 m asl) on ridges and hillsides. Mountain Reedbuck purposefully EN Water is an important habitat Redunca fulvorufula stocked within requirement for them (IUCN SSC the project site. Antelope Specialist Group. 2017). Possible in the Occurs in Afromontane forests and Southern Tree Hyrax Sundays Valley EN thickets of the Eastern Cape (Butynski, Dendrohyrax arboreus Thicket 2015). Vegetation Alluvial sands and sandy loams in Southern Cape Afrotemperate forests (especially coastal platform and scarp Duthis's Golden Mole forest patches) in the Fynbos and Moist VU Possible Chlorotalpa duthieae Savanna biomes. Where occurs with A. corriae it prefers deeper forest . Thrives in cultivated areas and gardens. Wide range of coastal forested and wooded habitats, including primary and Possible in the secondary forests, gallery forests, dry Sundays Valley Sensitive Species 5 VU forest patches, coastal scrub and Thicket farmlands, but thrives in more dense Vegetation coastal forest, coastal bush and thicket which provides refuge from predators. Karoo semi-desert with sparse shrub and tree cover. Predominantly ground- Black Footed Cat VU dwellers and during the day use dens Possible Felis nigripes in termite mounds or made by other animals (Sliwa, et al., 2016). Wide habitat tolerance and highly varied diet. Habitats include woodland, Possible Leopard grassland savannah and mountain (observed on VU Panthera pardus habitats but also occur widely in coastal neighbouring scrub, shrubland and semidesert properties) (Swanepoel, et al. 2016). Shrubland and Grassland. Often associated with calcrete soils within grasslands. They are never found on White-tailed Rat soft, sandy substrate, rocks, wetlands VU Possible Mystromys albicaudatus or river banks. In the Maclear district of the Eastern Cape Province, it was found in habitats with crests and ridges and trapped on bare patches with

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 34

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

sparse vegetation. (Avenant, et. al., 2019) Wide variety of habitats, including African Marsh Rat VU forest and savanna habitats, Possible Dasymys incomtus swampland and grasslands. Rocky hills of mountain fynbos. Predominantly browsers, often feeding Grey Rhebok on ground-hugging forbs, and largely NT Unlikely Pelea capreolus water independent. Western Cape, they are often observed on agricultural lands (Taylor, et al., 2016) Found in open woodland savanna with a maximum rainfall up to about 700 mm and favours rocky, mountainous areas with bush cover in the bushveld. It shows an ability to survive close to urban areas. Is independent of drinking Brown Hyena water but requires some type of cover NT Unlikely Parahyaena brunnea in which to lie up during the day. Populations of Brown Hyaenas in non- protected areas comprise a significant proportion of the global population, suggesting that such areas are likely to be important for their sustained conservation. African Clawless Otters are predominantly aquatic and seldom Possible along Cape Clawless Otter found far from water. They are also NT the River Aonyx capensis capensis found in many seasonal or episodic System. rivers in the Karoo (South Africa). (Okes, et al., 2016).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 35

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

4 SITE SENSITIVITY

4.1 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS

The ECBCP (2019) replaces the ECBCP (2007) in its entirety and provides a map of important biodiversity areas, outside of the Protected Areas network, which must be used to inform land use and resource-use planning and decision making. The objectives of the ECBCP (2019) are to:

1) Identify the minimum spatial requirements needed to maintain a living landscape that continues to support all aspects of biodiversity and retain/maintain essential ecological infrastructure. This is achieved through the selection of areas, based on achieving targets, which represent important biodiversity pattern AND ecological processes; 2) Serve as the primary source of biodiversity information for land use planning and decision-making; and 3) Inform conservation and restoration action in important biodiversity areas.

The aim of the ECBCP (2019) was to map biodiversity Ancillary areas through a systematic conservation planning process. The main outputs of the ECBCP include Protected Areas (PA), Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA), Ecological Support Areas (ESA), Other Natural Areas (ONA) and No Natural Habitat Remaining (NNR) for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The ECBCP (2019), covers the NMBM in the Aquatic CBA layer but does not include the NMBM in the Terrestrial layer because the current NMBM Bioregional Plan (2009/14) involved a fine scale biodiversity assessment, detailed expert input and stakeholder engagement, and is legally enforced and implemented by the responsible agencies (ECBCP, 2019).

The NMBM Bioregional Plan (2009/14) assessed the extent of the loss of natural features (including vegetation types, ecological processes and SCC) within the NMBM due to various land uses. This assessment also included an assessment of the habitat integrity of riverine systems within the NMBM. Based on the remaining natural features, options for the conservation of a representative proportion of all biodiversity within the NMBM was determined, including CBAs and Critical Ecosystem Support Areas (CESA) which are the minimum areas required to meet conservation objectives in the NMBM. This Bioregional Plan assists with land use planning and decision making within the NMBM, with the purpose of facilitating the long-term persistence of a representative proportion of all biodiversity patterns, ecological processes and SCC within the municipality.

According to both the NMBM Biodiversity Plan (2009) spatial dataset and the ECBCP (2019), the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure does not occur within a terrestrial CBA or ESA (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). According to the ECBCP (2019), the BESS, Thermal, O&M Building, approved substation, the majority of the approved road, as well as a small portion of the area allocated for the Buffer yard falls within an ESA 1. The remaining infrastructure does not occur within an aquatic CBA or ESA (Figure 4.3).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 36

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4.1: NMBM (2009/2014) Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area.

Figure 4.2: ECBCP (2019) CBAs located within the project area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 37

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4.3: ECBCP (2019) Aquatic CBAs within the Project Area.

The Addo Biodiversity Sector Plan (BSP, 2012) serves as a critical tool for land use planning, environmental assessments, land-use authorisations and natural resource management, ultimately guiding sustainable development within the Blue Crane Route, Ikwezi, Sundays River Valley and Ndlambe Local Municipalities (LM). These four municipalities harbour 44.7% of South Africa’s Albany Thicket Biome and are therefore very important in terms of biodiversity. Furthermore, these LM’s occur within the southwestern Albany-Pondoland- Maputoland Hotspot, as well as South Africa’s fastest expanding National Protected Area – the Addo Elephant National Park. The Addo BSP therefore assists with mapping critical biodiversity areas, ensuring that the information contained therein is utilized and considered by local municipalities, thereby informing land-use planning and decision making.

According to the Addo BSP, approximately 0.6 ha of the proposed Buffer Yard falls within an Ecological Support Area (ESA) (Figure 4.4). While CBAs are critical for achieving biodiversity targets for species, ecosystems or ecological processes and infrastructure, ESAs are important in that they support the functioning of CBAs and are often vital for the delivery of ecosystem services. The remainder of the proposed Construction Compound, Buffer Yard and approved road falls within Other Natural Area (Figure 4.4).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 38

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4.4: Addo BSP (2012) CBAs within the project area.

Table 4.1: Biodiversity Priority areas affected by the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure. Category Sensitivity Features Desired Management Recommendation Objective ECBCP (2019) Aquatic CBAs ESAs are not Maintain ecological function It is recommended essential for meeting within the localised and that existing roads biodiversity targets, broader are used where but are essential in landscape. A functional feasible. The terms of: state in this context means development that the area footprint for the must be maintained in a proposed semi-natural state such that Umoyilanga ecological function and Ancillary ecosystem services are Infrastructure must maintained. be limited to that which is strictly ESA 1 For areas classified as necessary. ESA1, the following Mitigation measures objectives apply: as specified in this • These areas are not report must be required to meet implemented and biodiversity targets, but adhered to in areas they still perform classified as aquatic essential roles in terms ESA 1. of connectivity, ecosystem service delivery and climate change resilience.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 39

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

• Terrestrial • These systems may landscape: vary in condition and Ensuring maintaining function is connectivity the main objective, between CBAs, therefore: strengthening o Ecosystems still in climate change natural, near resilience, and natural state proper function of o should be ecosystem maintained. infrastructure for o Ecosystems that delivery of are moderately ecosystem disturbed/degraded services. From a should be restored. terrestrial perspective, ESAs may include riparian areas, coastal corridors, ridges, etc. • Aquatic landscape: ESAs extend into catchments that are essential for the maintenance of CBA rivers and wetlands. Addo BSP (2012) CBAs Maintain ecological It is recommended processes that existing roads are used where feasible. The development ESAs are supporting footprint for the zones or proposed areas which must be Umoyilanga safeguarded as they Ancillary are needed to prevent Infrastructure must ESA degradation of Critical be limited to that Biodiversity Areas which is strictly and formal Protected necessary. Areas. Mitigation measures as specified in this report must be implemented and adhered to in areas classified as aquatic ESA 1.

4.2 ECOSYSTEM THREAT STATUS

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, (Act No. 10 OF 2004) (NEM:BA) provides a National List of Ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection – GN 1002 of 2011. According to the NEMBA List of threatened ecosystems, the project does not occur within or near to a threatened ecosystem. These findings are supported by the NBA (2018) Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment (Skowno et al., 2019) which confirmed

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 40

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

that the ecosystems within and surrounding the project area are classified as Least Concern (Figure 4.5). The nearest threatened ecosystem identified by the NBA (2018) and NEM:BA (2011) is Albany Alluvial Vegetation (EN) which is located approximately 3.5 km south of the project area and 6.2 km northeast of the project area.

Figure 4.5: Threatened Ecosystem Map of the Project Area.

4.3 PROTECTED AREAS

The National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES, 2008) was developed to “achieve cost-effective protected area expansion for ecological sustainability and increased resilience to climate change.” The NPAES originated as Government recognised the importance of protected areas in maintaining biodiversity and critical ecological process. The NPAES sets targets for expanding South Africa’s protected area network, placing emphasis on those ecosystems that are least protected.

The site is not located within an NPAES Focus Area, Formal or Informal Protected Area (Figure 4.6). However, the Grassridge Private Nature Reserve and the Tregathlyn Private Nature Reserve are located approximately 3.4 km south and 4.5 km southeast from the project area, respectively. The Uitenhage Nature Reserve is located approximately 11.5 km southwest of the project area while the Addo-Baviaans NPAES Focus Area occurs within 3.6 km of the project area. The site is not located within a protected area as identified by the South African Protect Areas Database (SAPAD, 2019/2020). The Grassridge Private Nature Reserve located approximately 3.4 km south of the project area has been deproclaimed (Figure 4.6).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 41

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4.6: NPAES Focus Areas and Protected Areas surrounding the Project Area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 42

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

4.4 SITE SENSITIVITY

The Species Environmental Assessment guideline (SANBI, 2020) was applied to assess the Site Ecological Importance (SEI) of the project area. The habitats and the SCC in the project area were assessed based on their conservation importance, functional integrity and receptor resilience (Table 4.2). The combination of these resulted in a rating of SEI and interpretation of mitigation requirements based on the ratings.

The sensitivity map was developed using available spatial planning tools as well as by applying the SEI sensitivity based on the field survey.

Table 4.2: Criteria for establishing Site Ecological importance and description of criteria. Criteria Description

Conservation The importance of a site for supporting biodiversity features of Importance (CI) conservation concern present e.g. populations of IUCN Threatened and Near-Threatened species (CR, EN, VU & NT), Rare, range- restricted species, globally significant populations of congregatory species, and areas of threatened ecosystem types, through predominantly natural processes.

Functional A measure of the ecological condition of the impact receptor as Integrity (FI) determined by its remaining intact and functional area, its connectivity to other natural areas and the degree of current persistent ecological impacts.

Biodiversity Importance (BI) is a function of Conservation Importance (CI) and the Functional Integrity (FI) of a receptor.

Receptor The intrinsic capacity of the receptor to resist major damage from Resilience (RR) disturbance and/or to recover to its original state with limited or no human intervention.

Site Ecological Importance (SEI) is a function of Biodiversity Importance (BI) and Receptor Resilience (RR)

Areas of medium sensitivity include the grassland portion of Coega Bontveld. Areas of thicket and the thicket bush clumps are considered to be of high sensitivity as their receptor resilience is typically low.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 43

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Table 4.3 provides a summary of how each vegetation type was assessed.

Areas of medium sensitivity include the grassland portion of Coega Bontveld. Areas of thicket and the thicket bush clumps are considered to be of high sensitivity as their receptor resilience is typically low.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 44

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Table 4.3: Evaluation of Site Ecological Importance (SEI) of habitat and SCC. Conservation BI Habitat / Functional Integrity Importance Receptor Resilience SEI Species (FI) (CI)

Low High Low

Seedling recruitment is limited by rainfall events, the availability of establishment sites and competition from established plants (Vetter, 2009). Annual species typically recover more quickly from a disturbance than perennial species as they put more Good habitat energy into reproduction from seed than perennial species do. No confirmed or connectivity with Thicket communities have a very low recruitment rate because highly likely potentially functional Sundays seed germination requires long periods of high soil moisture populations of ecological corridors Medium HIGH Thicket which is rare in semi-arid environments of the thicket biome SCC or range and a regularly used (Wilman et. al. 2014). Wilman et. al (2014) state that “restoration restricted road network of woody canopy species, either using seeds or seedlings, is species. between habitat fruitless”. The recovery of thicket is therefore expected to be slow types. and without intervention is unlikely to recover fully after a relatively long period (>15 years required to restore less than 50% of the original species composition). Receptor resilience for this vegetation type is therefore low.

Low High Low

Grassridge Good habitat Bontveld No confirmed or connectivity with As mentioned above, seedling recruitment is limited by rainfall events, the availability of establishment sites and competition (Thicket highly likely potentially functional from established plants (Vetter, 2009). Annual species typically Bush Medium High populations of ecological corridors recover more quickly from a disturbance than perennial species clumps) SCC or range and a regularly used as they put more energy into reproduction from seed than restricted road network perennial species do. For reasons discussed above, thicket species. between habitat bushclumps are likely to be slower at regenerating and therefore types. the receptor resilience for this species is low.

High High High High

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 45

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Conservation BI Habitat / Functional Integrity Importance Receptor Resilience SEI Species (FI) (CI)

Confirmed Good habitat occurrence of connectivity with Seedling recruitment for annuals and grasses is typically higher Grassridge Rhombophyllum potentially functional than for perennials as annual species put more energy into Bontveld rhomboideum ecological corridors reproduction from seed than perennial species do. The grassland Medium (Grassland) with an EOO of and a regularly used portion of the Bontveld if therefore likely to recover more quickly 102km2 road network than the thicket portion and has therefore been given a receptor (Raimondo and between habitat resilience of high. Dold, 2008). types.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 46

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4.7: Sensitivity map showing areas of high and moderate sensitivity.

* Please note: Due to time constraints, only thicket bush clumps within and directly surrounding the development footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure have been mapped and included in Figure 4.7 above.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 47

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

The study that has been undertaken provides the necessary information in order to assess the impacts of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure on the ecology of the area at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. The impacts identified and described in Section 5.1 below have been assessed in terms of the criteria described in Appendix 5 of this report.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 48

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 5.1: Assessment of impacts associated with the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

IMPACT 1: IMPACTS ON THE TERRESTRIAL HABITAT OF STRATEGIC WATER SOURCE AREAS Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Option) During the construction phase, the clearance of vegetation and associated construction activities will directly impact the terrestrial habitat of Strategic Water Source Areas resulting in increased run-off and possible erosion and loss of topsoil. This in turn could impact on the water quality entering the nearby drainage lines (non- perennial rivers). However, if mitigation measures are implemented this impact will be of low significance.

Cumulative Impact Portions of the Strategic Water Source Area have already been impacted by other WEF and powerline developments in the area. However, the footprint of the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure is relatively small compared to the existing infrastructure within the broader area. The additional impact of the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure on the SWSA will therefore have a low cumulative impact.

No-Go Alternative The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is located within the approved site for the Umoyilanga WEF which will impact the SWSA irrespective of whether the Ancillary Infrastructure is constructed or not. The current or “no-go” impacts on the SWSA are therefore classified as low. Mitigation Measures: → An Erosion Management Plan / Method Statement should be compiled and implemented during the Construction Phase. → Vegetation clearance must be kept to a minimum and retained where possible to avoid soil erosion. → Lay down areas must not be located within any watercourses or drainage lines. → Disturbed areas must be rehabilitated as soon as possible after construction. → The site should be monitored regularly for signs of erosion. Remedial action must be taken at the first signs of erosion. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Long- Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Moderate May Occur MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable LOW (-) Term Area be partially lost

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 49

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their Long- Study- development and not over other developments Cumulative Cumulative Slight May Occur LOW (-) N/A Term Area or farming activities in the area.

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 2: LOSS OF GRASSRIDGE BONTVELD Cause and Comment Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The clearing of land for the construction of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will result in the permanent loss of approximately 3.5 ha of Grassridge Bontveld. The loss of habitat is difficult to mitigate and the overall significance will therefore be moderate even after mitigation measures are applied.

Cumulative Impact Portions of this vegetation type have already been lost due to the construction of the Grassridge WEF, the PPC mining activities, the existing Eskom Overhead Line (OHL), and powerlines adjacent to the site as well as from grazing of livestock on neighbouring farms. However, the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is relatively small compared to the adjacent project infrastructure and the approved Umoyilanga WEF. The additional (cumulative) loss of vegetation as a consequence of the construction of the Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is therefore classified as low negative.

No-Go Alternative If the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is not approved, the current land use impacts such as grazing and the infestation of alien species will continue. The No-go Alternative is therefore classified as low negative. Mitigation Measures: → Construction vehicles and machinery must not encroach on identified ‘no-go’ areas or areas outside of the development footprint. → Topsoil (20 cm, where possible) must be collected and stored in an area of low sensitivity and used to rehabilitate impacted areas that are no longer required during the operational phase (e.g. laydown areas). → The exclusion zone in the centre of the Buffer Yard has been created to protect sensitive species. This area must be demarcated as a no go area and the ECO must ensure that no activities encroach into this space. It is recommended that a 10m buffer be placed around the exclusion zone. → Only indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation. → Employees must be prohibited from making open fires during the construction phase. → The Alien Invasive Management Plan compiled for the Umoyilanga WEF must be implemented.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 50

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

→ An in-situ search and rescue plan must be developed and implemented for succulents and geophytes that will be impacted by the construction of the project site.

Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Cumulativ Study- Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. N/A e Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 3: LOSS OF SUNDAYS VALLEY THICKET Cause and Comment Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The clearing of land for the construction of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will result in the direct loss of approximately to 2.1 ha of Sundays Valley Thicket. Given the small footprint of the Ancillary Infrastructure which has been placed next to an authorised substation and therefore an area that will be disturbed, it is unlikely that the loss of vegetation in this area will impact on the extent and long-term conservation of this vegetation type, which is classified as Least Threatened.

The overall significance of the project activities at this site, provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, are classified as moderate negative.

Cumulative Impact Portions of this vegetation type have already been lost due to the construction of the Grassridge WEF, the PPC mining activities, and powerlines adjacent to the site as well as from grazing of livestock on neighbouring farms. However, the footprint of the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure is relatively small compared to the adjacent project infrastructure and the approved Umoyilanga WEF. The additional (cumulative) loss of vegetation as a consequence of the construction of the Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is therefore classified as low negative.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 51

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

No-Go Alternative If the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is not approved, the current land use impacts such as grazing and the infestation of alien species will continue. The No-go Alternative is therefore classified as low negative. Mitigation Measures: → Refer to mitigation measures listed under the impact above for Grassridge Bontveld.

Significance Assessment:

Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation

Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost

It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- or farming activities in the area. Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) N/A Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above.

Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 4: LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

Cause and Comment Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 52

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

The permanent loss of plant species of conservation such as Rhombophyllum rhomboideum (EN), Euryops ericifolius (EN), amongst others (see Section 3.4.4), may occur. Some of these are restricted range species with small Areas of Extent. The severity of the impact will be of high significance if a population of one or more of these species is affected. However, if populations of these species are avoided by the careful placement of infrastructure, or translocated where the avoidance of these individuals is not possible, the impact can be reduced to moderate significance.

Cumulative Impact SCC have likely already been lost as a result of the existing developments in the area. As such, the loss of SCC associated with the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will likely contribute to the cumulative loss of SCC within the region. However, if the mitigation measures as described in this report are implemented and adhered to, this impact can be reduced to moderate negative.

No-Go Alternative The No-go alternative will not require the clearance of vegetation and will therefore not result in the loss of plant SCC. Mitigation Measures: → A botanical micro-siting of the development footprint, by an experienced botanist with knowledge of the SCC that have been identified as possibly occurring within the site, must be undertaken. If populations of endangered SCC are found, infrastructure should be shifted to avoid these. Where this is not possible, SCC must be translocated to the nearest available habitat on the same property. → If the translocation of SCC is required, a permit must be obtained from the relevant issuing authority. Significance Assessment:

Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation

Resource Study- Preferred Direct Permanent High Definite HIGH (-) Reversible could be Achievable MODERATE (-) Area partially lost

Resource Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight Possible HIGH (-) Reversible could be Achievable MODERATE (-) Area partially lost

No-Go N/A NEGLIGIBLE N/A N/A

IMPACT 5: IMPACT ON FAUNAL SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

Cause and Comment

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 53

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Direct Impact Both Layout Alternatives Faunal SCC are assessed in section 3.5 above. The disturbance due to construction and the removal of potential habitat could have a severe negative impact on SCC if they inhabit the area. Species-specific mitigations have therefore been proposed. • Sensitive Species 18 (EN) and White-tailed Rat (Mystromys albicaudatus) (VU) are very likely to occur on site on the crests and ridges in the Bontveld vegetation (calcareous deposits) • Sensitive Species 5 (VU) and Southern Tree Hyrax (Dendrohyrax arboreus) (VU) may utilise the bush clumps. • Black Footed Cat (Felis nigripes) may occur onsite. • Other mammal SCC will move away from the areas during construction.

Cumulative Impact The addition of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will exacerbate the impact on faunal SCC caused by existing developments and activities (including the Grassridge WEF, farming, mining, amongst others).

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative there will be no clearance of habitat within the project corridor therefore there will be no loss of faunal SCC. The no-go alternative is therefore negligible. Mitigation Measures: → 300-500m buffers must be applied to rocky outcrops (Sensitive Species 18) (SANBI, 2020). → Avoid placing infrastructure in bush clumps (Species 5, Dendrohyrax arboreus). → Micro-siting to be done immediately prior to construction and must include the identification of rocky outcrops and animal dens. → Faunal Search and Rescue to be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance. → Avoid any dens (potentially used by Felis nigripes). – suggest a minimum of 300m buffer around dens and must be demarcated and declared a No-Go area. Note culverts may be used as dens. → ECO to be trained in snake removal techniques → ECO to walk ahead of clearing construction machinery and move slow moving species e.g. tortoises and cryptic species out of harm’s way and into suitable neighbouring habitat. → Any faunal species that may die as a result of construction must be recorded (photographed, GPS coordinates) and if somewhat intact, preserved and donated to SANBI. → Any faunal species observed onsite must be recorded (photographed, GPS coordinates) and loaded onto iNaturalist. → Staff and contractors are not permitted to capture, collect or eat any faunal species onsite. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Both Layout Study- Resource will be Direct Permanent High Definite HIGH (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Alternatives Area partly lost Study- Resource will be Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur HIGH (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area partly lost

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 54

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

No-Go N/A NEGLIGIBLE N/A

IMPACT 6: DISRUPTION OF ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION AND PROCESS Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) Fragmentation is one of the most important impacts on vegetation as it creates breaks in previously continuous vegetation, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and diversity. It also impacts on fauna as it separates habitats and necessitates fauna having to move across exposed areas like roads to get to another section of their habitat or territory. This impact occurs when more and more areas are cleared, resulting in the isolation of functional ecosystems, which results in reduced biodiversity and reduced movement due to the absence of ecological corridors.

Cumulative Impact Disruption of ecosystem function and process due to habitat fragmentation has already occurred within the broader area due to roads, mining, the construction of the Grassridge WEF, game farming, amongst other land uses. Due to the small footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure and the extent of remaining intact habitat surrounding the development footprint, the cumulative impact associated with the additive effect of the Ancillary infrastructure is therefore classified as low.

No-Go Alternative Under the no go alternative, habitat fragmentation has already occurred.

Mitigation Measures: → Rehabilitate laydown areas. → Use existing access roads and servitudes and upgrade these where necessary Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) applicant only has jurisdiction over their LOW (-) Area development and not over other developments or farming activities in the area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 55

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Resource Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) Reversible could be Achievable LOW (-) Term partially lost

IMPACT 7: ESTABLISHMENT OF ALIEN PLANT SPECIES Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The removal of existing natural vegetation creates ‘open’ habitats which favours the establishment of undesirable vegetation in areas that are typically very difficult to eradicate and could pose a threat to surrounding ecosystems. Coupled with the low regeneration rate of thicket and bush clumps, alien invasive species such as Opuntia ficus-indica, Opuntia aurantiaca and Acacia mearnsii can become quickly established.

Cumulative Impact Scattered alien invasive species have already established in the surrounding area. Therefore, should the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure lead to the further establishment of alien invasive species in the project area, the invasion by alien species could be exacerbated. Considering the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure, the cumulative impact associated therewith has been classified as low.

No-Go Alternative There is already evidence of Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia aurantiaca within the site. Under the no-go alternative these species are likely to continue multiplying if left unchecked. The current no-go alternative is thus low.

Mitigation Measures: → The site must be checked regularly for the presence of alien invasive species. → The alien Invasive Management Plan compiled for the Umoyilanga WEF must be implemented and adhered to. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 56

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. LOW (-) Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE TO FAUNAL SPECIES AND POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN ABUNDANCE AND MORTALITY OF FAUNAL SPECIES

Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The construction of the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure will cause the majority of highly mobile faunal species to move away from the site of construction. Those that remain in the project footprint could come into contact with staff and vehicles/machinery. If night lights are used these may attract species such as bats while waste may attract scavengers. Cumulative Impact Existing developments within the project area, such as mining, the construction of the Grassrdige WEF, farming, amongst others, have already caused a disturbance to fauna within the project area. As such, the construction of the Ancillary Infrastructure will contribute to the disturbance to faunal species within the project area. However, given the small development footprint of the Ancillary Infrastructure and the extent of surrounding intact vegetation, the cumulative impact associated with the additive effect of the Ancillary infrastructure is therefore low.

No-Go Alternative Under the no go alternative, faunal species will continue to use the area as before and the impact is therefore negligible. Mitigation Measures: → A faunal Search and Rescue must be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance. → An ECO must be appointed to walk ahead of clearing construction machinery and move slow moving species (e.g. tortoises) out of harm’s way and into suitable neighbouring habitat. → Any faunal species that may die as a result of construction must be recorded (photographed, GPS Coordinates) and if somewhat intact, preserved and donated to SANBI. → Any faunal species observed onsite must be recorded (photographed, GPS Coordinates) and loaded onto iNaturalist.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 57

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

→ Staff and contractors are not permitted to capture, collect or eat any faunal species onsite. → Waste must be stored in a designated area and sealed so scavengers cannot get to it. → Preferably no night lighting should be used but if used these must be down lighting and low wattage. Significance Assessment:

Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation

Resource Study- Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite HIGH (-) Reversible could be Achievable MODERATE (-) Area partially lost

It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight Possible LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. LOW (-) Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above.

No-Go N/A NEGLIGIBLE N/A

IMPACT 9: REDUCED FAUNAL HABITAT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE Cause and Comment Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The project will result in the permanent habitat loss of 3.5 ha of Grassridge Bontveld, known habitats of Sensitive Species 18 and Mystromys albicaudatus.

Cumulative Impact Portions of faunal habitat have already been lost due to activities associated with other WEF and powerline infrastructure adjacent to the site as well as from grazing of livestock on neighbouring farms. The additive affect associated with the proposed Ancillary Infrastructure will therefore be a low cumulative impact.

No-Go Alternative

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 58

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Under the no go alternative, habitat fragmentation is occurring at a very slow rate due to overgrazing and the infestation of alien species. Under the no-go alternative the impact is low negative. Mitigation Measures: → A faunal Search and Rescue must be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance. → Where feasible, the development footprint must avoid rocky outcrops and bush clumps. → An ECO must be appointed to walk ahead of clearing construction machinery and move slow moving species (e.g. tortoises) out of harm’s way and into suitable neighbouring habitat. → Any faunal species that may die as a result of construction must be recorded (photographed, GPS Coordinates) and if somewhat intact, preserved and donated to SANBI. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite HIGH (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. LOW (-) Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 10: REDUCED FAUNAL HABITAT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE Cause and Comment Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The project will result in the permanent habitat loss 2.1 ha of Sundays Valley Thicket.

Cumulative Impact Portions of faunal habitat have already been lost due to activities associated with other WEF and powerline infrastructure adjacent to the site as well as from grazing of livestock on neighbouring farms. The additive affect associated with the proposed Ancillary infrastructure will therefore be a low cumulative impact.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 59

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

No-Go Alternative Under the no go alternative, habitat fragmentation is occurring at a very slow rate due to overgrazing and the infestation of alien species. Under the no-go alternative the impact is low negative.

Mitigation Measures: → A faunal Search and Rescue must be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance. → An ECO must be appointed to walk ahead of clearing construction machinery and move slow moving species (e.g. tortoises) out of harm’s way and into suitable neighbouring habitat. → Any faunal species that may die as a result of construction must be recorded (photographed, GPS Coordinates) and if somewhat intact, preserved and donated to SANBI.

Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Preferred Direct Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible Achievable MODERATE (-) Area be partially lost It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. LOW (-) Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

OPERATIONAL PHASE

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 60

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

IMPACT 11: INFESTATION OF ALIEN PLANT SPECIES Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) If laydown areas and roads are not rehabilitated, these disturbed areas can become places for alien invasive species to become established and if left unmitigated these species can spread and establish themselves in intact vegetation resulting in the displacement of indigenous species and possible local extinctions of SCC.

Cumulative Impact Scattered alien invasive species have already established in the surrounding area. Therefore, should the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure lead to the further establishment of alien invasive species in the project area, the invasion of alien species could be exacerbated. Considering the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure, the cumulative impact associated therewith has been classified as low.

No-Go Alternative There is already evidence of Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia aurantiaca within the site. Under the no-go alternative these species are likely to continue multiplying if left unchecked. The current no-go alternative is thus low.

Mitigation Measures: → The site must be checked regularly for the presence of alien invasive species. When alien invasive species are found, immediate action must be taken to remove them. → An alien invasive management plan must be incorporated into the EMPr. → The ECO must create a list with accompanying photographs of possible alien invasive species that could occur on site prior to construction. This photo guide must be used to determine if any alien invasive species are present. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Easily Preferred Direct Permanent Severe Definite HIGH (-) Reversible LOW (-) Area be partially lost Achievable It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the Study- applicant only has jurisdiction over their Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) N/A Area development and not over other developments or farming activities in the area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 61

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

Although the Buffer Yard will be temporary and decommissioned after the construction phase of the proposed Umoyilanga WEF, it is unlikely that the remainder of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will be decommissioned in the near future. Should the infrastructure be decommissioned, the impacts associated with the decommissioning phase could be similar to those for the construction phase and most of the mitigation measures stipulated for the construction phase will, therefore, be relevant. The decommissioning phase EMPr must include additional decommissioning phase recommendations and mitigation measures relating to the ecological environment based on case studies of the decommissioning of the relevant infrastructure components and it must consider the relevant legislation, policies and guidelines at the time of decommissioning.

IMPACT 12: INFESTATION OF ALIEN PLANT SPECIES Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) Disruption of habitats often results in the infestation of alien species unless these are controlled. Should this, happen the impact will be of moderate significance as the alien species could result in the displacement of indigenous species and possible local extinctions of SCC.

Cumulative Impact Scattered alien invasive species have already established in the surrounding area. Therefore, should the decommissioning of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure lead to the further establishment of alien invasive species in the project area, the invasion of alien species could be exacerbated. Considering the footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure, the cumulative impact associated therewith has been classified as low.

No-Go Alternative There is already evidence of Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia aurantiaca within the site. Under the no-go alternative these species are likely to continue multiplying if left unchecked. The current no-go alternative is thus low.

Mitigation Measures:

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 62

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

→ The site must be checked regularly for the presence of alien invasive species. When alien invasive species are found, immediate action must be taken to remove them. → The Alien Invasive Management Plan compiled for the Umoyilanga WEF must be implemented and adhered to. → The ECO must create a list with accompanying photographs of possible alien invasive species that could occur on site prior to construction. This photo guide must be used to determine if any alien invasive species are present. → The project site must be rehabilitated in accordance with the approved EMPr and a Rehabilitation Plan should be compiled and implemented. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Easily Preferred Direct Permanent Severe Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible LOW (-) Area be partially lost Achievable It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. N/A Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 13: LOSS OF INDIGENOUS VEGETATION Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative) The decommissioning of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will require laydown areas and will disrupt vegetation that has re-established around the areas that were disturbed during the construction phase. The loss of vegetation will be similar to the construction phase impacts.

Cumulative Impact Portions of indigenous vegetation have already been lost due to the construction of the Grassridge WEF, the PPP mining activities, and powerlines adjacent to the site as well as from grazing of livestock on neighbouring farms. However, the additional (cumulative) loss of vegetation as a consequence of the decommissioning of the Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is anticipated to be minimal and therefore classified as low negative.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 63

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

No-Go Alternative If the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure is not approved/decommissioned, the current land use impacts such as grazing and the infestation of alien species will continue. The No-go Alternative is therefore classified as low negative. Mitigation Measures: → Construction vehicles and machinery must not encroach into identified ‘no-go’ areas or areas outside the project footprint. → Only indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation. → Lay down areas must not be located within any watercourses or drainage lines. → The laydown areas used for construction should be used for the decommissioning phase. → Employees must be prohibited from making open fires during the decommissioning phase. → An alien invasive management plan for the site must be created. → An in-situ search and rescue plan must be developed and implemented for succulents and geophytes that will be impacted by the decommissioning of the project site. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Easily Preferred Direct Permanent Severe Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible LOW (-) Area be partially lost Achievable It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. N/A Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

IMPACT 14: IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING NOISE ON SURROUNDING FAUNAL POPULATIONS Cause and Comment

Direct Impact (Preferred Alternative)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 64

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Faunal species will be disturbed during decommissioning due to noise and vibrations of heavy plant and machinery. Faunal Species that vacate the immediate area may return following completion of the decommissioning phase or new individuals or species may inhabit the area. Heavy plant or machinery may cause unintentional mortalities of faunal species.

Cumulative Impact The adjacent WEF and powerlines have already caused an increase in ambient noise in the area. The additional noise generated from the decommissioning of the Ancillary Infrastructure will be a short-term impact and will be of low significance.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, some faunal populations at the study site will still be impacted by noise from activities associated with the adjacent wind energy facilities and powerlines. As such, the No-Go Alternative has been rated as low significance.

Mitigation Measures: → Vehicles and machinery must meet best practice standards. → Staff and contractors’ vehicles must comply with speed limits of 30km/hr → Project must start and be completed within the minimum timeframe. i.e. may not be started and left incomplete. Significance Assessment: Significance Significance Irreplaceable Mitigation Impact Nature Duration Extent Severity Likelihood Before Reversibility After Loss Potential Mitigation Mitigation Study- Resource will Easily Preferred Direct Permanent Severe Definite MODERATE (-) Reversible LOW (-) Area be partially lost Achievable It is difficult to implement mitigation measures specific to the cumulative impacts as the applicant only has jurisdiction over their development and not over other developments Study- Cumulative Cumulative Long-Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) or farming activities in the area. N/A Area

However, it is imperative that the applicant implement the mitigation measures listed above. Short- No-Go Direct Localised Moderate Probable LOW (-) N/A Term

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 65

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure will result in the loss of approximately 2.1 ha of Sundays Valley Thicket and 3.5 ha of Grassridge Bontveld.

Fourteen (14) impacts were identified for the proposed development; five (5) impacts were classified as high and nine (9) impacts were classified as moderate prior to mitigation. If mitigation measures are implemented, these impacts will be reduced to nine (9) moderate impacts and five (5) low impacts (Figure 6.1).

Before Mitigation After Mitigation

Low Low Moderate Moderate High High Very High Very High

Figure 6.1: Pie charts summarising the number of high, moderate and low impacts before and after mitigation.

6.2 CONDITIONS OF EMPR, EA AND MONITORING

All management / mitigation measures identified for the impacts associated with the proposed development must be incorporated into the EMPr and implemented during the relevant phases of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure (please refer to Section 5.1 above for the recommended mitigation measures associated with each impact identified). Specific mitigation measures and recommendations that should be incorporated into the EA (if granted) include:

➢ All necessary permitting and authorisations must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction activities. ➢ A suitably qualified ECO must be appointed prior to the commencement of the construction phase.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 66

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

➢ The site must be ground truthed by an experienced botanist, prior to vegetation clearance, to ensure that no populations of restricted range species will be lost. If it is found that there are populations that will be affected, then the infrastructure must be shifted to avoid these areas. ➢ A comprehensive Search and Rescue for fauna and flora should be conducted prior to vegetation clearance. ➢ All SCC which are known to survive translocation must be relocated to nearest appropriate habitat. ➢ An Erosion Management Plan must be developed prior to the commencement of construction activities in order to mitigate the unnecessary loss of topsoil and runoff. ➢ The Alien Invasive Vegetation Management compiled for the Umoyilanga WEF must be implemented and adhered to during all phases of the proposed development. ➢ A comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan should be compiled and implemented. Only indigenous plant species typical of the local vegetation should be used for rehabilitation purposes.

6.3 ECOLOGICAL STATEMENT AND OPINION OF THE SPECIALIST

The proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary Infrastructure Development is deemed environmentally acceptable, provided the mitigation measures and recommendations specified in this report are implemented and adhered to. However, a botanical micro-siting investigation of the development footprint must be undertaken, by an experienced botanist with knowledge of the SCC that could occur within the site. This must be undertaken prior to vegetation clearance to identify populations of threatened SCC. If populations of Critically Endangered, or Endangered SCC are found, infrastructure must be shifted to avoid the core areas of these populations. If Vulnerable species will be impacted, infrastructure must be shifted to avoid these populations and where this is not feasible, permits for their removal must be obtained from the relevant competent authority. Species that are known to survive translocation should be translocated to the nearest similar habitat type within the site where they will not be disturbed.

Furthermore, the development footprint of the proposed Umoyilanga Ancillary infrastructure must be demarcated to prevent any encroachment of construction or operational activities into surrounding natural areas. Minor location deviations from the proposed works is deemed acceptable but the footprint may not be made larger.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 67

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

7 REFERENCE LIST

Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 2014. Edited by Michael F. Bates, William R. Branch, Aaron M. Bauer, Marius Burger, Johan Marais, Graham J. Alexander & Marienne S. de Villiers. SANBI, Pretoria.

Avenant, N., Wilson, B., Power, J., Palmer, G. & Child, M.F. 2019. Mystromys albicaudatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T14262A22237378. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 1.RLTS.T14262A22237378.en. Downloaded on 06 April 2021.

Bates, M.F. & Branch, W.R. 2018. Goggia essexi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T169698A115655138. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T169698A115655138.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

Bauer, A.M. & Conradie, W. 2018. Acontias lineicauda. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T44977744A115669310. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T44977744A115669310.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

Bauer, A.M., Conradie, W. & Marais, J. 2018. Scelotes anguineus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T44979007A115670201. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T44979007A115670201.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

Branch, B. 1994. Field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik publishers, Cape town.

Burger, M. & Tolley, K. 2018. Nucras taeniolata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T196995A115665006. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T196995A115665006.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

Butynski, T., Hoeck, H. & de Jong, Y.A. 2015. Dendrohyrax arboreus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T6409A21282806. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 2.RLTS.T6409A21282806.en. Downloaded on 01 April 2021.

Donaldson, J.S. 2009. Encephalartos horridus (Jacq.) Lehm. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/03/23.

CES (2014). Dassiesridge WEF Ecological Survey and Impact Assessment, CES, Grahamstown.

Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. 2016. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Climate-data.org: Uitenage Climate (South Africa). Available at: https://en.climate- data.org/africa/south-africa/eastern-cape/uitenhage-53030/ [Accessed September 2020].

ECBCP (2019) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (King Williams Town). Compiled by G. Hawley, P. Desmet and D. Berliner.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 68

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2021). FrogMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=FrogMAP on 2021-03-23.

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2021). MammalMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=MammalMAP on 2021-03-23.

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2021). ReptileMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=ReptileMAP on 2021-03-23.

Foden, W. & Potter, L. 2005. Carissa bispinosa (L.) Desf. ex Brenan. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Foden, W. & Potter, L. 2005. Sideroxylon inerme L. subsp. inerme. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Grobler, A., Vlok, J., Cowling, R, van der Merwe, S., Skowno, A.L., Dayaram, A. 2018. Technical Report: Integration of the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project (STEP) vegetation types into the VEGMAP national vegetation map 2018.

Helme, N.A. & van der Colff, D. 2015. Limonium linifolium (L.f.) Kuntze. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2016. Sclerophrys pardalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T54724A107348953. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T54724A107348953.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

Maree, S., Visser, J., Bennett, N.C. & Jarvis, J. 2017. Georychus capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T9077A110019425. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T9077A110019425.en. Downloaded on 29 October 2020.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 2017. Redunca fulvorufula. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T19391A50193881. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T19391A50193881.en. Downloaded on 01 April 2021.

Johnson, MR., Anhaeusser, CR., Thomas, RJ. 2006. The geology of Southern Africa. The Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg, and the Council for Geosciences, Pretoria.

Maritz, B., Branch, W.R. & Turner, A.A. 2018. Bitis albanica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22473767A115666359. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T22473767A115666359.en. Downloaded on 23 March 2021.

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

Mtshali, H. & von Staden, L. 2018. Aloe africana Mill. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Mtshali, H. & von Staden, L. 2018. Aloe striata Haw. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 69

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Raimondo, D. & Turner, R.C. 2006. Euryops ericifolius (Bél.) B.Nord. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Raimondo, D., van Jaarsveld, E.J. & Vlok, J.H. 2007. Pachypodium bispinosum (L.f.) A.DC. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12

Raimondo, D. & Dold, A.P. 2008. Rhombophyllum rhomboideum (Salm-Dyck) Schwantes. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/03/23.

Raimondo, D. 2008. Hoodia pilifera (L.f.) Plowes subsp. pilifera. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Rodrigues, PMS., Gonçalves, CE., Schaefer, R., de Oliveira Silva, J., Ferreira Júnior, WG, Manoel dos Santos, R., and Neri, AV. 2018. The influence of soil on vegetation structure and plant diversity in different tropical savannic and forest habitats. Journal of Plant Ecology 11, 226-236.

Schutte-Vlok, A.L., Vlok, J.H., Dold, A.P. & Raimondo, D. 2008. Strelitzia juncea Link. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Skowno, AL., Raimando, DC., Poole, CJ., Fizotti, B (eds) (2019). National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical report Volume 1: Terrestrial realm. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Skowno AL, Matlala M, Slingsby J, Kirkwood D, Raimondo DC, von Staden L, Holness SD, Lotter M, Pence G, Daniels F, Driver A, Desmet PG, Dayaram A (2019). Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

SANBI Red List of South African Plants. Available at: http://redlist.sanbi.org/species.php?species=2206-25 [Accessed September 2020].

Snijman, D.A. & Victor, J.E. 2004. Cyrtanthus smithiae Watt ex Harv. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006-2018). The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. and Powrie, L.W. (Editors), Online, http://bgis.sanbi.org/Projects/Detail/186, Version 2018.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2020. Species Environmental Assessment Guideline. Guidelines for the implementation of the Terrestrial Fauna and Terrestrial Flora Species Protocols for environmental impact assessments in South Africa. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Version 1.2020.

Trinder-Smith, T. & Victor, J.E. 2006. Agathosma stenopetala (Steud.) Steud. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 70

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

von Staden, L. 2016. Selago zeyheri Choisy. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

von Staden, L. & Raimondo, D. 2014. Indigofera tomentosa Eckl. & Zeyh. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12.

Williams, V.L., Raimondo, D., Brueton, V.J., Crouch, N.R., Cunningham, A.B., Scott-Shaw, C.R., Lötter, M. & Ngwenya, A.M. 2016. Boophone disticha (L.f.) Herb. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2021/04/12

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 71

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.

Table A.1 Plant species occurring within the project area. SA RED PROTECTED SAMPLE SITE / VEGETATION FAMILY SPECIES IUCN DATA PNCO NEMBA CITES TREES TYPES LIST

Grassridge Bontveld RUTACEAE Acmadenia obtusata - LC - - - - (Grassland Matrix)

ASPARAGACEAE Agave spp. - - - - - Adjacent to project area

- - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush Appendix clumps & Sundays Valley ASPHODELACEAE Aloe africana - LC II Thicket

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush Appendix clumps & Sundays Valley ASPHODELACEAE Aloe ferox II Thicket

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld & ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus striatus - Sundays Valley Thicket

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus suaveolens - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- Grassridge Bontveld & GENTIANACEAE Chironia baccifera LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ASTERACEAE Osteospermum moniliferum - - - Thicket

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Bush Schedule clumps & Sundays Valley APOCYNACEAE Carissa bispinosa 4 - - Thicket

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 72

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon velutina Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Crassula arborescens Thicket

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Crassula mesembryanthemoides - Thicket

CRASSULACEAE Crassula muscosa - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

CRASSULACEAE Crassula ovata - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Crassula pellucida - - - Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Crassula perforata Thicket

Crassula rupestris Thunb. LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

CRASSULACEAE subsp. rupestris -

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ARALIACEAE Cussonia sphaerocephala Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Cynodon dactylon Matrix

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 73

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

- LC Grassridge Bontveld Grassland ASTERACEAE Disparago ericoides - - - - Matrix

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley SALICACEAE Dovyalis caffra - - - Thicket

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland ASTERACEAE Elytropappus rhinocerotis - - - Matrix

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas - - Matrix

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Eragrostis curvula - - - Matrix

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley Ebenaceae Euclea undulata - Thicket

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia ledienii - Appendix I Thicket

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush Euphorbia mauritanica var. clumps & Sundays Valley EUPHORBIACEAE mauritanica - Appendix I Thicket

- EN - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland ASTERACEAE Euryops cf ericifolius - - Matrix

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata - - - Matrix

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland ASTERACEAE Gazania krebsiana - - Matrix

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 74

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley MALVACEAE Grewia robusta Thicket

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia buxifolia - Thicket

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia cf polyacantha - - Thicket

- - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland MALVACEAE Hermania sp. - - Matrix

- LC - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley SAPINDACEAE Hippobromus pauciflorus - - - Thicket

- LC Grassridge Bontveld Grassland RESTIONACEAE Hypodiscus rigidus - - - - Matrix

SCROPHULARIACEA - LC Grassridge Bontveld Grassland E Jamesbrittenia microphylla - - - - Matrix

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CRASSULACEAE Kalanchoe rotundifolia Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland AIZOACEAE Lampranthus cf hollandii Matrix

------Grassridge Bontveld Grassland AIZOACEAE Lampranthus products Matrix

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld & HYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria ensifolia Sundays Valley Thicket

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 75

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

- LC Grassridge Bontveld & HYACINTHACEAE Ledibouria floribunda - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- Grassridge Bontveld Grassland BORAGINACEAE Lobostemon trigonus LC - - - - Matrix

- Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley SOLANACEAE Lycium horridum LC - - - - Thicket

- - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CAPPARACEAE Maerua cafra LC Thicket

- - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Merxmuellera disticha LC Matrix

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POLYGALACEAE Muraltia squarrosa Matrix

OLEACEAE Olea europaea subsp. Africana - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- Appendix Grassridge Bontveld & CACTACEAE Opuntia aurantiaca - - - - II Sundays Valley Thicket

- Appendix Grassridge Bontveld & CACTACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica - - - - II Sundays Valley Thicket

- Grassridge Bontveld Grassland HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum dubium LC - - - - Matrix

- LC - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland THYMELAEACEAE Passerina corymbosa - Matrix

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland THYMELAEACEAE Passerina rigida Matrix

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 76

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

------Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Pentaschistis pallida Matrix

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley PORTULACACEAE Portulacaria afra Thicket

- - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CELASTRACEAE Pterocelastrus tricuspidatus LC - - - Thicket

- Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley CELASTRACEAE Putterlickia pyracantha LC - - - - Thicket

Endang Grassridge Bontveld Grassland AIZOACEAE Rhombophyllum rhomboideum ered EN - - - - Matrix

- Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia longispina LC - - - - Thicket

------Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lucida Thicket

- LC - - - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pyroides Thicket

------Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia rigens Thicket

------Grassridge Bontveld Bush clumps & Sundays Valley ANACARDIACEAE Searsia tumulicola Thicket

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 77

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

- Grassridge Bontveld Bush Sarcostemma viminale subsp. clumps & Sundays Valley APOCYNACEAE thunbergii LC - - - - Thicket

FABACEAE Schotia afra var afra - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

ASTERACEAE Senecio radicans - LC - - - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- - - Grassridge Bontveld Bush Appendix Protected clumps & Sundays Valley SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme LC 2 Tree Thicket

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld & SOLANACEAE Solanum tomentosum - - Sundays Valley Thicket

- LC - - Grassridge Bontveld Grassland POACEAE Themeda triandra - - Matrix

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 78

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES.

Table A2: List of amphibian species likely to occur on site. FrogMAP Red list Scientific Name Common Name iNaturalist Category 3325CB, 3325DA Brevicepitidae Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog Least Concern Brevicepitidae Breviceps pentheri Thicket Rain Frog x x Bufonidae Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad Least Concern x x Bufonidae Sclerophrys pardalis Eastern Leopard Toad Least Concern x x Hyperoliidae Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog Least Concern x x Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog (subsp. Hyperoliidae Least Concern verrucosus verrucosus) x x Hyperoliidae Hyperolius semidiscus Yellowstriped Reed Frog Least Concern Hyperoliidae Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina Least Concern Hyperoliidae Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog Least Concern Phrynobatrachidae Phrynobatrachus natalensis Natal Puddle Frog Least Concern x Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Least Concern x Pyxicephalidae Amietia delalandii Delalande's River Frog Least Concern x x Pyxicephalidae Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog Least Concern x x Pyxicephalidae Amietia poyntoni Poyton's River Frog Least Concern Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco Least Concern x x Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum nanum Bronze Caco Least Concern x x Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog Least Concern Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog Least Concern x x Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna delalandii Delalande's Sand Frog x x Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog Least Concern Pyxicephalidae Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant African Bullfrog x x

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 79

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 3: LIST OF REPTILE SPECIES.

Table A3: List of reptile species likely to occur on site. iNaturalist ReptileMAP Red list Category Scientific Name Common Name 3325CB, (SARCA 2014) Port Elizabeth 3325DA Lizards Agamidae Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion sp. (barbatulum) Beardless Dwarf Chameleon Not Evaluated Confirmed Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion sp. (Groendal) Groendal Dwarf Chameleon Not Evaluated Confirmed Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion ventrale Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Cordylidae Chamaesaura anguina Cape Snake Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Cordylidae Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Cordylidae Karusasaurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Cordylidae Pseudocordylus microlepidotus Cape Crag Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Gekkonidae Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern Confirmed Gekkonidae Goggia essexi Essex's Pygmy Gecko Least Concern Gekkonidae Hemidactylus mabouia Tropical House Gecko Least Concern Confirmed Gekkonidae Lygodactylus capensis Common Dwarf Gecko Least Concern Confirmed Gekkonidae Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Thick-toed Gecko Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Gekkonidae Pachydactylus mariquensis Comman Banded Gecko Least Concern Confirmed Gerrhosauridae Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps Least Concern Lacertidae Nucras lalandii Delalande's Sandveld Lizard Least Concern Lacertidae Nucras livida Karoo Sandveld Lizard Least Concern Lacertidae Nucras taeniolata Albany Sandveld Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lacertidae Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard Least Concern Lacertidae Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Common Sand Lizard Least Concern Confirmed

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 80

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Lacertidae Tropidosaura montana rangeri Ranger's Mountain Lizard Least Concern Confirmed Scincidae Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink Least Concern Confirmed Scincidae Acontias lineicauda Algoa Bay Legless Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Acontias orientalis Eastern Cape Legless Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Scelotes anguineus Algoa Dwarf Burrowing Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Scelotes caffer Cape Dwarf Burrowing Skink Least Concern Confirmed Scincidae Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Trachylepis varia Common Variable Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Scincidae Trachylepis variegata Variegated Skink Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Varanidae Varanus albigularis Rock Monitor Least Concern Confirmed Varanidae Varanus niloticus Water Monitor Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Snakes Colubridae Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake Least Concern Confirmed Colubridae Dasypeltis scabra scabra Rhombic Eggeater Least Concern Confirmed Colubridae Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Colubridae Philothamnus hoplogaster Green Water Snake Least Concern Confirmed Colubridae Philothamnus occidentalis Western Natal Green Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Colubridae Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted Bush Snake Least Concern Confirmed Elapidae Aspidelaps lubricus lubricus Coral Shield Cobra Least Concern Elapidae Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Least Concern Confirmed Elapidae Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater Least Concern Lamprophiidae Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake Least Concern Confirmed Lamprophiidae Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied Snake Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 81

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Lamprophiidae Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake Least Concern Lamprophiidae Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive Ground Snake Least Concern Confirmed Lamprophiidae Lycodonomorphus laevissimus Dusky-bellied Water Snake Least Concern Lamprophiidae Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout Least Concern Confirmed Lamprophiidae Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake Least Concern Confirmed Spotted Grass Snake (Rhombic Lamprophiidae Least Concern Psammophylax rhombeatus Skaapsteker) Confirmed Confirmed Lamprophiidae Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Least Concern Confirmed Leptotyphlopidae Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Typhlopidae Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake Least Concern Confirmed Typhlopidae Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron's Blind Snake Least Concern Critically - Sensitive Species 18 - Endangered Viperidae Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Viperidae Bitis atropos Berg Adder Least Concern Confirmed Viperidae Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Tortoises and Terrapins (Chelonians) Testudinidae Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Testudinidae Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Tortoise Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Testudinidae Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern Confirmed Confirmed Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa galeata South African Marsh Terrapin Not evaluated Confirmed Confirmed

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 82

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF MAMMAL SPECIES.

Table A4: List of mammal species likely to occur on site. Red list category ReptileMAP Family Scientific name Common name (2016) 3325CB, 3325DA Afrosoricida Chrysochloridae Amblysomus hottentotus Hottentot Golden Mole Least Concern x Chrysochloridae Chlorotalpa duthieae Duthis's Golden Mole Vulnerable Artiodactyla Bovidae Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest Least Concern x Bovidae Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok Least Concern x Bovidae Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi Blesbok Least Concern x Bovidae Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer Least Concern x Bovidae Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok Near Threatened x Bovidae Sensitive Species 5 Sensitive Species 5 Vulnerable x Bovidae Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Least Concern x Bovidae Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok Least Concern Bovidae Redunca fulvorufula Mountain Reedbuck Endangered x Bovidae Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker Least Concern x Bovidae Tragelaphus sylvaticus Bushbuck Least Concern x Bovidae Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu Least Concern x Suidae Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog Least Concern x Suidae Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig Least Concern Carnivora Canidae Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal Least Concern x Canidae Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox Least Concern x Canidae Vulpes chama Cape Fox Least Concern x Felidae Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern x Felidae Felis nigripes Black Footed Cat Vulnerable Felidae Felis silvestris Wild Cat Least Concern Felidae Panthera pardus Leopard Vulnerable x Herpestidae Atilax paludinosus Southern Marsh Mongoose Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 83

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Herpestidae Herpertes ichneumon Egyptian Mongoose Least Concern Herpestidae Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose Least Concern x Herpestidae Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose Least Concern x Herpestidae Suricata suricatta Meerkat Least Concern x Hyaenidae Crocuta crocuta Spotted Hyena Near- Threatened Hyaenidae Parahyaena brunnea Brown Hyena Near- Threatened Hyaenidae Proteles cristata Aardwolf Least Concern Mustelidae Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat Least Concern x Mustelidae Mellivora capensis Honey Badger Least Concern x Mustelidae Aonyx capensis capensis Cape Clawless Otter Near- Threatened Mustelidae Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Least Concern Viverridae Genetta genetta Common Genet Least Concern Viverridae Genetta tigrina Cape Genet Least Concern x Chiroptera Miniopteridae Miniopterus natelensis Natal Long-fingered Bat Least Concern Miniopteridae Miniopterus fraterculus Lessor Long-fingered Bat Least Concern Molossidae Tadaria aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat Least Concern Nycteridae Nycteris thebaica Cape Long-eared Bat Least Concern Pteropodidae Epomophorus wahlbergi Wahlberg's Epauletted Fruit Bat Least Concern Pteropodidae Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit Bat Least Concern Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat Least Concern x Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat Least Concern Vespertilionidae Myotis tricolor Temminck's Myotis (Hairy Bat) Least Concern Vespertilionidae Neoromicia capensis Cape Bat Least Concern Vespertilionidae Kerivoula lanosa Lesser Wooly Bat Least Concern Vespertilionidae Neoromicia zuluensis Zulu Pipistrelle Bat Least Concern Eulipotyphla Soricidae Crocidura cynea Reddish-grey Musk Shrew Least Concern Soricidae Crocidura flavescens Greater Musk Shrew Least Concern Soricidae Myosorex varius Forest Shrew Least Concern x Soricidae Suncus infinitesimus Least Dwarf Shrew Least Concern Soricidae Suncus varilla Lesser Drawf Shrew Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 84

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Hyracoidea Procaviidae Procavia capensis Cape Dassie Least Concern Procaviidae Dendrohyrax arboreus Southern Tree Hyrax Endangered x Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare Least Concern Leporidae Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Hare Least Concern Macroscelididae Macroscelididae Elephantulus edwardii Cape Elephant Shrew Least Concern x Macroscelididae Elephantulus rupestris Western Rock Sengi Least Concern Primate Cercopithecidae Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Least Concern x Cercopithecidae Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon Least Concern x Rodentia Bathyergidae Georychus capensis Cape Mole Rat Least Concern Bathyergidae Cryptomys hottentotus AfricanMoleRat Least Concern Gliridae Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse Least Concern Gliridae Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled Dormouse Least Concern Hystricidae Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine Least Concern x Muridae Dasymys incomtus African Marsh Rat Vulnerable Muridae Dendromus melanotis Grey Climbing Mouse Least Concern Muridae Dendromus mesomelas Brants's Climbing Mouse Least Concern Muridae Desmodillus auricularis Cape Short-tailed Gerbil Least Concern x Muridae Grammomys dolichurus Woodland Thicket Rat Least Concern x Muridae Grammomys cometes Mozambique Thicket Rat Least Concern Muridae Gerbillurus paeba Pygmy Hairy-footed Gerbil Least Concern Muridae Mastomys coucha Southern African Mastomys Least Concern x Muridae Mastomys natalensis Natal Mastomys Least Concern x Muridae Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Rat Least Concern x Muridae Mus minutoides Tiny Pygmy Mouse Least Concern Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse Least Concern Muridae Otomys karoensis Robert's Vlei Rat Least Concern Muridae Otomys irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat (Fynbos type) Least Concern x

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 85

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Muridae Otomys unisulcatus Karoo Bush Rat Least Concern x Muridae Rattus rattus Roof Rat Least Concern x Muridae Rhabdomys pumilio Xeric Four-striped Grass Rat Least Concern x Nesomyidae Dendromus mesomelas Brants's Climbing Mouse Least Concern Nesomyidae Saccostomus campestris Southern African Pouched Mouse Least Concern x Nesomyidae Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat Vulnerable Pedetidae Pedetes capensis South African Spring Hare Least Concern x Thryonomys Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat Least Concern Tubulidentata Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Aardvark Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 86

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 5: IMPACT RATING SCALE

Pre-Mitigation Evaluation Criteria This rating scale adopts four (4) key factors to determine the overall significance of the impact prior to mitigation: 1. Temporal Scale: This scale defines the duration of any given impact over time. This may extend from the short-term (less than 5 years, equivalent to the construction phase) to permanent. Generally, the longer the impact occurs the greater the significance of any given impact. 2. Spatial Scale: This scale defines the spatial extent of any given impact. This may extend from the local area to an impact that crosses international boundaries. The wider the impact extends, the more significant it is likely to be. 3. Severity/Benefits Scale: This scale defines how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be. This negative/positive scale is critical in determining the overall significance of any impacts. 4. Likelihood Scale: This scale defines the risk or chance of any given impact occurring. While many impacts generally do occur, there is considerable uncertainty in terms of others. The scale varies from unlikely to definite, with the overall impact significance increasing as the likelihood increases.

Table A5: Pre-Mitigation Evaluation Criteria. TEMPORAL SCALE

Short term Less than 5 years

Medium term Between 5-20 years

Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also permanent

Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there

SPATIAL SCALE

Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent

Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs

Regional District and Provincial level

National Country

International Internationally

SEVERITY SCALE SEVERITY BENEFIT

Slight impacts on the affected system(s) Slightly beneficial to the affected system(s) Slight or party(ies) and party(ies)

Moderate impacts on the affected Moderately beneficial to the affected Moderate system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

Severe/ Severe impacts on the affected system(s) A substantial benefit to the affected Beneficial or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 87

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Very Severe/ Very severe change to the affected A very substantial benefit to the affected Beneficial system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

LIKELIHOOD SCALE

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur

Table A6: Significance Descriptions. SIGNIFICANCE RATE DESCRIPTION

Impacts of low significance are typically acceptable impacts for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient, even in LOW LOW combination with other low impacts, to prevent the development being NEGATIVE POSITIVE approved. These impacts will result in negative medium to short term effects on the natural environment or on social systems.

Impacts of moderate significance are impacts that require mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but in MODERATE MODERATE conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts NEGATIVE POSITIVE will usually result in a negative medium to long-term effect on the natural environment or on social systems.

Impacts that are rated as being high are serious impacts and may prevent the implementation of the project if no mitigation measures are implemented, or the HIGH HIGH impact is very difficult to mitigate. These impacts would be considered by NEGATIVE POSITIVE society as constituting a major and usually long-term change to the environment or social systems and result in severe effects.

Impacts that are rated as very high are very serious impact which may be VERY HIGH VERY HIGH sufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project. The impact may NEGATIVE POSITIVE result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.

Post-Mitigation Criteria

Once mitigation measures are proposed, the following three (3) factors are then considered to determine the overall significance of the impact after mitigation.

1. Reversibility Scale: This scale defines the degree to which an environment can be returned to its original/partially original state. 2. Irreplaceable loss Scale: This scale defines the degree of loss which an impact may cause. 3. Mitigation potential Scale: This scale defines the degree of difficulty of reversing and/or mitigating the various impacts ranges from very difficult to easily achievable. Both the practical feasibility of the measure, the potential cost and the potential effectiveness is taken into consideration when determining the appropriate degree of difficulty.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 88

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

Table 8.3: Post-Mitigation Criteria. REVERSIBILITY

The activity will lead to an impact that can be reversed provided appropriate mitigation Reversible measures are implemented.

The activity will lead to an impact that is permanent regardless of the implementation of Irreversible mitigation measures.

IRREPLACEABLE LOSS

Resource will not be The resource will not be lost/destroyed provided mitigation measures are implemented. lost

Resource The resource will be partially destroyed even though mitigation measures are will be implemented. partly lost

Resource The resource will be lost despite the implementation of mitigation measures. will be lost

MITIGATION POTENTIAL

Easily The impact can be easily, effectively and cost effectively mitigated/reversed. achievable

Achievable The impact can be effectively mitigated/reversed without much difficulty or cost.

The impact could be mitigated/reversed but there will be some difficultly in ensuring Difficult effectiveness and/or implementation, and significant costs.

Very The impact could be mitigated/reversed but it would be very difficult to ensure Difficult effectiveness, technically very challenging and financially very costly.

The following assumptions and limitations are inherent in the rating methodology: ➢ Value Judgements: Although this scale attempts to provide a balance and rigor to assessing the significance of impacts, the evaluation relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society. ➢ Cumulative Impacts: These affect the significance rating of an impact because it considers the impact in terms of both on-site and off-site sources. This is particularly problematic in terms of impacts beyond the scope of the proposed development and the BA. For this reason, it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature. ➢ Seasonality: Certain impacts will vary in significance based on seasonal change. Thus, it is difficult to provide a static assessment. Seasonality will need to be implicit in the temporal scale and, with management measures being imposed accordingly (e.g. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 89

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 6: CURRICULUM VITAE OF PROJECT TEAM

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 90

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 91

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 92

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 93

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 94

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 95

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 96

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 97

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 98

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 99

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 100

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 101

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 102

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 103

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 104

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

APPENDIX 7: SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 105

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 106

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services UMOYILANGA ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE 107