BOTANICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

RENSBURG ESTATE 137 PROPERTY AT GROOT-BRAKRIVIER,

January 2020

Mark Berry Environmental Consultants Pr Sci Nat (reg. no. 400073/98) Tel: 083 286-9470 Fax: 086 759-1908 E-mail: [email protected] 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………..2 2 PROPOSED PROJECT……………………………………………………………………………………..2 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE…………………………………………………………………………………..4 4 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………………….5 5 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY……………………………………………………….……………………5 6 LOCALITY & BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 6 7 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT ...... 6 8 VEGETATION & FLORA ...... 7 9 CONSERVATION STATUS & BIODIVERSITY NETWORK...... 14 10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 15 11 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION ...... 17 REFERENCES ...... 18 APPENDICES CV OF SPECIALIST DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

2

1 INTRODUCTION

This report investigates the botanical aspects of the Rensburg Estate 137 property in Groot- Brakrivier earmarked for a residential development (see Map 1). It serves as an update for a status quo report undertaken by the author in August 2018, as well as an earlier report by Conservation Management Services (Ken Coetzee) in 2005 in order to conform to the current information base and assessment guidelines. The site comprises a large, nearly vacant area nestled between the N2 and the R102 (see Map 1). The area contains fynbos and thicket vegetation, with parts infested with woody aliens. While bordered by a residential area on the western side and the N2 freeway on the northern side, the site still presents a valuable botanical hot spot and stepping stone in the coastal biodiversity corridor between Mossel Bay and Groot- Brakrivier.

Map 1 Satellite photo showing the location of subject area (outlined in red) between Tergniet and Groot-Brakrivier.

2 PROPOSED PROJECT

Hey Innovations (Pty) Ltd proposes to subdivide the property into five main land uses as follows (see Map 2):  60 Single Residential Zone 1 erven;  49 General Residential Zone 1; 3

 1 Business Zone III erf;  3 Open Space Zone II erven;  1 Transport Zone II (Public street) and 1 Transport Zone III (Private street).

The development will be a security complex and as such will be fenced with a permanent security fence approved by the Mossel Bay Municipality. A manned access control structure will be erected at the entrance to the residential development. In addition, a manned emergency exit is planned along Erf 63, which will also serve as an access point during the construction phase.

Three alternatives have been considered for the proposed project, namely:  ‘No-go’ alternative (Alternative C) implies a continuation of the current situation or the status quo.  Alternative A (preferred Alternative) entails the development of the site as described above (see Map 2).  Alternative B consists of 62 Single Residential Zone 1 erven, 39 General Residential Zone 1, 1 Business Zone III erf, 3 Open space zone II erven, 1 Transport Zone II (Public street) and 1 Transport Zone III (Private street) (see Map 3).

Map 2 Layout plan for preferred Alternative A. 4

Map 3 Layout plan for Alternative B.

3 TERMS OF REFERENCE

Specific terms of reference:  Identify and describe biodiversity attributes of the site (vegetation types and threatened/vulnerable ecosystems), at species level (Red List species, protected species, presence of alien species) and in terms of significant landscape features;  Assess the impacts on biodiversity and the biodiversity network posed by the development and present mitigation measures to soften the impact, and;  Review previous botanical work applicable to the area and any relevant biodiversity plans compiled in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004).

General terms of reference: The botanical assessment must follow guidelines as set out in the following documents:  Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) Guidelines for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in the EIA Process (Brownlie 2005);  Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the (Cadman 2016); 5

 The requirements of CapeNature for providing comments on agricultural, environmental, mine planning and water-use related applications; and  Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations.

4 METHODOLOGY

A botanical survey of the site was undertaken on 11 and 12 August 2018 by Mark Berry (see CV attached). A qualitative assessment of the type and condition of affected vegetation on site, disturbance and presence of alien species, Species of Conservation Concern and protected tree species was carried out. Nearby vegetation remnants were also briefly investigated. Plant species not identified in the field, were collected or photographed and identified at the Compton Herbarium at Kirstenbosch. Mucina & Rutherford’s vegetation map and the latest floristic taxonomic literature and reference books were used for the purpose of this specialist study. Any plants classified as rare or endangered in the Red List of South African Plants online database are highlighted. The assessment follows Brownlie’s (2005), CapeNature and other relevant guidelines for biodiversity assessments.

The following information was recorded during the site visit: 1. The condition of the vegetation. Is the vegetation either disturbed or degraded? A disturbed or degraded area could range from agricultural fields (fallow land), or areas previously disturbed by construction activities, to an area that has been severely eroded or degraded as a result of bad land management or alien infestation. 2. The species diversity. This refers to the numbers of different indigenous plant species occurring on site. Indigenous fauna observed was also noted. 3. Species of Conservation Concern, as well as protected tree species occurring on site. This would include rare, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species. Species listed as vulnerable were mapped using Easy GPS v2.5 software on an iPhone. Accuracy is given as ±4 m. 4. Identification of the vegetation type(s) and communities (if discernible) on the site. This would include trying to establish the known range of a vegetation type and whether or not this vegetation type is vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CR). 5. Identify any potential links with adjacent/nearby significant vegetation remnants.

5 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY

Since fieldwork was carried out during early spring, plants that only flower at other times of the year (e.g. summer to autumn) may have been missed. However, the overall confidence in the 6 completeness and accuracy of the botanical findings at this point in time is considered to be good. A follow-up survey is not considered essential for decision-making.

6 LOCALITY & BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION

The study site is located on a stabilised dune midway between Tergniet and Groot-Brakrivier in the Southern Cape. The dune rises to 47 m above sea level on the northern boundary, with a steep dune face noted in the eastern corner of the site. Coastal development has transformed much of the coastal strip between Mossel Bay and , with only a few large remnants of coastal vegetation still left. The subject property, which enjoys good connectivity with the beach and Great Brak Estuary, is one of these remnants. Three separate botanical studies confirmed the importance of the Klein Brak, Groot Brak and Reebok remnants (Vlok 1997; Emms 2017 & Berry 2018). Agriculture (dairy farming) and residential developments have transformed the area to the north of the N2, with only the hilly areas and steep slopes remaining untransformed. Major river valleys to the west ( and Klein Brakrivier and its tributaries) and east (Groot Brakrivier) of the site have dissected the landscape created an undulating landscape. According to the 3422 AA Mossel Bay 1:50 000 geological map, the site is underlain by non- shelly sand.

7 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT

Being located on the Southern Cape coastal plain in close proximity to the coast, the site occurs in a typical fynbos-dune thicket environment. This is confirmed by the presence of typical fynbos species, such as Erica discolor, Leucadendron salignum and Thamnochortus insignis, as well as dune thicket species, such as Olea exasperata, Putterlickia pyracantha and Sideroxylon inerme (milkwood). Only one member of the Proteaceae family was recorded, namely Leucadendron salignum. According to the 2012 Vegetation Map of , the vegetation on site is classified as Canca Limestone Fynbos (see Map 4). The latter unit stretches across the Southern Cape lowlands from (Cape Infanta) in the west to the Mossel Bay area in the east (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). According to the Vegetation Map, Groot Brak Dune Strandveld encroaches the site from the north. In the more recent 2018 beta Vegetation Map, the vegetation on site has been remapped as Hartenbos Dune Thicket.

In reality, the site comprises a mixture of dune fynbos and thicket. Due to the exclusion of fire, the senescent fynbos has been subject to bush encroachment over a prolonged period of time. The veld is probably of a similar age (>50 years) as another large remnant located in Reebok (pers. obs.). The majority of the species recorded in the thicket are considered important Groot Brak Dune Strandveld species. One of the comments received on the previous report was that 7 the thicket should be classified as Western Cape Milkwood Forest. A forest is defined as a structural unit where the tree canopy layer is continuous (or enjoys a cover of >75%). This is not the case here where the tree (milkwood and kasuur) layer is frequently interrupted by lower shrubs, which include typical thicket and fynbos elements, as well as woody aliens.

Map 4 Extract of the SA Vegetation Map, showing the position of the study site (outlined in black) inside Canca Limestone Fynbos.

8 VEGETATION & FLORA

The vegetation accommodates both dune fynbos and dune thicket elements, often collectively described as dune thicket (see Photos 1 & 2). The former is not easily visible due to an almost impenetrable ‘hedge’ of thicket alongside the R102. One has to penetrate this prickly barrier in order to access the fynbos in the north-western part of the site. It is evident that, due to a lack of regular fires, the fynbos is senescent (woody and impenetrable) and becoming ‘invaded’ by thicket species. The exclusion of fire also has other consequences for the fynbos, such as the progressive elimination of reseeding species, the smothering of groundcover species and 8 geophytes, the creation of an unfavourable habitat for fynbos fauna, and an increased fire risk. Fire is an important trigger for germination in fynbos and a lack thereof would favours sprouting species.

Photo 1 Thicket in the western part of site, with Aloe arborescens in the foreground.

Members of the Proteaceae family are relatively scarce. This scarcity can be ascribed to the lack of regular fires, which are needed by reseeding species. It is estimated that the fynbos component is over 50 years old. Leucadendron salignum, the only Proteaceae recorded, is a sprouter. Structurally, the thicket can be classified as a mid-high to tall (3 m) closed, sclerophyllous shrubland following Campbell’s (1981) classification. The fynbos can be described as a low to mid-high (1-1.5 m) closed, ericoid shrubland.

Map 5 below shows botanical attributes of the site. The boundary between the fynbos and thicket is an estimate due to the overgrown state and age of the fynbos. A regular fire regime is sure to have a significant effect on the mapped boundary and prevent the transformation of fynbos into thicket. Disturbances such as vehicular tracks, illegal dumping, alien infestation, squatting and an overhead Eskom power line were also noted (see Photos 3 & 4). Vehicular tracks were confined to the western part of the site, presumable to aid alien clearing activities. 9

Photo 2 Senescent fynbos close to the northern boundary of site. Metalasia densa is the tall shrub in the foreground. Insert: Aloe maculata

Map 5 Aerial photograph showing the botanical attributes of the site. The untoned area comprises dune thicket. Only the most prominent and largest Sideroxylon inerme and Pittosporum viridiflorum on western side are shown.

10

Photo 3 One of several vehicular tracks in the western part of site.

Photo 4 Waste dumped inside the thicket. 11

8.1 Indigenous species recorded

The following woody tree and shrub species were recorded in the thicket component, namely Olea exasperata, Pittosporum viridiflorum, Gymnosporia nemorosa, Lauridia tetragona, Putterlickia pyracantha, Pterocelastrus tricuspidatus, Diospyros dichrophylla, Sideroxylon inerme (milkwood), Grewia occidentalis, Searsia lucida, S. crenata, S. glauca, Tarchonanthus littoralis, Buddleja saligna, Carissa bispinosa, Cussonia thyrsiflora, Tecomaria capensis, Salvia africana-lutea, Leonotis ocymifolia, Anginon difforme, Colpoon compressum and Polygala myrtifolia. Sideroxylon inerme and Pittosporum viridiflorum are listed as protected tree species under the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998). A number of tall S. inerme (milkwood) and P. viridiflorum (kasuur) trees were recorded next to road leading into the residential area on the western side of site (see Map 5 & Photo 5). It is considered impractical to map all these tree species as both are fairly abundant throughout the site and often stunted.

Photo 5 A tall milkwood (Sideroxylon inerme) next to access road on the western side of site.

Succulent shrubs and creepers recorded in the thicket include Aloe arborescens, A. ciliaris, A. maculata, Tetragonia fruticosa, Mesembryanthemum aitonis, Carpobrotus sp (not in flower), Sarcostemma viminale, Crassula multicava (garden escape!), Asparagus aethiopicus, Rhoicissus digitata, Cynanchum obtusifolium, Rhynchosia caribaea, Pelargonium peltatum and P. capitatum. Geophytes and hemicryptophytes recorded include Chasmanthe aethiopica, 12

Oxalis pes-caprae, Albuca cf. juncifolia, Hellmuthia membranacea, Ehrharta sp (no flowers or seeds), Cheilanthes hirta and Asplenium platyneuron.

Shrub species recorded in the fynbos component include Osteospermum moniliferum, Metalasia densa, Seriphium cinereum, Helichrysum patulum, Senecio burchellii, Agathosma apiculata, Leucadendron salignum, Trichocephalus stipularis, Passerina corymbosa, Struthiola striata, Erica discolor, E. peltata, Pelargonium betulinum, Myrsine africana, Hermannia salviifolia, Anthospermum aethiopicum and Muraltia ericoides. Herbaceous and Cape reed species recorded include Selago cf. canescens, Restio eleocharis and Thamnochortus insignis.

Ken Coetzee (2005) lists a number of additional species in his report, including Pteronia incana, Phylica axillaris, Crassula tetragona, Chironia baccifera, Cassine peragua, Mystroxylon aethiopicum, Azima tetracantha, Anemone vesicatoria and Zygophyllum flexuosum.

8.2 Species of Conservation Concern and protected tree species

The survey revealed no regional endemics or any Species of Conservation Concern1. This is not surprising due the age and outlying position of the fynbos unit. Species of Conservation Concern known from the general area include Erica glandulosa subsp. fourcadei (coastal fynbos, recorded at Groot Brakrivier), Eriospermum vermiforme (found in sandy soil from Gourits River to Groot Brakrivier), Freesia leichtlinii subsp alba (sandy coastal dunes and flats), Agathosma muirii (recorded by the author in the Reebok fynbos remnant), Muraltia knysnaensis (coastal fynbos between Mossel Bay and Keurbooms River), Leucospermum praecox (recorded by the author in Tergniet) and Wahlenbergia polyantha (recorded in the Klein Brakrivier fynbos remnant). Sideroxylon inerme and Pittosporum viridiflorum are listed as protected tree species under the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998). The removal of these trees requires a permit from the Department of Forestry.

8.3 Invasive alien species

A fair amount of alien infestation (mainly rooikrans) was observed throughout the site. Alien species recorded include Acacia cyclops (rooikrans, present throughout the site), Opuntia ficus- indica (prickly pear), Leptospermum laevigatum (Australian myrtle), Myoporum montanum, Plectranthus barbatus var. grandis, Yucca aloifolia and Bryophyllum delagoense (chandelier plant, garden escape) (see Photo 6). Acacia cyclops, Opuntia ficus-indica, Leptospermum laevigatum, Plectranthus barbatus var. grandis and Bryophyllum delagoense are listed as

1 The Red List of South African Plants (Raimondo et al. 2009) has assessed all plant species in South Africa, and all indigenous species are now technically Red Data Book species, and thus it is preferable to use the term Species of Conservation Concern to refer to species that are listed as either Threatened or Rare. 13

Category 1b invasive species. These species are prohibited and must be controlled in compliance with the relevant sections of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). The alien species have not degraded the site significantly, with evidence of rooikrans clearing found in the western half. However, a sustained effort will be required to keep it under control. It may be more effective if the site is burned and the woody aliens controlled in a more integrated manner.

Photo 6 Opuntia ficus-indica inside the thicket. Insert: Plectranthus barbatus var. grandis

While most of the aliens can be easily controlled, concern is expressed about the presence of Australian myrtle. This is a particular nasty invader that is difficult to control. It quickly forms dense thickets that outcompetes fynbos and even other invasive aliens. Australian myrtle is killed by fire and does not coppice if it is cut at ground level (Bromilow 2010). However, fire stimulates the release of the seeds and consequent germination after fire. It takes about four years before seeds are produced (Bromilow 2010). Soil-applied herbicides have been registered for the control of myrtle, which is applied at the base of the plant. Confront 360 SL can also be applied as a foliage spray. Success is also achieved with biocontrol agents.

8.4 Fauna

With regards to fauna, considerable molerat (Cape dune molerat) activity was noted. This 14 species is commonly associated with dune (sandy) habitats. A neighbour also reported seeing vervet monkeys and puff adders in the area. Bushbuck, grysbok and caracal, which were reported in other remnants in the area (Vlok 1997), may also frequent the site.

9 CONSERVATION STATUS & BIODIVERSITY NETWORK

Being well represented in the larger area, Canca Limestone Fynbos is currently not considered a threatened vegetation type. However, agricultural activities, alien plant infestation and coastal developments remain major threats for certain species restricted to this vegetation type. According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), 86% of Canca Limestone Fynbos is still left. However, due to its poor conservation status its protection in the coastal areas remains a priority. Less than 1% is formally conserved in the Pauline Bohnen and Geelkrans Nature Reserves (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). Groot Brak Dune Strandveld, on the other hand, is listed as Endangered (DEA 2011). This rating is sustained in the recently compiled Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook (Pool-Stanvliet et al. 2017). About 52% of Groot Brak Dune Strandveld is still left, while 0% is currently protected (DEA 2011).

The site falls inside the Mossel Bay Biodiversity Network. The largest part of the site has been mapped as terrestrial and aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s), with the western most part mapped as a terrestrial Ecological Support Area (ESA) (see Map 6). It is well connected with the biodiversity network along the N2 to the north of the site, as well as the coastal network to the south along the railway line. The east-west corridor between the N2 and R102 continues via a few narrow passages. The railway line serves as an important corridor connecting the large fynbos/thicket remnants between Klein Brak and Groot Brak. The corridors also allow fauna to migrate between the remnants. With regards to the mapped aquatic CBA, no evidence of any wetlands or significant wetland elements was found on site.

CBA’s are defined as areas in a natural condition that are required to meet biodiversity targets, for species, ecosystems or ecological processes and infrastructure (Pool-Stanvliet et al. 2017). ESA’s, on the other hand, are not essential for meeting biodiversity targets, but play an important role in supporting the functioning of protected areas or CBA’s, and are often vital for delivering ecosystem services. These sites are selected for meeting national targets for species, habitats and ecological processes (Pool-Stanvliet et al. 2017). Many of these areas support known occurrences of threatened plant species, and/or may be essential elements of designated ecological corridors. They should be considered as essential regional priorities for conservation, and must be considered in all land-use planning initiatives (Pool-Stanvliet et al. 2017). Loss of designated CBA’s is therefore not recommended. 15

Map 6 Biodiversity network map (Source: Cape Farm Mapper), with site outlined in red.

10 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

If all construction activities are restricted to the proposed development footprint, the direct impact on dune fynbos/thicket involves the removal of 9.82 ha (71% of site) of vegetation for Alternative A (preferred) and 9.53 ha (69% of site) for Alternative B. The impact will involve 16 considerable earthworks and the constant movement of construction vehicles through the area. During this phase extreme care must be exercised to avoid the unnecessary disturbance of adjacent vegetation and protected tree species. It is assumed that construction plant, construction material, offices, parking, etc. will be placed in already disturbed areas inside the construction site or offsite.

Due to Groot-Brak Dune Thicket being a threatened vegetation type, the impact on vegetation type is of some concern. It is however not in a pristine state with moderate alien infestation and other disturbances noted on site. As mitigation, the development will be set back from the northern and southern boundaries to allow some continuity for the biodiversity network around the development. Allowance is also made for a green corridor through the development connecting the southern side with northern side. With regards to the layout alternatives, Alternative B is clearly less consumptive than Alternative A, allowing the eastern part of the site also to be conserved. Alternative A does not show the infrastructure connecting the scattered units and it is likely that that disturbance/transformation will be considerably more than shown on the plan.

While no Species of Conservation Concern were recorded, two protected tree species will be affected, namely milkwoods and kasuur. The tallest (and most prominent) of these species were recorded next to the road on the western boundary of site. It is not certain if these trees will be affected by the project. As mitigation, it is proposed that for every tree removed, one of an adequate size must be planted in the disturbed areas to be rehabilitated. All the milkwoods and kasuur outside the construction area must be actively protected during construction. Most of the other affected species are widespread and common. Table 1 below summarises the impact on vegetation type, habitat and species.

Table 1 Impact on vegetation type, habitat and species. Extent Duration Duration Intensity Mitigation Mitigation occurrence occurrence Confidence Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Probability of of Probability Significance – Significance – Significance

Without mitigation Limited to site Permanent High High High Med-high Med-high With mitigation Limited to site Permanent High High Med Low-med Med-high Mitigation measures: Remove topsoil from site for later rehabilitation purposes; demarcate/fence off the construction area; contain disturbance to the demarcated construction area; give special consideration for the protection of milkwoods and kasuur outside the site; and control aliens, especially rooikrans and Australian myrtle, as a long-term management requirement.

It is expected that the disturbed areas outside the development footprint to be rehabilitated at 17 the end of the construction phase. Some of the species which originally occurred in the disturbed areas will return, including the aliens. As an indirect impact, soil disturbance caused by earthworks will provide ideal conditions for the establishment of invasive alien species. The presence of aliens on site, such as rooikrans and Australian myrtle, will exacerbate this impact. Alien control will therefore be required as an ongoing management requirement.

The site is located inside a significant CBA remnant/corridor that links the hills north of the N2 with the coastal strip between Klein-Brak and Groot-Brakrivier. Apart from providing support for the local biodiversity network, the remnant may also serve as a valuable refuge for fauna moving along the biodiversity network. One can therefore expect a medium to high impact on its functionality. The only practical mitigation measures would be to rehabilitate the disturbed areas outside the development footprint as far as possible, re-establish some of the indigenous vegetation, and to control aliens. Table 2 below summarises the impact on the biodiversity network.

Table 2 Impact on the biodiversity network, CBA’s, etc. Extent Duration Duration Intensity Mitigation Mitigation occurrence occurrence Confidence Alternative A Alternative B Alternative Probability of of Probability Significance – Significance – Significance

Without mitigation Limited to site Permanent High High High Med-high Med-high With mitigation Limited to site Permanent High High Med Low-med Med-high Mitigation measures: Rehabilitate the disturbed areas; re-establish some of the indigenous vegetation; promote the planting of locally indigenous species in gardens; and control aliens as a long-term management requirement.

11 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The vegetation on site accommodates both dune fynbos and dune thicket elements, often collectively described as dune thicket (Groot Brak Dune Strandveld!). It is in a fair to good condition, albeit senescent and infested with aliens in places. The latter has not degraded the site significantly. Map 5 above suggests that dune thicket is the dominant vegetation type. This can be ascribed to the exclusion of fire from the site for a very long time and the ‘invasion’ of the fynbos by thicket species. The exclusion of fire also has other negative consequences, such as the progressive elimination of reseeding species, the smothering of groundcover species and geophytes, the creation of a poor habitat for fynbos fauna, and an increased fire risk. Two protected tree species were recorded (i.e. Sideroxylon inerme and Pittosporum viridiflorum).

18

Due to Groot-Brak Dune Thicket being a threatened vegetation type, the impact posed by the development is of some concern. The vegetation is however not in a pristine state with moderate alien infestation and other disturbances noted on site. As mitigation, the development will be set back from the northern and southern boundaries to allow some continuity for the biodiversity network around the development. Allowance is also made for an open space through the development connecting the northern side with the southern side. With regards to the alternatives, Alternative B is clearly less consumptive than Alternative A, allowing the eastern part of the site also to be conserved. It is the preferred option from a biodiversity point of view.

The remainder of the site will require continued alien clearing, management and protection post construction for it to retain some functionality in the biodiversity network. By developing a portion of the site, management and alien clearing can perhaps be better achieved through funding from levies and a prepared management plan.

REFERENCES Berry, M. 2018. Status Quo Botanical assessment of Erven 264 & 271 in Reebok, Mossel Bay. Mark Berry Environmental Consultants.

Bromilow, C. 2010. Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

Brownlie, S. 2005. Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 C. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Cadman, M. (ed.) 2016. Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape, Edition 2. Fynbos Forum, Cape Town.

Campbell, B.M., Cowling, R.M., Bond, W. & Kruger, F.J. 1981. Structural characterization of vegetation in the Fynbos Biome. S. Afr. Nat. Sci. Prog. Report No. 52.

DEA 2011. National List of Ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection. Government Gazette No. 34809, Government Notice No. 1002. National Printer, Pretoria.

Emms, P. 2017. Botanical baseline study for proposed residential development at Erf 305, Groot Brak River, Western Cape. Paul Emms Botanical Surveys, Fish Hoek.

19

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

Pool-Stanvliet, R., Duffell-Canham, A., Pence, G. & Smart, R. 2017. The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook. CapeNature, Stellenbosch.

Vlok, J.H.J. 1997. Specialist Report: Botanical survey of Erf 928 of Klein Brak River. Regalis Environmental Services, . 20

CV OF SPECIALIST

M.G. (Mark) BERRY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT & BIODIVERSITY SPECIALIST

Address: 14 Alvin Crescent, Somerset West, 7130, Western Cape Tel: 083 286-9470 Fax: 086 759-1908 E-mail: [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT Environmental assessment professional and biodiversity specialist with over 20 years of experience mainly in the Western Cape Province, but also in the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape. Experience in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA’s), biodiversity assessments, Environmental Management Programmes (EMPr’s), Environmental Control Officer (ECO) duties and environmental due diligence investigations.

WORK EXPERIENCE 1989-1990 Nature Conservation Officer in the South African Air Force, based at Langebaan Road Air Force Base 1997-2005 Employed as principal environmental specialist at Planning Partners, a multi-disciplinary consultancy specialising in town and regional planning, environmental planning and landscape architecture. Duties included the conducting of EIA’s, compiling EMPr’s, ECO duties, biodiversity surveys and status quo environmental assessments for spatial development frameworks. 2000-2006 Examiner for the Board of Control for Landscape Architects (BOCLA), responsible for the setting up and marking of the Environmental Planning Section of exam paper. 2005-current Started Mark Berry Environmental Consultants in June 2005. Responsibilities include office management, seeking tenders, conducting EIA’s, compiling EMPr’s, construction site environmental audits, biodiversity surveys, etc. A relationship is maintained with previous employer, and, among other, undertook land-use surveys and reporting for the Eskom’s site safety reports for three proposed nuclear power plants in the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces.

QUALIFICATIONS ● BSc (1988) University of Stellenbosch ● BSc-Hons in Botany (1991) University of Stellenbosch ● MSc in Botany (1993) Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University ● PhD in Botany (2000) Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP Professional member (reg. no. 400073/98) of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP).

REFERENCES Dr John Manning (Compton Herbarium, Kirstenbosch) Phone: (021) 799-8660, e-mail: [email protected]

Warren Manuel (Environmental Manager at Mossel Bay Municipality) Phone: (044) 606-5163, e-mail: [email protected]

John Sharples (Sharples Environmental Services, George) Phone: (044) 873-4923, e-mail: [email protected]

Andrew Cleghorn (civil engineer and branch manager at Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd) Phone: (021) 555-0400, e-mail: [email protected]

Prof Eileen Campbell (Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University) Phone: (041) 504-2329, e-mail: [email protected]

21

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I Mark Gerald Berry, as the appointed Specialist hereby declare/affirm the correctness of the information provided or to be provided as part of the application, and that I :

 in terms of the general requirement to be independent: o other than fair remuneration for work performed in terms of this application, have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the development proposal or application and that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity; or o am not independent, but another specialist (the “Review Specialist”) that meets the general requirements set out in Regulation 13 has been appointed to review my work (Note: a declaration by the review specialist must be submitted);  in terms of the remainder of the general requirements for a specialist, have throughout this EIA process met all of the requirements;  have disclosed to the applicant, the EAP, the Review EAP (if applicable), the Department and I&APs all material information that has or may have the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan or document prepared or to be prepared as part of the application; and  am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 48 of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

Signature of the Specialist: Mark Berry Environmental Consultants Name of Company: 29 January 2020 Date: