Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of the Impofu East Wind Farm Near Oyster Bay, Eastern Cape Province: EIA PHASE REPORT ECOLOGICAL SPECIALIST SERVICES Assessment/Management/Research Prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd on Behalf of Red Cap Impofu East (Pty) Ltd By 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions (Pty) Ltd February 2019 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd has appointed Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd to undertake the required application for environmental authorisation process for the proposed Impofu East Wind Farm located near to Oyster Bay in the Eastern Cape Province. It is anticipated that the Impofu East Wind Farm would be comprised of up to 33 turbines of between 3-6MW each. The development is currently in the EIA Phase and Red Cap Impofu East (Pty) Ltd has appointed 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions to provide a specialist terrestrial biodiversity Impact Assessment Study of the development site as part of the EIA process. Several site visits as well as a desktop review of the available ecological information for the area was conducted in order to identify and characterise the ecological features of the site. The Impofu East Wind Farm site consists largely of Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos and Southern Cape Dune Fynbos with small patches of Southern Afrotemperate Forest in kloofs and along drainage systems. The majority of the Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos within the site has been lost to transformation but there is a large tract of intact Southern Cape Dune Fynbos in the south of the site. The transformation of the area for agriculture has significantly affected the abundance and distribution of fauna at the site. The transformed areas which dominate the Impofu East site have low faunal value and diversity. The intact areas are however home to a variety of listed species, including the confirmed presence of Cape Clawless Otter Aonyx capensis (Near Threatened), Striped Weasel Poecilogale albinucha (Near Threatened and Blue Duiker Philantomba monticola (Vulnerable). There are several listed reptile species known from the area, but none of these were observed at the site and it is unlikely that they would be significantly affected by the development and no important reptiles habitats would be significantly impacted by the development. The diversity of frogs in the wider study area is high, but there are no listed species that are likely to be affected by the development and due to the avoidance of aquatic features by the development footprint, impacts on frogs and frog habitats would be low and no significant impacts on any particular species or habitats would occur. In terms of the impact of the development on Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs), the results of the field assessment indicate that there has been significant land-use change since the Garden Route CBA map was produced in 2010 and the majority of the turbines within these CBAs are in areas that have since been transformed. These areas no longer contain any biodiversity of significance and the underlying reasons these areas were classified as CBAs have been lost. Development within these areas is therefore not considered to have a significant impact on CBAs and the overall impact of the development on CBAs, Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) and broad-scale ecological processes is likely to be low and is mediated by the low overall development footprint within intact habitats. In terms of the layout assessed, the high sensitivity and recommended No-Go areas identified have been avoided and there are no turbines in areas considered unsuitable for wind farm development. The layout assessed has been developed iteratively in response to the current sensitivity mapping, which has in turn been extensively verified and validated in the field. As such, there is little uncertainty with regards to the sensitivity mapping at the site and this is important in providing ii confidence with regards to the predicted impacts of the development on the ecological features of the site. There are no predicted negative impacts associated with the Impofu East development that cannot be mitigated to a low level. This is driven largely by the transformed nature of large tracts of the site as well as the avoidance of sensitive features that has already been implemented in the conceptual design phase by the developer. Residual impacts associated with the development are low and considered acceptable. Mitigation outcomes and biodiversity benefits of actions such as alien clearing could be enhanced through a close collaboration with the Greater Kromme Stewardship Initiative which is already active in the area. Impofu East WEF Impact Statement There are no negative impacts associated with the development of the Impofu East WEF that cannot be mitigated to a low level. With the application of relatively simple mitigation and avoidance measures, the impact of the Impofu East WEF on the local environment can be reduced to a low and acceptable magnitude. The contribution of the Impofu East WEF development to cumulative habitat loss and impact in the greater Oyster Bay area would be low and is considered acceptable. Overall, there are no specific long-term impacts likely to be associated with the development of the Impofu East WEF that cannot be reduced to a low significance. As such, there are no fatal flaws associated with the development and no terrestrial ecological considerations that should prevent it from proceeding. iii COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX 6 OF THE 2014 EIA REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED Addressed in the Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 2014 EIA Regulations, 7 April 2017 Specialist Report 1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain- a) details of- i. the specialist who prepared the report; and vii ii. the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified ix by the competent authority; c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was 1 prepared; (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; 6-7 (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the 8-23 proposed development and levels of acceptable change; d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season 4-6 to the outcome of the assessment; e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying 4-7 out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and 25-32 infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; 23 h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be 23 avoided, including buffers; i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in 6 knowledge; j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the 25-32 impact of the proposed activity or activities; k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; 25-32 l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; N/A m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental N/A authorisation; n) a reasoned opinion- i. whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities and N/A ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the See Main Report course of preparing the specialist report; p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation See Main Report process and where applicable all responses thereto; and q) any other information requested by the competent authority. 2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements N/A as indicated in such notice will apply. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX 6 OF THE 2014 EIA REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED III TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF FIGURES VI SHORT CV/SUMMARY OF EXPERTISE – SIMON TODD VII SPECIALIST DECLARATION IX SPECIALIST FAUNA AND FLORA EIA STUDY 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1 1.1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1 1.1.1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 1 1.2. APPROACH & ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY 2 1.3. FIELD ASSESSMENT 4 1.4. SENSITIVITY MAPPING & ASSESSMENT 5 1.5. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 6 1.6. SOURCE OF INFORMATION 7 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ASPECTS RELEVANT TO ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 8 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 9 3.1. VEGETATION TYPES 9 3.2. IMPOFU EAST HABITAT DESCRIPTION 12 3.2.1. SOUTHERN CAPE DUNE FYNBOS 13 3.2.2. TSITSIKAMMA SANDSTONE FYNBOS 14 3.2.3. CROPLANDS, PASTURES AND TRANSFORMED AREAS 15 3.2.4. SOUTHERN AFROTEMPERATE FOREST 15 3.3. FAUNAL COMMUNITIES 16 3.3.1. MAMMALS 16 3.3.2. REPTILES 20 3.3.3. AMPHIBIANS 21 3.4. CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS 22 3.5. CURRENT BASELINE & TRANSFORMATION CONTEXT 23 3.5.1. CURRENT CONTEXT AND CONTRIBUTION OF WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT TO ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 24 3.6. SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 26 4. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY POTENTIAL IMPACTS 27 4.1. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPOFU EAST WIND FARM 27 4.1.1.