Ecological Impact Assessment

Ecological

Assessment

SANSA RADIO ANNTENA CONSTRUCTION, MATJIESFONETIN, WESTERN CAPE

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

The South African National Space Agency SANSA Space Operations, PO Box 484, Silverton, 0127 Tel: 012 334 5118

Prepared by:

Environmental and Social Advisory Services

Elta House, 3 Caledonia Street, Mowbray, 7700 Cape Town South Africa www.cesnet.co.za

November 2019

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: SANSA RADIO ANTENNAE ECOLOGICAL ASESSMENT

Client Name & SANSA Space Operations, Address: PO Box 484, Silverton, 0127 Tel: 012 334 5118

Status:

Issue Date:

Lead Author: Ms Tarryn Martin

Reviewer: Dr Ted Avis

No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies

Report Version Date

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 person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or [email protected] rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written www.cesnet.co.za permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets rules, intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT ii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

THE AUTHOR AND SPECIALIST

Ms Tarryn Martin, Principal Environmental Consultant and Botanical Specialist (SACNASP Registration No. 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. Tarryn specialises in conducting vegetation assessments including vegetation and sensitivity mapping to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts on sensitive vegetation. She has conducted a number of vegetation and impact assessments in South Africa for renewable energy EIAs and assisted with the botanical baseline survey for the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Polihali Dam. She has also conducted a number of vegetation surveys, to IFC standards, in Mozambique, has also worked on a Critical Habitat Assessment for Sasol in Inhambane Province and has co- designed and implemented the Terrestrial Monitoring Program for Kenmare, MOMA, a heavy minerals mine in Mozambique.

Ms Amber Jackson, Senior Environmental Consultant and Faunal Specialist (Cand.Sci.Nat.) Amber is a Senior Environmental Consultant and has been employed with EOH CES for the last 7 years. She has an MPhil in Environmental Management and has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her undergraduate degrees focused on Ecology, Conservation and Environment with particular 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 a number of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Amongst which she has conducted two large scale faunal impact assessments for graphite mines in the north of Mozambique to both MICOA standards and International lenders standards in fulfilment with lender requirements (AfDB, EIB and IFC). As well as assisted Prof Bill Branch on five faunal assessments, four international (Mozambique & Lesotho) and one national during 2013-2015. Her interests include, ecological studies dealing with indigenous fauna and flora, as well as land use and natural resource management. Dr A.M (Ted) Avis, Managing Director and Reviewer (EAP) Ted Avis is a leading expert in the field of Environmental Impact Assessments and environmental management, having project-managed numerous large-scale ESIAs and ESMPs to International Finance Corporation Performance Standards. Ted has been EIA study leader on numerous large scale ESIA’s and ESHIA’s for projects with capital investments ranging from US$200m to over US$1billion. He has been study leader for ESIA and related environmental studies completed to international in, Egypt, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Madagascar, Malawi Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zambia,. Ted also has experience in large scale Strategic Environmental Assessments in southern Africa, and has been engaged by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) on a number of projects.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT iii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Most of the ESIA work Ted has been involved in has included the preparation of various Environmental & Social Management Plans, Resettlement Action Plans and Monitoring Plans. These ESIA’s cover a range of sectors including infrastructure, mining (heavy minerals, graphite, tin, copper, iron), agri-industrial, forestry, resorts and housing development, energy, ports and coastal developments.

Ted holds a PhD in Botany, and was awarded a bronze medal by the South African Association of Botanists for the best PhD adjudicated in that year, entitled “Coastal Dune Ecology and Management in the Eastern Cape”). He has delivered papers and published in the field of EIA, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Integrated Coastal Zone Management and has been a principal of CES since its inception in 1990, and Managing Director since 1998.

Ted was instrumental in establishing the Environmental Science Department at Rhodes University whilst a Senior lecturer in Botany, based on his experience running honours modules in EIA practice and environmental management. He was one of the first certified Environmental Assessment Practitioner in South Africa, gaining certification in April 2004. He has been a professional member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professionals since 1993.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT iv

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

DECLARATION

Role on Study Declaration of independence Team

Botanical • I, Tarryn Martin, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental Specialist Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017; • I act as the independent specialist in this application; • I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; • I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; • I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; • I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; • I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; • I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; • All the particulars furnished by me in this report are true and correct; and • I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

20 October 2020 …(SACNASP: 400018/14)…………………………………….. …………………………

SIGNED DATE

Faunal • I, Amber Jackson, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental Specialist Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017; • I act as the independent specialist in this application; • I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; • I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; • I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; • I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; • I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT v

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

• I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; • All the particulars furnished by me in this report are true and correct; and • I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

20 October 2020 (SACNASP :100125/12)………………………….. …………………………

SIGNED DATE

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT vi

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CRLR Commission for Restitution of Land Rights CoCT City of Cape Town DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform ECO Environmental Control Officer GIS Geographical Information System IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act PNCO Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance QDS Quarter Degree Square SA South Africa SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SCC Species of Conservation Concern SR1 Single Residential TOPS Threatened and Protected Species

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT vii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

SPECIALIST CHECKLIST

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 Biodiversity (GN R. 320 of 2020).

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 and their field of expertise and a curriculum vitae; Appendix G2 of the BAR 3.1.2 A signed statement of independence by the specialist; Page iv and Appendix G4 of BAR 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 1.3 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); specifically section 4.1 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 Section 5.3 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 outcomes proposed by the specialist for inclusion in the Chapter 6 Environmental Management Programme (EMPr); 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.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT viii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3.3 A signed copy of the assessment must be appended to the Basic Assessment Page iv Report or Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT ix

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SANSA proposes to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148, near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape in fulfilment of their vision. This is required to coordinate and integrate national space science and technology programmes, and conduct long-term planning and implementation of space-related activities in South Africa. SANSA have identified two sites on Portion 8 of Farm 148 where they intend to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure (Figure 1-1). The infrastructure within Site A will consist of 4, large Deep Space Navigation (DSN 1-4) antennae which will not exceed 45m in height. Each of these are anticipated to have a physical footprint of 360m² as well as 3 smaller planned radio antennae up to 12m in height (SANSA 1,2,3). Each of these antennae are expected to have a physical footprint of 100m². There will also be an 18 m Ka Band antenna (LGS 18) which will be up to 30m in height and have a footprint of 400m² (20mX20m).

Other associated infrastructure will consist of a guard house at the site entrance, signal processing building which will house the signal processor room, operations and control room, lobby, reception, kitchen and ablution facility and is anticipated to have a physical footprint of 525m², with an accompanying 900m² curbed, gravel parking area.

Alongside the main building will be a 70 000l water storage tank as part of a fire management system and a conservancy tank for temporary wastewater and sewerage storage which will be serviced regularly by a licenced waste hauling company.

On the western edge of the site, a power station is planned which will be of similar size to the main building on the eastern edge. The power station will consist of the stores, workshop, generators and fuel storage and will also have an accompanying 900m², curbed parking area. An overhead powerline (not exceeding 22kv ), 750m in length is planned to connect the power station to the existing Eskom substation outside the site.

Water will be sourced from a municipal water point approximately 2km from the site and will need connection via underground piping. SANSA also intends on drilling a borehole to supplement water provisions.

New access roads will need to be constructed within the site and are anticipated to be 4m wide, graded and compacted with overlain gravel.

PVC ducting will be lain to connect the fibre to the control room and to each antennae. This will be lain at 600mm below ground surface, consisting of 4x100mm PVC pipes with a PVC manhole at 50m intervals for maintenance.

The entire site will be fenced, with either diamond mesh with flatwrap on top or clearvu fencing. All construction spoil, including excavation and clearing will be taken to the Majiesfontein solid waste disposal site

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Site B will house 2 scientific instruments known as short/long laser rangers (S/LLR), each with a footprint of 14.2m² (the size of a Shipping container) and an administration booth with a footprint of 9m² (3mX3m). Solar panels will form part of the roofing of the infrastructure in order to supply power to the equipment. The scientific instruments will each be individually fenced by a standard 3m high, 10m x10 diamond mesh fence with flat rap at the top. The existing access roads to this site will remain unchanged, however new internal gravel roads, 4m wide, will be needed to access the infrastructure

A site visit was conducted on 22-23 August 2019 and again from the 10-11 September 2020 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 visit also served to identify potential impacts of the proposed development, and its impact on the surrounding ecological environment.

Information on the general area and plant species was also generated using historical records for the area. This information has been used to supplement the findings of this report.

The Lord Milner Hotel in Matjiesfontein who is the land owner, have demarcated a recreational mountain bike route through the site (Plate 3-6), which is available for use by the hotel guests. It appears that the site itself is not used for livestock grazing although the neighbouring landowners use their own land for this activity.

Vegetation Although three vegetation types are expected to occur within the project site, only two vegetation types were recorded on site during the field survey. These are Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld (site B) and Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo (site A).

The vegetation at site A (Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo) is typically comprised of short shrubs of up to 1m interspersed with Aristida diffusa (grass species), herbs and succulents. The dominant shrubs include Elytropappus rhinocerotis (Renosterbos), Ruschia crassa, Eriocephalus sp and Pteronia pallens and to a lesser degree Cliffortia hantamensis and Cheiridopsis namaquensis. Dominant herbs include Oxalis melanosticta, Dimorphotheca cuneata, Gazania krebsia. Common succulent species included Crassula alpestris, Haworthia lockwoodii, Tylecodon cultrate, Crassula orbicularis, Mesembryanthemum resurgens, Drosanthemum sp. There were a number of geophytes, particularly along the slopes south of the river bed (north facing slope). These included Geissorhiza heterostyla, Gladiolus venustus, Ixia sobolifera, Ixia sp. and Babiana cf sambucina. Refer to appendix A for a list of plant species recorded on site.

The site located further up the slope (site B) was characteristic of Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld as it was dominated by Elytropappus rhinocerotis (Renosterbos) and Aristida diffusa and not by fynbos species typical of Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos, which was the vegetation type expected to be on site based on the National Vegetation map. Although there was overlap with species at site A, this site had fewer succulent species. Rhus crenata and Restio species were also present within the drainage line that runs through the proposed site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Both vegetation types were typically intact and in good condition with little evidence of disturbance or invasion by alien species.

The indigenous plant species recorded at the site were compared to the South African Red Data List, the Threatened and Protected Species list and the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance Act (PNCO) (No. 19 of 1974). Eight species of conservation concern were recorded within the study area.

Reptiles The WC supports 21 threatened or near-threatened reptile species and 22 endemic reptile species (Bates et al., 2014; Turner & Villiers, 2017). The project area intersects the distribution of one Near-threated species the Karoo Dwarf Tortoise (Homopus boulengeri) and four endemic species namely the Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion gutturale), Dwarf Girdled Lizard (Cordylus minor), Graceful Crag Lizard (Hemicordylus capensis) and the Red Adder (Bitis rubida). Based on habitat availability, these are likely to occur on site.

Amphibians The WC supports 15 known threatened and near-threatened species, none of which have a distribution which includes the project area (Minter et al., 2004). In total, 36 amphibian species are endemic to the Western Cape Province (Turner & de Villiers, 2017), and two (2) of these have a distribution which includes the project area, namely the Karoo Dainty Frog (Cacosternum karooicum) and Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps), both of which are likely to be recorded on site.

Mammals The Western Cape has 24 threatened mammal species and 13 near threatened species (Birss, 2017). One (1) critically endangered, one (1) vulnerable species and four (4) Near- Threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area. Five (5) of these species have been recorded within a 30km radius of the project site, including 27 Leopard, 26 Grey Rhebok, three (3) Cape Clawless Otter, two (2) Brown Hyena and 21 Striped Weasel sightings. The Anysberg Nature Reserve is approximately 23 km south of the project site and supports support Aardwolf, Aardvark and Cape Clawless Otter. The site is within their natural range, and hence these species can be expected to occur. The reserve hosts a small subpopulation of Brown Hyena and vagrants have been recorded on neighbouring farmland.

Additionally, three (3) endemic and three (3) near endemic mammal species have distribution ranges that extend through the project site.

Birds According to Avibase approximately 258 bird species occur within the Laingsburg region, Western Cape Province. The project area falls within the distribution ranges of 11 threatened

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

and 11 near-threatened species. Of the threatened species 5 are considered endangered and 6 vulnerable.

Sensitivity Based on the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan, both sites fall within an Ecological Support Area 1 and Other Natural Area.

The site visit determined that the drainage lines are classified as areas of high sensitivity due to the ecological processes, such as natural corridors and dispersal of seeds, these systems provide. The remaining vegetation (Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo and Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld) is classified as an area of moderate sensitivity due to it being intact, but widely distributed with a conservation status of Least Threatened.

Conclusion and Recommendations Six ecological impacts were identified for the project site; one of which was rated as high, four of which are moderate and one as low. If mitigation measures are implemented these impacts will be reduced to two moderate and four low impacts.

Given that this is a small area within two vegetation types listed as Least Threatened, the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the antennae and associated infrastructure will be low provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. It is therefore the opinion of the specialist that the construction of the antennae, which have relatively small footprints, could occur in these areas provided the footprints avoid the drainage lines at site B.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 4

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 5

1.1 project description and Locality ...... 5 1.2 objectives and terms of reference ...... 3 1.3 Limitations and Assumptions ...... 3 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4

2.1 The assessment ...... 4 2.2 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 4 2.3 Sample Site Selection ...... 4 2.4 Vegetation Mapping ...... 5 2.5 Sensitivity Assessment ...... 5 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 8

3.1 Description of the biophysical environment ...... 8 3.2 The Current Land Use ...... 11 3.3 Description of the Vegetation ...... 12 3.3.1 National Vegetation Map: Expected Vegetation Types ...... 12 3.3.2 Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld ...... 13 3.3.3 Matjiesfonein Quartzite Fynbos ...... 13 3.3.4 Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo ...... 14 3.3.5 Vegetation types recorded on site ...... 16 3.4 Plant Species of Conservation Concern ...... 16 3.5 Alien Plant Species ...... 22 3.6 Description of the fauna ...... 22 3.6.1 Regional Context of the Fauna ...... 22 3.6.2 Reptiles ...... 22 3.6.3 Amphibians ...... 25 3.6.4 Mammals ...... 25 3.6.5 Birds ...... 27 4 SENSITIVITY ...... 35

4.1 Critical Biodiversity Areas ...... 35 4.2 Sensitivity Analysis ...... 38 4.3 Site Sensitivity ...... 39

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 41

5.1 Construction Phase ...... 41 5.1.1 Impact 1: Loss of Vegetation Communities ...... 41 5.1.2 Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern (flora) ...... 42 5.1.3 Impact 3: Loss of extent of faunal habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (fauna) 43 5.1.4 Impact 4: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process ...... 45 5.1.5 Impact 5: Effects of drainage lines and riparian habitat due to road crossings 46 5.2 Operational Phase ...... 48 5.2.1 Impact 6: Invasion of Alien Plant Species ...... 48 5.3 Alternative Options ...... 51 6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 52

6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 52 6.2 Specialist Statement ...... 52 7 REFERENCES ...... 55

APPENDIX A: PLANT SPECIES LIST ...... 58

APPENDIX B: BIRD SPECIES LIST ...... 60

APPENDIX C: AMPHIBIAN SPECIES LIST ...... 63

APPENDIX D: REPTILE SPECIES LIST ...... 64

APPENDIX E: MAMMAL SPECIES LIST ...... 67

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1: CRITERIA USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE AREA...... 6

TABLE 3-1: SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN RECORDED ON SITE .. 17

TABLE 3-2: SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN LIKELY TO OCCUR ON SITE ...... 23

TABLE 3-3: THREATENED MAMMAL SPECIES WITH A DISTRIBUTION THAT INCLUDES THE SITE ...... 26

TABLE 3-4: ENDEMIC AND NEAR-ENDEMICS WC MAMMALS WITH A DISTRIBUTION THAT INCLUDES THE SITE ...... 27

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

TABLE 3-5: BIRD SCC WITH A DISTRIBUTION RANGE THAT INCLUDES THE SITE ...... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1: LOCALITY MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SITE AND IN RELATION TO THE TOWN OF MATJIESFONTEIN AND THE N1...... 0

FIGURE 3-1:ELEVATION PROFILE SITE B FROM NORTH TO SOUTH ...... 8

FIGURE 3-2:ELEVATION PROFILE SITE B FROM EAST TO WEST ...... 8

FIGURE 3-3:ELEVATION PROFILE SITE A NORTH TO SOUTH ...... 9

FIGURE 3-4:ELEVATION PROFILE SITE A EAST TO WEST ...... 9

FIGURE 3-5: NATIONAL VEGETATION MAP (MUCINA AND RUTHERFORD 2017) ...... 15

FIGURE 3-6: LITTLE KAROO DWARF CHAMELEON (TOLLEY, 2018), GRACEFUL CRAG LIZARD (BATES, 2018), RED ADDER (MARITZ, & TURNER, 2018) AND DWARF GIRDLED LIZARD (BATES ET AL. 2018)...... 24

FIGURE 3-7: AMPHIBIANS ENDEMIC TO THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT AREA (PURPLE CIRCLE) A - CAPE SAND TOAD AND B - KAROO DAINTY FROG (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013)...... 25

FIGURE 3-8: PROJECT SITE (PURPLE DOT) IN RELATION TO RIVERINE RABBIT SOUTHERN DISTRIBUTION RANGE ...... 26

FIGURE 4-1: CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY MAP FOR THE STUDY AREA ...... 36

FIGURE 4-2CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY MAP FOR SITE A SHOWING LOCATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE ESA AND ONA ...... 37

FIGURE 4-3: CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY MAP FOR SITE B SHOWING LOCATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE ESA AND ONA ...... 38

FIGURE 4-4: SENSITIVITY MAP OF SITE A SHOWING AREAS OF HIGH, MODERATE AND LOW SENSITIVITY...... 40

FIGURE 4-5: SENSITIVITY MAP OF SITE B SHOWING AREAS OF HIGH, MODERATE AND LOW SENSITIVITY...... 40

FIGURE 6-1: PIE CHARTS SUMMARISING THE NUMBER OF HIGH, MODERATE AND LOW IMPACTS BEFORE AND AFTER MITIGATION...... 52

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 3-1:Site B view from south towards Matjiesfontein (hidden behind ridge) ...... 9 Plate 3-2: Site B view from ridge to the south ...... 10 Plate 3-3:Site A. View from the northern slope looking across at the river bed and southern slope ...... 11 Plate 3-4: Drainage line located on Site B ...... 34 Plate 3-5: Riverbed located in Site A ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Plate 3-6: Access gate to site with signage for mountain bike track ...... 12

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 4

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCALITY

An alternative site was previously assessed for the proposed location of Site A (Site A, alternative 1), but was found to be unsuitable due to the high visual intrusion it was anticipated to have on the Provincial Heritage Site of Matjiesfontein Village. This site will be discussed in more detail in the alternatives chapter (Chapter 8)

The infrastructure within Site A, Alternative 2 will consist of 4, large Deep Space Navigation (DSN 1-4) antennae which will not exceed 45m in height. Each of these are anticipated to have a physical footprint of 360m² as well as 3 smaller planned radio antennae up to 12m in height (SANSA 1,2,3). Each of these antennae are expected to have a physical footprint of 100m². There will also be an 18 m Ka Band antenna (LGS 18) which will be up to 30m in height and have a footprint of 400m² (20mX20m) (Figure 1-2).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 5

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

New access roads will need to be constructed within the site and are anticipated to be 4m wide, graded and compacted with overlain gravel.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 6

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1-1: Locality map showing the location of the site in relation to the town of Matjiesfontein and the N1.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 0

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1-2: Proposed infrastructure on Site A, Alternative 2

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1-3 :Proposed infrastructure on Site B

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

This study will provide a map showing areas of high, moderate and low sensitivity which is an indication of where development can and can’t occur. This map, along with similar maps from other specialists working on the project, will be given to SANSA who will then design the development around these constraints. As such, the proposed layout is currently not available but will be incorporated into this report once it is.

The specific terms of reference for the ecological assessment are as follows: • Describe and map the vegetation types in the study area. • Describe the floral biodiversity and record the plant species that occur in each vegetation type. • Describe the biodiversity and ecological state of each vegetation unit. • Establish and map sensitive vegetation areas • Identify species of conservation concern (Red Data List, PNCO and TOPS lists). • 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 in terms of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of key ecosystems and, where feasible, provide mitigation measures to reduce these impacts

1.3 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This report is based on current available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit: • A detailed faunal survey was not conducted. The faunal survey was mainly 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 late winter/early spring when most plants were flowering. However, late flowering species could not be identified and Consequently, some plant species may have gone undetected. 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.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 THE ASSESSMENT

The study area and surrounding areas were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:

» The South African Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012); » The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (2017); » The Western Cape Landcover Project, 2014 » The National Biodiversity Assessment, 2018 » Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment on the Western Cape, 2016 » Available literature

Further to the above, a site visit was conducted on 22-23 August 2019 and a second visit from the 10-11 September 2020 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.

Information on the general area and plant species was also generated using historical records for the area. This information has been used to supplement the findings of this report.

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 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 National Forest Act or which occur on the South African Red Data List as species of conservation concern fall within this category.

2.3 SAMPLE SITE SELECTION

A sampling protocol was developed that would enable us to evaluate the existing desktop interpretations of the vegetation of the study area, to improve on them if necessary, and to add detailed information on the plant communities present. The protocol took into account the amount of time available for the study, the accessibility of different parts of the area, and limitations such as the seasonality of the vegetation.

A stratified random sampling approach was adopted, whereby initial assumptions were made about the diversity of vegetation, based on Google Earth, spatial planning tools and available literature and the area stratified into these basic types. In this way the time available was used

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 4

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

much more efficiently than in random sampling, but there is a risk of bias and the eventual results may simply ‘prove’ the assumptions.

In general, the stratification of the site was influenced by obvious features of the vegetation, such as the presence of conspicuous species or vegetation structure. These factors may be largely independent of the floristic make-up of the vegetation, and by definition the biological communities present. Sample plots were analysed by determining the dominant species in each plot, as well as any alien invasive species and potential SCC occurring within the plots. Vegetation communities were then described according to the dominant species recorded from each type, and these were mapped and assigned a sensitivity score.

2.4 VEGETATION MAPPING

Vegetation is usually mapped from satellite images, and related to data gathered on the ground.

2.5 AQUATIC ASSESSMENT

The aim of this assessment was to identify the aquatic importance of the rivers affected by the project and to evaluate the sensitivity of these features.

A desktop assessment of the project area was conducted in terms of current surface water classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:

• Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (2017) • Department of Water and Sanitation Desktop Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) Model (2014); • Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Level 2 River Ecoregional Classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2005); • The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) project (2011 - 2014); and • National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) – River Ecosystems (2004). • The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA, 2018).

Thereafter a site visit was conducted on 11 July 2019 in order to determine the actual condition of the rivers and wetlands within the proposed study area.

2.6 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

This section of the report explains the approach to determining the ecological sensitivity of the study area on a broad scale. The approach identifies zones of high, medium and low sensitivity according to a system developed by CES and used in numerous proposed development studies. It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological (primarily vegetation) characteristics, and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on 10 criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity. The

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 5

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

method predominantly involves identifying sensitive vegetation or habitat types, topography and land transformation (Table 2-1).

Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity.

Table 2-1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area. CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY MODERATE HIGH SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY 1 10 5

1 Topography Level, or even Undulating; fairly steep Complex and uneven slopes with steep slopes

2 Vegetation - Extensive Restricted to a particular Restricted to a specific Extent or habitat region/zone locality / site type in the region

3 Conservation Well conserved Not well conserved, Not conserved - has a status of fauna/ independent of moderate conservation high conservation value flora or habitats conservation value value

4 Species of None, although No endangered or One or more conservation occasional regional vulnerable species, endangered and concern - endemics some indeterminate or vulnerable species, or Presence and rare endemics more than 2 endemics number or rare species

5 Habitat Extensive areas of Reasonably extensive Limited areas of this fragmentation preferred habitat present areas of preferred habitat habitat, susceptible to leading to loss of elsewhere in region not elsewhere and habitat fragmentation viable susceptible to susceptible to populations fragmentation fragmentation

6 Biodiversity Low diversity, or species Moderate diversity, and High species diversity, contribution richness moderately high species complex plant and richness animal communities

7 Visibility of the Site is hidden or barely Site is visible from some Site is visible from many site or landscape visible from any vantage or a few vantage points or all angles or vantage from other points with the exception but is not obtrusive or points. vantage points in some cases from the very conspicuous. sea.

8 Erosion Very stable and an area Some possibility of Large possibility of potential or not subjected to erosion. erosion or change due to erosion, change to the instability of the episodic events. site or destruction due region to climatic or other factors.

9 Rehabilitation Site is easily There is some degree of Site is difficult to potential of the rehabilitated. difficulty in rehabilitation rehabilitate due to the area or region of the site. terrain, type of habitat or species required to reintroduce.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 6

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY MODERATE HIGH SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY 1 10 5

1 Disturbance Site is very disturbed or There is some degree of The site is hardly or very 0 due to human degraded. disturbance of the site. slightly impacted upon habitation or by human disturbance. other influences (Alien invasives)

A Geographical Information System (GIS) map was drawn up and with the aid of a satellite image, the sensitive regions and vegetation types could be plotted. The description of the sample plots helped to map the vegetation, and these descriptions as well as sensitivity ratings were illustrated on the resultant maps.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 7

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Matjiesfontein, near Laingsburg in the Klein Karoo, has a semi-arid desert climate, with approximately 185mm of annual rainfall. During the hottest months (November to March), the average temperature ranges between 15˚C and 30˚C and in the winter months (May to August) the average temperature is between 1˚C and 16˚C. The mean annual temperature in Matjiesfontein is 15.4 °C.

Approximately 3km from Matjiesfontein, behind a ridge averaging 40m in height (from ground level) and located within the margins of the Cape Fold Belt on the northern side of the Witberg Range, is Site B (Figure 3-1 and 3-2) (Plate 3-1 and Plate 3-2). The area is something of an enclosed valley and fairly level, ascending to the south.

On the northern side, closest to the N1 and approximately 3km from Matjiesfontein village, is Site A. This area is characterised by undulating hills or “koppies” and rocky outcrops. There is a slope which descends towards the river bed that transects the site. The elevation ranges from 969m down to 954m when moving from north to south towards the river and then up to 965 on the southern side of the river (Figure 3-3) and 3-4) (Plate 3-3).

The underlying bedrock comprises of dark grey Permian glacial tillites of the Dwyka Group formation. The predominant geology of the area is characterised by dry, sandy soils and gravelly alluvial sediments. There are several irregular quartzite bodies with associated sandstone and shale as well as Dwyka tillite outcrops.

Figure 3-1:Elevation profile Site B From North to South

Figure 3-2:Elevation profile Site B From East to West

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 8

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3-3:Elevation profile Site A North to South

Figure 3-4:Elevation profile Site A East to West

Plate 3-1:Site B view from south towards Matjiesfontein (hidden behind ridge)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 9

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3-2: Site B view from ridge to the south

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 10

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3-3:Site A. View from the northern slope looking across at the river bed and southern slope

3.2 THE CURRENT LAND USE

The Lord Milner Hotel in Matjiesfontein who is the land owner, have demarcated a recreational mountain bike route through the site (Plate 3-4), which is available for use by the hotel guests. It appears that the site itself is not used for livestock grazing although the neighbouring landowners use their own land for this activity.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 11

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3-4: Access gate to site with signage for mountain bike track

3.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION

The study area is part of the Succulent Karoo Biome, which is located in the more arid areas of the country, and is characterised by the presence of succulent species primarily from the Aizoaceae, Crassulaceae and Euphorbiaceae families. The vegetation on the site is classified as Renosterveld, which is generally found on nutrient-rich soils. The dominant characteristic shrubs belong to the Genera Eriocephalus and Elytropappus, but grass and bulbous geophytes species are also abundant (WCBSP, 2017).

3.3.1 National Vegetation Map: Expected Vegetation Types

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) developed the National Vegetation map as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project: “It was compiled 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 from several contributors and has allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. This project had two main aims:

» 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 » 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 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. This is the most comprehensive data for vegetation types in South Africa. According to the map, three vegetation types are expected to occur here (Figure 3-5), namely:

• Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld • Matjiesfonein Quartzite Fynbos • Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 12

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3.3.2 Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld

This vegetation type occurs in the Western Cape Province from De Doorns and the top of the Theronsberg Pass in the west to Gamka Poort in the east. It remains north of the Waboomberg and Warmwaterberg in the Little Karoo, and north of the Anyberg and Groot Swartberg and south of Tanqua karoo, the Grootrivier near Matjiesfontein and Floriskraal Dam south east of Laingsburg. This vegetation type is associated with higher elevation ridges of Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos and Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos, which occur at altitudes between 750- 1300m (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

This vegetation type is characterised by low mountains, parallel hills and mid-altitude plateaus supporting low, open to medium dense shrubland dominated by renosterbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

This vegetation type is listed as least threatened with a conservation target of 27%. Approximately 7% has been conserved in the Anysberg Nature Reserve (CapeNature) and private conservation areas such as Rooikraans. An estimated 9% of this vegetation type has been completely transformed due to cultivation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Ecosystems listed as Least Threatened are those that are typically intact and have therefore not experienced a significant loss of natural habitat or decline in ecological condition (Ecosystem Guidelines, 2016).

According to figure 3-1, site B occurs within this vegetation type.

3.3.3 Matjiesfonein Quartzite Fynbos

This vegetation type occurs in the Western Little Karoo extending from Saalberg near Karoopoort and Skulpiesklip in the west, to Elandsberg near the Gamkapoort Dam in the east. It includes parts of the Bontberg, Voetpadsberg and Koegaberge in the vicinity of Touws River, the Witteberg south of Matjiesfontein including many ridges between the Witteberg and Anysberg, and the higher ridges north of, and running parallel to, the Klein Swartberg. It is also found between Ouberg Pass and Gatskraal (Mont Eco) west of Warmwaterberg and on hill summits around Ladismith, including Ladismith Hill at altitudes between 750- 1684m at an unnamed point north of Towerkop (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

This vegetation type occurs on low flat mountains and parallel ridges in a west-east orientation Apart from the locations at Witteberg and Elandsberg, this vegetation type always occurs in narrow, linear bands surrounded by Matjiesfontein Shale Fynbos and Succulent Karoo vegetation. It is a medium dense, medium tall shrubland of mainly asteraceous and proteoid fynbos, although restoid fynbos is also present. The lower northern slopes in the east, where there is a rainshadow effect due to the Swartberg Mountains, support Succulent Karoo vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 13

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

This vegetation type is listed as Least Threatened. It holds a conservation target of 27% with 5% of this vegetation type being statutorily conserved in the Anysberg Nature Reserve, and a further 3% conserved in Vaalkloof Private Nature Reserve. Approximately 15% of this vegetation type has been transformed through cultivation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

According to figure 3-5, site B occurs within this vegetation type.

3.3.4 Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo

This vegetation type can be found in both the Western Cape and in smaller portions of the Northern Cape, specifically koedoesberge and Pienaar se Berg low mountain ranges bordering on the southern Tanqua Karoo, and separated by the Klein Roggeveld Mountains from the Moordenaars Karoo in the broad area of Laingsburg and Merweville (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). This vegetation type is associated with a slightly undulating to hilly landscape covered by low succulent scrub and dotted by scattered tall shrubs, with patches of ‘white’ grass visible on plains. The most conspicuous dominant species are the dwarf shrubs of the genera Pteronia, Drosanthemum and Galenia This vegetation type is listed as Least Threatened with a conservation target of 19%. Only a small portion has been statutorily conserved in the Gamkapoort Nature Reserve. Little transformation has taken place and no serious alien plants are recorded within this vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). According to figure 3-5, site A occurs within this vegetation type.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 14

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3-5: National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford 2017)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 15

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3.3.5 Vegetation types recorded on site

Although three vegetation types are expected to occur within the project site, only two vegetation types were recorded on site during the field survey. These are Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld (site B) and Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo (site A). Their distribution on site is presented in Figure 3-6.

The vegetation at site A (Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo) is typically comprised of short shrubs of up to 1m interspersed with Aristida diffusa (grass species), herbs and succulents (Plate 3-3). The dominant shrubs include Elytropappus rhinocerotis (Renosterbos), Ruschia crassa, Eriocephalus sp and Pteronia pallens and to a lesser degree Cliffortia hantamensis and Cheiridopsis namaquensis. Dominant herbs include Oxalis melanosticta, Dimorphotheca cuneata, Gazania krebsia. Common succulent species included Crassula alpestris, Haworthia lockwoodii, Tylecodon cultrate, Crassula orbicularis, Mesembryanthemum resurgens, Drosanthemum sp. There were a number of geophytes, particularly along the slopes south of the river bed (north facing slope). These included Geissorhiza heterostyla, Gladiolus venustus, Ixia sobolifera, Ixia sp. and Babiana cf sambucina. Refer to appendix A for a list of plant species recorded on site.

Both vegetation types were typically intact and in good condition with little evidence of disturbance or invasion by alien species.

3.4 PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

The indigenous plant species recorded at the site were compared to the South African Red Data List, the Threatened and Protected Species list and the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance Act (PNCO) (No. 19 of 1974). Eight Schedule 4 species were recorded within the study area. These are listed in Table 3-1.

A full species list is available in Appendix A.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services SANSA ECOLOGICAL REPORT 16

Table 3-1: Species of Conservation Concern recorded on site

Species SA Red Data List TOPS PNCO (1974) Babiana cf sambucina subsp. Least Concern - Schedule 4 sambucina Diascia hexensis Least Concern - Schedule 4 Geissorhiza heterostyla Least Concern - Schedule 4 Gladiolus venustus Least Concern - Schedule 4 Haworthia mucronata DDT - Schedule 4 Holothrix aspera Least Concern - Schedule 4 Ixia sobolifera Least Concern - Schedule 4 Ixia trifolia Least Concern - Schedule 4 Least Concern but - - targeted by illegal Gibbaeum geminum plant trade Pteronia hutchinsoniana Rare - - Gethyllis fimbriatula Data Deficient - Schedule 4

Babiana cf sambucina subsp. sambucina Babiana sambucina subsp. sambucia occurs in the Western and Eastern Cape from Ceres through to Port Elizabeth and is associated with the Klein Karoo. This species is endemic to South Africa and although listed as a Schedule 4 species on the PNCO as a consequence of it belonging to the Iris family, it is listed as Least Concern on the South African Red Data List due to its population being stable.

Diascia hexensis This species is endemic to South Africa and occurs in the Klein Karoo in the Western and Northern Cape. It has been assigned an automatic status of Least Concern until the Threatened Species Programme has completed a full assessment of the taxon’s status. This species was listed as a Schedule 4 species on the PNCO list.

Geissorhiza heterostyla Geissorhiza heterostyla is a South African endemic occurring from south-eastern- namaqualand to the southern Cape and eastwards to Port Elizabeth. This species is listed on the PNCO list as a consequence of it falling in the Iridaceae family. It is listed as Least Concern on the South African Red data List.

Gladiolus venustus This species is endemic to South Africa and occurs in the Klein Karoo in the Western and Northern Cape. It has been assigned an automatic status of Least Concern until the Threatened Species Programme has completed a full assessment of the taxon’s status. This species was listed as a Schedule 4 species on the PNCO list.

Haworthia mucronata This species has not yet been evaluated by the Threatened Species Programme however it is listed as a Schedule 4 species on the PNCO list.

Holothrix aspera

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 17

This species is endemic to South Africa and occurs in the Northern and Western Cape (Kurzwell and Victor, 2005). It is described as having a stable population and although it is listed as Schedule 4 on the PNCO list as a consequence of it falling within the Orchidaceae family, it is listed as Least Concern on the South African Red Data List.

Ixia sobolifera cf. subsp. sobolifera This species is a South African endemic occurring in the Northern and Western Cape. This species is listed as Least Concern on the South African Red Data List as there are no significant threats to this taxon. This species is listed as a Schedule 4 species on the PNCO as it falls within the Iridaceae family.

Gibbaeum geminum This species occurs in the Western Cape and is listed as least Concern although it is targeted by illegal plant trade.

Pteronia hutchinsoniana This species occurs from the Montagi to Langkloof and is associated with dry sandstone slopes and clay soils in renosterveld. According to the SANBI Red Data List, this species is more widespread and common than previously known.

Gethyllis fimbriatula This species is a South African endemic known from Matjiesfontein and is listed as Data Deficient.

3.4.1 Species of Conservation Concern that could occur on site Species of Conservation (SCC) concern recorded at nearby developments have been listed below (Table 3-2) and comment made on their likelihood of occurrence at the three sites that were assessed.

Placement of infrastructure should be done in such a way so as to limit the impact on species with a threatened status. A site visit or walk-through of the infrastructure footprint, powerline and access roads must be done prior to construction.

Table 3-2: Species of Conservation Concern that may occur on site Species Threat Status Comment Protea convexa CR This species range extends from the Cederberg to the Witteberg tand Klein Swartberg Mounatins. It is associated with Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos and although no fynbos nor protea individuals were recorded on site it is possible that it could be present in certain areas near site B. Antimima luckhoffii DDT Little is known about the distribution and habitat preference of this species. Since it has been recorded in the general area the precautionary principal is applied and it is possible that this species could occur on site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 18

Species Threat Status Comment Antimima DDT Little is known about the distribution and wittebergensis habitat preference of this species. Since it has been recorded in the general area the precautionary principal is applied and it is possible that this species could occur on site. Antimima pumila DDT This species has been recorded within 5km of the site. It is unknown what vegetation type it is associated with but is is assumed that this species has a high likelihood of occurring on site given the close proximity of existing records. Bulbine flexuosa DDT Little is known about the distribution and habitat preference of this species. Since it has been recorded in the general area the precautionary principal is applied and it is possible that this species could occur on site. Drosanthemum DDT Little is known about the distribution and eburneum habitat preference of this species. Since it has been recorded in the general area the precautionary principal is applied and it is possible that this species could occur on site. Drosanthemum DDT Little is known about the distribution and globosum habitat preference of this species. Since it has been recorded in the general area the precautionary principal is applied and it is possible that this species could occur on site. Gasteria disticha EN This species is know from two locations between Worcestor and Robertson and is associated with Limestone outcrops in Breede Shale Renosterveld. Gasteria species are easy to identify and no species from this genus were observed on site. Conophytum minimum LT but targeted by This species has an EOO of 5234km2 and is illegal plant trade endemic to Cere and the Little Karoo. There are a number of collection records for this species in and around Matjiesfontein and as such the likelihood of this species occurring on site is very high. Geissorhiza karooica NT This species is known from six locations with an EOO of 497km2. It occurs from the Roggeveld mountains to Matjiesfontein and is associated with succulent karoo shrubland on coarse shale slopes. The likelihood of this species being present is relatively high. Lachenalia ameliae NT This species has an EOO of 17,696 km2 and is known from less than 20 locations. One of

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 19

Species Threat Status Comment the vegetation types it is associated with is Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld. The likelihood of it occurring on site is therefore high. Leucodendron NT This species occurs from the Witteberg and teretifolium Kleinrivier mountains to Riverdale and one of the vegetation types it is associated with is Matjiesfontein Shale renosterveld

Although this species has been recorded on the mountain range behind Matjiesfontein, none were recorded near site B. Bulbine torta Rare This species is known from five locations and is described as a habitat specialist. It occurs in shallow pans on sandstaone slabs in the Roggeveld and Matsikamma Mountains. There is a record of this species occurring approximately 20km north of Matjiesfontein. Crassula alpestris Rare This species occurs between Clanwilliam and massonnii Laingsburg and is associated with sandy and gravely slopes. It is likely to occur on site. Eriocephalus Rare There are records of this species in the grandifloras Anysburg nature reserve to the south and at Sutherland to the north. Although not observed on site, it is possible that it may occur. Tylecodon faucium Rare This species has an EOO of 1516km2 and is known from 5 subpopulations between Ceres and the Roggeveld Mountains. It is associated with shaded rock crevices, mostly on south facing slopes. There are no records of this species in iNaturalist showing it to be near the site. Crassula congesta Rare This species is known from four laticephala subpopulations between Calitzdorp and Barrydale. It is associated withAlbany Thicket and Succulent Karoo and is found on gentle slopes or in depressions associated with quartzite. Strumaria karooica Rare This species is known from less than 10 sites between Middelpos, Sutherland and Matjiesfontein and is associated with shallow clay soils in seasonally damp depressions. There is a record of this species approximately 20km north of Matjiesfontein.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 20

Species Threat Status Comment There is a high likelihood that this species may occur on site. Antimima loganii VU The distribution of this species is unknown with only one known location although this is likely to be an underestimate. Records for this species have been found at a site approximately 20km north of Matjiesfontein. It appears to be associated with Roggeveld Shale Renosterveld and occurs in crevices of sandstone rocks. This vegetation type was not recorded on site and therefore the likelihood of this species occurring on site is moderate.

Antimima peersii VU This species occurs from Worcester and Robertson to Riversdale and is associated with gravel slopes in Breede Shale renosterveld, Mossel Bay Shale Renosterveld, Eastern Ruens Shale renosterveld and Central Ruens Shale Renosterveld, none of which were recorded on or next to the site. It is knonw from six locations with a EOO of 4641km2. Given this species’ distribution it is unlikely to occur on site. Astroloba herrei VU This species is known from three subpopulations between Matjiesfontein and Prince Albert and is associated with rocky slopes derived from Bokkeveld shale, Dwyka tillite or Witteberg quartzite and occurs in Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld (where Site B is located). Collection records on iNaturlaist for this species are east of Prince Albert (Matjiesfonetin is west of Prince Albert) This species was not recorded on site, however given the habitat requirements it is possible it may occur at Site B. Brunsvigia josephinae VU There are 18 known subpopulations of this species and it is estimated that a further 70 unrecorded subpopulations may exist. Its range extends from Nieuwoudtville to Baviaanskloof and one of the vegetation types it is found in is Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld. There are records of this species near Matjiesfontein and it is therefore

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 21

Species Threat Status Comment highly probable that it occurs within the project area. Duvalia parviflora VU This species is known from less than ten locations between Van Wyksdorp, Ladismith and Oudtshoorn and has an EOO of 1400km2. It is possible that this species may occur on site. Aloinopsis loganii VU This species is known from two locations around Matjiesfontein with an EOO of less than 10km2. It is associated with flat, gravelly plains within the Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo.

3.5 ALIEN PLANT SPECIES

No alien plant species were recorded within either site A or site B. However, disturbance to the environment associated with construction activities may result in the infestation of alien or weedy species which could be detrimental to the vegetation types present. As such, the site will need to be monitored for alien species and corrective action taken if alien species are found.

3.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE FAUNA

3.6.1 Regional Context of the Fauna

South Africa is a diverse country, with approximately 1,663 terrestrial vertebrate faunal species of which 850 species are birds, 343 species are mammals, 350 species are reptiles and 120 species are amphibians spread across seven biomes and 122 million km². The Western Cape Province is home to approximately 153 reptile species, 55 amphibian species, 172 mammal species and 674 bird species (Turner, 2017). 3.6.2 Reptiles

Of the 153 reptile species that occur in the WC, 62 species have a distribution which coincides with the project area (Appendix 1D) (Turner & de Villers, 2017). Approximately 44 of these species have been recorded in QDS 3320BA and 3320BC within which the site is located, including 26 lizard species, 15 snake species, two tortoise and one terrapin species (FitzPatrick, 2019). Species presence confirmed on site include the Parrot-beaked Tortoise and the Southern Tent Tortoise, and at the neighbouring site the Puff adder, Cape cobra, Southern rock agama, Bibrons thick-toed gecko, Spotted sand lizard, Buchell’s sand lizard and Cape Crag lizard have been recorded (iNaturalist, 2019). At a site 20-40km north of Matjiesfontein Todd (2016) recorded Karoo Tent Tortoise, Angulate Tortoise, Marsh Terrapin, Puff Adder, Karoo Girdled Lizard, Southern Rock Agama, Cape Skink and Cape Cobra on- site or in the immediate area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 22

The WC supports 21 threatened or near-threatened reptile species and 22 endemic reptile species (Bates et al., 2014; Turner & Villiers, 2017). The project area intersects the distribution of one Near-threated species the Karoo Dwarf Tortoise (Homopus boulengeri) and four endemic species namely the Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion gutturale), Dwarf Girdled Lizard (Cordylus minor), Graceful Crag Lizard (Hemicordylus capensis) and the Red Adder (Bitis rubida).

Karoo Dwarf Tortoise usually take shelter under rocks in vegetated areas or in rock crevices in dwarf shrubland that often contain succulent and grassy elements. The Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon inhabits Fynbos, Renosterveld and habitats in the Fynbos–Succulent Karoo transition zone (Tolley, 2018). Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld occurs on site, and thus the Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon is expected to occur on site since habitat is available and 6 individuals have been found within a 30 square km area around the site (FitzPatrick, 2018). The Graceful Crag Lizard shelters in small, vertical cracks in rock outcrops in lowland areas as well as on mountain slopes (Branch 1998). Red Adder shelters under rock slabs on the slopes or tops of mountains on rocky mountain slopes in Renosterveld (Maritz & Turner, 2018). Habitat is available for both H. capensis and B. rubica at Site A and Site B. The Dwarf Girdled Lizard is found in small, diffuse colonies on high mountain tops and slopes where wary individuals run about on smooth, often vertical slopes, sheltering in rock cracks and crevices (Bates et al. 2014). Habitat is available at Site B.

Table 3-2: Species of Conservation Concern likely to occur on site Common name Scientific name Status Endemic Karoo Dwarf Tortoise Homopus boulengeri Near Threatened Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon Bradypodion gutturale Least Concern Endemic Dwarf Girdled Lizard Cordylus minor Least Concern Endemic Graceful Crag Lizard Hemicordylus capensis Least Concern Endemic Red Adder Bitis rubida Least Concern Endemic

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 23

Figure 3-6: Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon (Tolley, 2018), Graceful Crag Lizard (Bates, 2018), Red Adder (Maritz, & Turner, 2018) and Dwarf Girdled Lizard (Bates et al. 2018).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 24

3.6.3 Amphibians

Of the 60 species of amphibians known to occur in the Western Cape 10 of these species have a distribution which coincides with the project area (Appendix 1C) (Turner & de Villiers, 2017; Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017). Approximately six of these 10 species have been recorded within a 30km2 area (QDS 3320BA and/or 3320BC) within which the project area is located, namely the Cape River Frog (Amietia fuscigula), Sand Rain Frog (Breviceps rosei), Clicking Stream Frog (Strongylopus grayii), Common Caco (Cacosternum boettgeri), Cape Sand Frog (Tomopterna delalandii), Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps) and Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis) (FitzPatrick, 2019).

The WC supports 15 known threatened and near-threatened species, none of which have a distribution which includes the project area (Minter et al., 2004). In total, 36 amphibian species are endemic to the Western Cape Province (Turner & de Villiers, 2017), and two (2) of these have a distribution which includes the project area, namely the Karoo Dainty Frog (Cacosternum karooicum) and Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps) (Figure 4.3).

The Cape Sand Toad and Karoo Dainty Frog are likely to be found on site. Cape Sand Toad is recorded as inhabiting fynbos heathland and agricultural areas and breeds in temporary depressions in sandy/clay areas/soils (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013). Although the site is outside of its distribution range the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019) have confirmed the occurrence of nine individual Sand Rain Frog species within within a 30 square km area around the site (QDS 3320BA and/or 3320BC). Karoo Dainty Frog lives in dry shrubland, semi- deserts, and rocky areas and is probably associated with stony substrates, aestivating in rock cracks and crevices during harsher conditions (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013) and is considered likely to be found on site.

A. B.

Figure 3-7: Amphibians Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (purple circle) A - Cape Sand Toad and B - Karoo Dainty Frog (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013).

3.6.4 Mammals

The WC is home to 172 mammal species, 90 of which have a distribution which includes the Project Area (Appendix 1E) (Birss, 2017). Approximately 55 mammal species have been recorded in QDS 3320BA and/or 3320BC within which the project area is located (FitzPatrick, 2018). No mammal species were recorded during the site visit.

At a site 20-40km north of Matjiesfontein Williams (2016) reported sightings of Chacma Baboon (Papio ursinus), Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas) and Cape Grey Mongoose (Herpestes pulverulenta). Todd (2016) reported the presence of Klipspringer and Grey Rhebok along the ridges. Animalia (2016) identified the potential for the following bats to occur in the area: Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat, Egyptian slit-faced bat, Egyptian free-tailed bat,

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 25

Robert’s flat-headed bat, Natal long-fingered bat (NT), Long-tailed serotine Temmink’smyotis and Cape serotine.

The Western Cape has 24 threatened mammal species and 13 near threatened species (Birss, 2017). One (1) critically endangered, one (1) vulnerable species and four (4) Near- Threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area (Table 3-3). Five (5) of these species have been recorded within a 30km radius of the project site, including 27 Leopard, 26 Grey Rhebok, three (3) Cape Clawless Otter, two (2) Brown Hyena and 21 Striped Weasel sightings (FitzPatrick, 2018). The Anysberg Nature Reserve is approximately 23 km south of the project site and supports support Aardwolf, Aardvark and Cape Clawless Otter (Birdlife, 2015). The site is within their natural range, and hence these species can be expected to occur. The reserve hosts a small subpopulation of Brown Hyena and vagrants have been recorded on neighbouring farmland (Yarnell et al., 2016).

Although not recorded within within a 30 square km area around the site on the Animal Demography Unit’s data record, the Riverine Rabbit has a limited southern population (Figure 3.8.) The Riverine Rabbit is both a flagship species for the Karoo and its presence in the Succulent Karoo is associated with ecosystem integrity. There are three distinct populations, one to the north and one to the south and one near Baviaanskloof. The southern population of the Riverine Rabbit are not restricted to the alluvial floodplains in the southern Cape (C. Bragg pers. obs. 2014) and can also occur in old lands not associated with riverine vegetation. This species is known to browse Pteronia erythrochaetha, Kochia pubescens, Salsola glabrescens and species of Aizoacae. This species may occur on site given that the Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo encompasses Pteronia dwarf shrubs. Table 3-3: Threatened Mammal Species with a distribution that includes the site QDS # Recordings Common name Scientific name Red list category (ADU, 2019) 3320BA, 3320BC Riverine Rabbit Bunolagus monticularis Critically Endangered Leopard Panthera pardus Vulnerable 27 Grey Rhebok Pelea capreolus Near Threatened 26 Cape Clawless Otter Aonyx capensis Near Threatened 3 Brown Hyena Hyaena brunnea Near Threatened 2 African Striped Weasel Poecilogale albinucha Near Threatened 21 Fynbos Golden Mole Amblysomus corriae Near Threatened (west) devilliersi

Figure 3-8: Project site (purple dot) in relation to Riverine Rabbit southern distribution range

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 26

Eight (8) mammal species are endemic to the Western Cape and ten (10) are near endemic. Three (3) endemic and three (3) near endemic mammal species have distribution ranges that extend through the project site (Table 3-4).

The Cape Spiny Mouse and Cape Molerat have been recorded within a 30 square km area around the site (Table 3-4) which is surprising given that the Cape Spiny Mouse inhabits rocky areas and is highly dependent on fynbos (Palmer, et al., 2017) and although Matjies Shale Fynbos occurs in the area it does not occur on the site (Figure 3.5), only Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld and Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo vegetation. Cape Molerat most commonly prefer soil types derived from sandstone, limestone, shale and quartzite which comprise the sandy loam, clay and alluvium soils that are inhabited (Bennett et al. 2016). The Fynbos Golden Mole, Cape Gerbil, Cape Grysbok and Riverine Rabbit may occur on site. Fynbos Golden Mole inhabits renosterveld habitats of the south-west Cape (Bronner & Mynhardt, 2015). The Cape Gerbil inhabits sandy soil on the fringes of shrubland (Palmer & Cassola, 2016). Cape Grysbok natural (historical) distribution is primarily associated with the Fynbos Biome and extends into the Succulent Karoo Biome and is locally common in thickets, shrublands and fynbos habitats provided there is dense cover (Palmer et al., 2017). Table 3-4: Endemic and Near-endemics WC Mammals with a distribution that includes the site QDS # Recordings Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019) 3320BA, 3320BC ENDEMIC TO WESTERN CAPE Amblysomus corriae Fynbos Golden Mole Near Threatened devilliersi (west) Acomys subspinosus Cape Spiny Mouse Least Concern 40 Gerbilliscus afra Cape Gerbil Least concern NEAR ENDEMIC TO WESTERN CAPE Bunolagus monticularis Riverine Rabbit Critically Endangered Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok Least Concern Georychus capensis Cape Molerat Least Concern 9

3.6.5 Birds

According to Avibase (Lepage, 2019) approximately 258 bird species occur within the Laingsburg region), Western Cape Province and of these 125 species have been recorded within a 15km radius of the project area (Appendix 1B) (SABAP 2). The project area falls within the distribution ranges of nine threatened and eight near-threatened species. Of the threatened species one is considered to be critically endangered, five endangered and three vulnerable (Table 4.3). The Black Harrier (Circus maurus) (EN), Ludwig's Bustard (Neotis ludwigii ) (EN), Verreauxs' Eagle (Aquila verreauxii) (VU), Cape Rockjumper (Chaetops frenatus ) (NT) and Ground Woodpecker (Geocolaptes olivaceus ) (NT).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 27

Table 3-5: Bird SCC with a distribution range that includes the site

Recorded SABAP 2 TOPS - PENTAD CITES National Threat Status Global Threat Terrestrial Common name Scientific name PNCO (28 August (Taylor et al., 2015) Status (IUCN) (No. 27306, 331 2020) 3315_ 3315_ 2005) 0_2 2035 2030 035

Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus Critically Endandered Near-threatened Schedule 1 CITES II Black Harrier Circus maurus Endangered Endangered X Cape Griffon Gyps coprotheres Endangered Endangered Endangered CITES II Lappet-faced Vulture Torgos tracheliotos Endangered Endangered Endangered CITES II Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii Endangered Endangered Vulnerable X Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Endangered Endangered Vulnerable CITES II Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Vulnerable Endangered Southern Black Korhaan Eupodotis afra Vulnerable Vulnerable Verreauxs' Eagle Aquila verreauxii Vulnerable Least Concern X X X Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa Near-threatened Vulnerable Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus Near-threatened Vulnerable Endangered African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus Near-threatened Near-threatened Cape Rockjumper Chaetops frenatus Near-threatened Near-threatened Schedule 1 X Chestnut-banded Plover Charadrius pallidus Near-threatened Near-threatened Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus Near-threatened Near-threatened X X Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor Near-threatened Near-threatened CITES II Protea Canary Crithagra leucoptera Near-threatened Near-threatened Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus requires evaluation Near-threatened Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Near-threatened Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Extinct Endangered Critically Endandered

Important Bird Area (IBA) are sites critical for the long-term survival of bird species that are globally threatened, have a restricted range, are restricted to specific biomes/vegetation types and/or have significant populations (BirdLife SA, 2019). South Africa has 101 Global IBAs and an additional 21 Regional IBAs. The nearest IBA’s is the Anysberg Nature Reserve approximately 20 km south of the project area. A total of 212 bird species have been recorded in Anysberg (BirdLife SA, 2019). The IBA was designated as such due to the presence of both globally and regionally threatened species, range-restricted and biome-restricted species including: • “Globally threatened species are Blue Crane, Ludwig’s Bustard, Southern Black Korhaan , Martial Eagle and Black Harrier. • Regionally threatened species are Karoo Korhaan, Verreauxs’ Eagle, Black Stork, Lanner Falcon nd Cape Rockjumper. • Range-restricted and biome-restricted species that are common in the IBA are Cape Spurfowl, Cape Bulbul and Karoo Chat.”

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 28

3.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

3.7.1 Quaternary Catchment and Water Management Area

The study area falls within quaternary catchment J11E within Water Management Area 16 (Gouritz). It does not fall within a Strategic Water Source Area. The mean annual run-off for this region is 3.99 mm per annum.

3.7.2 Watercourses and wetlands

The desktop analysis of hydrological features was based largely on the data from the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (2018) as it incorporates the data of the NFEPA project and the SAIIAE.

For the purpose of sensitivity assessment of the site, the Ecosystem Threat Status (ETS) (based on the extent to which each river ecosystem type had been altered from its natural condition), as determined by the NBA 2018, has been used to provide an indication of the sensitivity of each river and wetland identified within the study area.

Ecosystem types are categorised as critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) or least concern (LC), with CR, EN and VU ecosystem types collectively referred to as ‘threatened’ (Van Deventer, et al., 2018; Skowno et al., 2018).

According to the NBA (2018) (and NFEPA, 2014), there are a number of non-perennial streams surrounding the study site, although there are no identified streams within the boundary of Site A or Site B.

Site A has a non-perennial tributary of the Bobbejaanrivier that dissects the site from west to east. This stream flows from an elevation of 968m to 945m and feeds into the Bobbejaanrivier approximately 4km away (Figure 3.9). There are four drainage lines that feed into the tributary

Site B has 3 drainage lines that eventually feed into a tributary of the Bobbejaanrivier.

The PES (1999) of Bobbejaanrivier is classified as Class C: Moderately Modified with an Environmental Threat Status (ETS) of Least Threatened (NBA, 2018).

All the drainage lines within Site A and Site B have been designated as Ecological Support Areas (ESA) (WCBSP, 2017).

The only direct impacts expected to occur to the non-perennial tributary at site A is the where the fence will cross the stream. There may also be some minor drainage lines that are crossed by the fence and road. Additionally, an increase in impervious surface area will result in increased surface runoff during rainfall events, which, together with uncontrolled stormwater runoff into nearby streams could lead to erosion, sedimentation and deterioration of instream water quality/habitat should the runoff be contaminated.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 29

According to the NBA (2018) (and NFEPA, 2014), no natural wetlands occur within site A or site B.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 30

Figure 3.9: Watercourses, tributaries and drainage lines within the project site indicated by the Blue dotted lines

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 31

3.7.3 Ecoregions

South Africa is a geologically, geomorphologically, climatically and ecologically complex country, and this has resulted in a diverse range of ecosystems, including rivers. River ecoregional classification or typing allows the grouping of rivers according to similarities based on a top-down nested hierarchy. The principle of river typing is that rivers grouped together at a particular level of the typing hierarchy will be more similar to one another than rivers in other groups. Ecological regions are regions within which there is relative similarity in the mosaic of ecosystems and ecosystem components (biotic and abiotic, aquatic and terrestrial).

According to Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2005) Level 2 River Ecoregional Classification System, the project site falls within Level 2 Ecoregion Great Karoo (Table 3.1). This ecoregion is characterised by plains with low to moderate relief although significant closed hills and mountains with moderate to high relief are present (Kleynhans et. al., 2007). Vegetation types typically include Nama Karoo, Succulent Karoo, Renosterveld and Thicket.

Table 5.3. Attributes of the Level 2 Ecoregion Great Karoo (Source: Kleynhans et. al., 2007) Main Attributes Great Karoo

Terrain Morphology: Broad Plains; Low Relief; division (dominant types in Plains Moderate Relief; bold) (Primary) Lowlands; Hills and Mountains; Moderate and High Relief;

Open Hills, Lowlands; Mountains; Moderate to High Relief;

Closed Hills; Mountains; Moderate and High Relief;

Table-Lands: Moderate and High Relief

Vegetation types (dominant Valley Thicket (limited); Spekboom Succulent Thicket (limited); types in bold) (Primary) Central Nama Karoo; Eastern Mixed Nama Karoo (limited); Great Nama Karoo; Upper Nama Karoo; Bushmanland Nama Karoo (limited)

Lowland Succulent Karoo; Upland Succulent Karoo; Little Succulent Karoo (limited)

Escarpment Mountain Renosterveld;

Altitude (m a.m.s.l.) 100-300 (limited), 300-1700; 1700-1900 limited

MAP (mm) 0 to 500

Coefficient of variation (% of 30 to >40 annual precipitation)

Rainfall concentration index 15 to 65

Rainfall seasonality Very late summer to all year

Mean annual temp (°C) 10oC to 20 oC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 32

Main Attributes Great Karoo

Mean daily max temp (°C) 26 oC to >32 oC February

Mean daily max temp (°C) July 12 oC to 22 oC

Mean daily min temp (°C) 10 oC to 18 oC February

Mean daily min temp (°C) July 0 oC to 8 oC

Median annual simulated runoff <5 to 40; 40 to 60 (limited) (mm) for quaternary catchment

3.7.4 Site Observations

Site A An intermittent non-perennial tributary of the Bobbejaansrivier dissects the site from west to east (Figure 3.9). These perennial systems will only have water for a few months of the year during high rainfall events. The plant species along the banks of the tributary are found throughout the site although Rhus crenata was present as well as a higher concentration of Renosterbos (Elytropappus rhinocerotis). Although the species composition along the banks was similar to that seen within other parts of the site, the plants themselves were generally taller suggesting they benefit from slightly more water. There were four shallow drainage lines perpendicular to the tributary. These drain from the higher slopes, down towards the tributary. The species associated with these drainage lines were typical of species found throughout the site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 33

Plate 3-6: Tributary that dissects Site A.

Site B Rhus crenata and Restio species were present within the drainage line that runs through the proposed site (Plate 3.7).

Drainage in the area includes drainage lines with relatively gentle slopes and narrow streams at the bottom (Plate 3-7) as well as gently sloping river beds where river washed gravel has accumulated (Plate 3-6).

Plate 3-7: Drainage line located on Site B

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 34

4 SENSITIVITY

4.1 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS

The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan is a tool that identifies priority areas of biodiversity and provides land use guidelines for developers. Based on the available spatial tool, site B and Site A, option 2 both fall within an “other Natural Area” with Ecological Support Area 1 (ESA1) traversing the sites (Figure 4-1). Areas designated as ESA’s are rivers and drainage lines.

ESA1’s are functional areas that are considered to be in a natural, near-natural or moderately degraded condition and are defined as “areas that are not essential for meeting biodiversity targets, but that play an important role in supporting the functioning of PAs or CBAs, and are often vital for delivering ecosystem services.” (WCBSP, 2017). The land use guidelines associated with these areas are to “maintain in a functional, near natural state. Some habitat loss is acceptable, provided the underlying biodiversity objectives and ecological functioning are not compromised”. The ESA1 areas at both sites are associated with drainage lines. With the exception of the fence, all project infrastructure will avoid these areas and they will therefore not be impacted.

Other Natural Areas (ONA) are areas that have “been identified as a priority in the current systematic biodiversity plan, but retain most of their natural character and perform a range of biodiversity and ecological infrastructure functions. Although they have not been prioritised for biodiversity, they are still an important part of the natural ecosystem.” The land use guidelines associated with these areas are to “Minimise habitat and species loss and ensure ecosystem functionality through strategic landscape planning. Offers flexibility in permissible land uses, but some authorisation may still be required for high-impact land uses”. The majority of each site is considered an ONA based on Figure 4-1 below. The infrastructure associated with the construction and operation of the antennae have a relatively small footprint and will not impact on the ecosystem functionality of the site as faunal species will still be able to move around the antennae and seed dispersal will still occur along drainage lines.

4.2 THREATENED ECOSYSTEMS The proposed project sites do not occur within any areas identified as Threatened Ecosystems.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 35

Figure 4-1: Critical Biodiversity Map for the study area

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 36

Figure 4-2Critical Biodiversity Map for Site A showing location of infrastructure in relation to the ESA and ONA

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 37

Figure 4-3: Critical Biodiversity Map for Site B showing location of infrastructure in relation to the ESA and ONA

4.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The sensitivity map was developed using available spatial planning tools as well as by identifying areas of high, medium and low sensitivity based on the site survey (Figure 4-2 and 4-3).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 38

Areas of high sensitivity include: • Process areas such as rivers, wetlands and streams that are important for ecosystem functioning, including surface and ground water as well as animal and plant dispersal; • Areas that have a high species richness; • Areas that are not significantly impacted, transformed or degraded by current land use; and • Areas that contain the majority of species of conservation concern found in the area and may contain high numbers of globally important species, or comprise part of a globally important vegetation type.

Areas of medium sensitivity include: • Areas that still provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded; • Degraded areas that still have a relatively high species richness; and • Degraded areas that still contain species of conservation concern.

Areas of low sensitivity include: • Areas that are highly impacted by current land use and provide little value to the ecosystem; and • Highly degraded areas that are unlikely to harbour any species of conservation concern.

4.4 SITE SENSITIVITY

The drainage lines are classified as areas of high sensitivity due to the ecological processes, (eg. natural corridors for the movement of fauna and dispersal of seeds) these systems provide. The Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld is classified as an area of moderate sensitivity due to it being intact, but widely distributed with a conservation status of Least Threatened.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 39

Figure 4-4: Sensitivity map of site A showing areas of high, moderate and low sensitivity.

Figure 4-5: Sensitivity map of site B showing areas of high, moderate and low sensitivity.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 40

5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

The study that has been undertaken provides the necessary information to assess the impacts of the project on the ecology of the area at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

This phase assesses the impacts associated with the construction of the antennae and roads.

5.1.1 Impact 1: Loss of Vegetation Communities

Cause and comment: The clearing of land for the construction of 4 antennae, scientific instruments and associated infrastructure such as internal roads will result in the permanent loss of approximately 4 ha of Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld and Koedoesberge-Moordenaars Karoo Vegetation.

Given that both vegetation types have the same conservation status of Least Concern and that they are both of moderate sensitivity, the impacts for both vegetation types and sites have been assessed as one impact.

The project will definitely result in the permanent loss of approximately 4ha of these vegetation types. However, the loss will be limited to less than 2 ha at each site and this loss will not impact on the extent and long term conservation of either vegetation type. The overall significance of the project activities at this site, provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, would be low negative.

Cumulative Impact Loss of indigenous vegetation will be exacerbated by clearing of natural vegetation from other developments in the area. However, the overall footprint of the project site is small compared to renewable energy projects and the cumulative effect from the building of this project in addition to the renewable energy projects is therefore moderate.

No-go impact Given that each vegetation type is near intact and that very little degradation is currently occurring on site, if the project were to not go ahead the two sites would probably remain functioning as they currently are. The overall significance for the no-go alternative would thus be negligible.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 1: Loss of Vegetation Communities (Site A, Alternative 1 and 2, Site B) Without Mitigation Permanent Local Moderate Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Local Moderate Definite MODERATE- Cumulative Impact Without Mitigation Permanent Local Slight Definite MODERATE- No-go alternative Negligible

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 41

Mitigation and Management: The following mitigation actions are suggested:

• Clearing must be kept to a minimum and must not occur within the adjacent river or outside of the construction footprint. • Top soil (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). • Only locally indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation. • Lay down areas must not be located within any watercourses or drainage lines. • Employees must be prohibited from making open fires during the construction 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 the numerous succulents and geophytes that will be impacted by the construction of the project site.

Cumulative Impacts Mitigation and management of cumulative effects are often beyond the ability of the project developer and the mitigations developed in this EIA have focussed on actions that the Project can take to avoid or control direct project impacts. Management of cumulative effects will require mitigation in cooperation with the South African government. Strategic spatial planning by the Government of South Africa and its agencies at this early stage is important to ensure development in the region is promoted, while maintaining ecosystem functions and services to enhance social well-being.

5.1.2 Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern (flora)

Cause and comment: The permanent loss of individuals of one Rare, one Data Deficient and eight plant species of Least Concern (but listed as a Schedule 4 protected species on the PNCO list) will occur. In addition to this, there are 1CR, 6 DDT, 1 EN, 3 NT, 6 Rare and 6 VU n SCC listed as VU, NT or EN (refer to table 3.2) that may occur on site and therefore could be impacted. The severity of the impact will be of moderate significance. The overall significance will be moderate negative.

Cumulative Impact Loss of SCC will be exacerbated by clearing of natural vegetation from other developments in the area. However, the overall footprint of the project site is small compared to renewable energy projects and the cumulative effect from the building of this project in addition to the renewable energy projects is therefore moderate.

No-go impact Should the project not go ahead, it is likely that these species will continue growing uninterrupted. The overall significance of the impact associated with the no-go alternative is therefore negligible.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 42

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 2: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern (flora) (Site A, Alternative 1 and 2, Site B) Without Mitigation Permanent Local Slight Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Local Slight Definite MODERATE- Cumulative Impact Without Mitigation Permanent Regional Moderate Definite MODERATE- No-go alternative Negligible

Mitigation Measures: In addition to the mitigation measures listed under impact 1, the following must be undertaken: • Prior to construction an ecological walk-through of the site must be undertaken and the infrastructure micro-sited to avoid populations of SCC where feasible. Where this is not feasible, permits for the removal of Schedule 4 species will be required. • Where feasible, species should be transplanted to degraded areas within or directly adjacent to the site. Where immediate translocation is not possible, species should be grown in a nursery and used to rehabilitate the site after construction is completed. It should be noted that not all species transplant well. • Prohibit all employees and contractors from harvesting plants; • Prohibit open fires during the construction phase; • Demarcate areas for use during construction and ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area; • Where possible, ensure demarcated area to avoid populations of SCC. • Ensure that no activities occur within areas designated as no-go areas, particularly within drainage lines and watercourses. 5.1.3 Impact 3: Loss of extent of faunal habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (fauna)

Cause and comment:

The project area intersects the distribution of five reptile SCC, two amphibian, seven mammal and 19 bird SCC. • The reptile SCC include one Near-threated species the Karoo Dwarf Tortoise (Homopus boulengeri) and four endemic species namely the Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion gutturale), Dwarf Girdled Lizard (Cordylus minor), Graceful Crag Lizard (Hemicordylus capensis) and the Red Adder (Bitis rubida). • The amphibian SCC include the Karoo Dainty Frog (Cacosternum karooicum) and Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps). • The mammal SCC include the Riverine Rabbit (CE), Leopard (VU), five NT species and three endemic species. • The bird SCC include 9 threatened (1 CE, 5 EN, 3 VU) and 8 near-threatened species.

The majority of the species are of conservation concern because they are endemic to the WC,. However, all have a broader range than the project site and although they may occur on site they are not restricted to the site, and unlikely to be compromised by the development. The development is small in extent and has a short construction period, thus disruption is considered minimal. The majority of SCC will occur at Anysberg and will not be affected by

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 43

the development. Only breeding bird SCC and unlikely Riverine Rabbit inhabitants are considered an issue.

Cumulative Impact Loss of extent of faunal habitat will be exacerbated by clearing of natural vegetation from other developments in the area. However, since the overall footprint of the project site is small compared to renewable energy projects in the region, the cumulative effect from the building of this project is moderate.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative there will be no loss of faunal habitat and the impact will thus be negligible.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 3: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern (fauna) (Site A, Alternative 1 and 2, Site B) Without Mitigation Permanent Local Moderate Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Local Slight Definite LOW - Cumulative Impact With Mitigation Permanent Regional Moderate Definite MODERATE- No-go alternative Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• Caution should be taken during bird SCC breeding season, particularly Ludwig's Bustard (Neotis ludwigii) (EN) (primarily between August-December), Black Bustard (Eupodotis afra) (VU) and Secretary bird (Sagittarius serpentarius) (VU) to prevent disruption to mating and damage to nests and eggs. Should these species be identified immediately prior to construction avoid the area and commence activities following fledglings leaving the nest. • Contact the Endangered Wildlife Trust - Riverine Rabbit Programme and ensure no known populations occur in the area. • The construction site must be fenced with appropriate fencing to reduce the risk of animal species gaining access to the site. • Prevent staff from persecuting or poaching any faunal species during the construction phase; • Relocate any Karoo Dwarf Tortoise (Homopus boulengeri) found during earth moving activities; • Demarcate areas for use during construction and ensure that the construction activities remain within the designated area; • Ensure that no activities occur within areas designated as no-go areas. • Speed limits of 30km/h must be enforced along access roads • Staff induction must include information on speed limits and that vehicles must stop when they encounter a tortoise crossing the road. The vehicle must wait until the tortoise has moved off the road before continuing on. • The ECO must observe earth moving earth moving activities and remove fossorial fauna that are exposed • Individuals must be recorded (photographs and GPS location) and relocated elsewhere within the property, out of harms way. The relocation location must be recorded (GPS and photograph) and placed on iNaturalist. • Any mortalities must be collected and donated to SANBI with GPS co-ordinates

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 44

• The ECO must check trenches daily for faunal species that may have fallen inside. If faunal species are found, these must be recorded and removed to suitable habitat out of harms way.Security lighting must be as dim as possible and low lighting i.e. place near to the ground and point downwards.

5.1.4 Impact 4: Disruption of Ecosystem Function and Process

Cause and comment: 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.

There is currently little to no fragmentation within or around either of the sites, nor in the areas outside the sites. The break in habitat caused by the construction of the antennae and associated roads required to access areas 1 and 2 will therefore be of moderate significance.

Cumulative Impact Disruption of ecosystem function and process will be exacerbated by clearing of natural vegetation from other developments in the area. The cumulative impact from the building of this project will be of moderate significance.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, there will be no fragmentation and the associated impacts will thus be negligible.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 4: Habitat Fragmentation (Site A, Alternative 1 and 2, Site B) Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE- Cumulative Impact With Mitigation Permanent Regional Slight Definite MODERATE- No-go alternative Without Mitigation Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• Rehabilitate laydown areas. • Where feasible, use existing access roads and upgrade these where necessary rather than building new roads. • It is recommended that a botanical survey of the area must be undertaken to identify indigenous plant species suitable for rehabilitation purposes.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 45

5.1.5 Impact 5: Impacts of road crossing on drainage lines and riparian habitat

Cause and comment:

The upgrading of existing roads could have an impact on riparian areas, particularly those sections of road that are adjacent to river courses. Activities associated with upgrading existing roads may result in aggregate spilling over into the water courses and blocking these. The unmitigated impact would be of moderate significance however this can be easily mitigated by identifying these areas as no-go areas.

Cumulative Impact Disturbance to the drainage lines and riparian habitat may be exacerbated by the additional road crossings that will be required to access the sites. The cumulative impact from these additional road crossings is expected to be of moderate significance.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, there will be no impacts on drainage lines and riparian habitats and the no-go option will thus be negligible.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 5: Impacts of road crossings on drainage lines and riparian habitat Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight May Occur LOW- Cumulative Impact Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE- No-go alternative Without Mitigation Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• Rehabilitate laydown areas. • Use existing access roads. • Ensure all riparian areas and water courses are identified as no-go areas and that no substrate is placed in these areas during construction.

5.1.6 Impact 6: Disturbance of aquatic vegetation and habitat

Cause and comment:

During the construction phase, indiscriminate removal of vegetation or unnecessary encroachment into riparian vegetation may lead to disturbance of the aquatic ecosystem.

Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 46

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, there will be no impact on the aquatic habitat.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 6: Disturbance of aquatic vegetation and habitat Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE- With Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight May Occur LOW- Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact. No-go alternative Without Mitigation Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• No removal of vegetation is to take place within 50m of any river, artificial or natural wetland, except for the control of alien vegetation. • Construction vehicles and machinery must not encroach into identified ‘no-go’ areas or areas outside the project footprint. • Activities within 32m of a watercourse must obtain the necessary Water Use License prior to the commencement of such activities. • Stormwater run-off and soil disturbance might affect the watercourse, especially in periods with high run-off. For that reason, the activity must seek to minimize and manage water and pollution run-off as follows. o Ensure that all stormwater outlets have diffuse flow, multiple if steep or frequent, and permeable pavements areas. o All stormwater runoff within the development area must be managed in a manner as to minimise or prevent erosion. o Discharging stormwater directly into the watercourse, without reducing velocity and concentration must be prohibited. Areas susceptible to erosion must be protected by installing the necessary temporary or permanent structures. The stormwater management designs must include and mitigate natural events as the Karoo is susceptible to flash flooding.

5.1.7 Impact 7: Contamination of water from construction activities

Cause and comment: During the construction phase, accidental spillages of chemical/hazardous substances in the vicinity of watercourse may result in water pollution, adversely affecting the aquatic ecosystem.

Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, there will be no impact on the aquatic habitat.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 47

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 7: Contamination of water Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area High Definite HIGH- With Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight May Occur LOW- Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact. No-go alternative Without Mitigation Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• No machinery must be parked overnight within 50 m of the rivers/wetlands. • All stationary machinery must be equipped with a drip tray to retain any oil leaks. • Chemicals used must be stored safely on bunded surfaces in the site camp. • Cement mixing must take place on a contained and impermeable surface, should it be undertaken on site. • Emergency plans, and spill kits, must be in place in case of accidental spillages on site. • No ablution facilities should be located within 50 m of any river or wetland system. • Chemical toilets must be regularly maintained/ serviced to prevent ground or surface water pollution. • Any hazardous substances/waste must be stored in impermeable bunded areas or secondary containers 110% the volume of the contents within it. • All general waste temporarily stored on site must be done so in windproof/sealable containers before being disposed of at a registered landfill site.

5.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE

5.2.1 Impact 8: Invasion of Alien Plant Species

Cause and comment: No alien species were recorded at either of the sites. However, disruption of habitats often results in the infestation of alien species unless these are controlled. Should this happen the impact will be of HIGH significant since the project will initiate the first colonization by alien species in the area.

Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, the infestation of alien species is unlikely to occur. The significance of this impact will be negligible.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 8: Invasion of Alien Plant Species

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 48

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Without Mitigation Long Term Study Area Severe Definite HIGH- With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Definite LOW- Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented there will be no infestation of alien species and therefore there is unlikely to be a cumulative impact. No-go alternative Negligible

Mitigation Measures:

• The site must be checked regularly for the presence of alien invasive species. • An alien invasive management plan must be incorporated into the EMPr.

5.2.2 Impact 9: Contamination of Water from operation activities

Cause and comment:

During the operation phase, the inappropriate use, storage and handling of hazardous or chemical substances, as well as accidental hydrocarbon or chemical spillages on site could result in ground and surface water pollution.

Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, it is unlikely there will be a cumulative impact.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative, there will be no impact on the aquatic habitat.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 9: Contamination of water from operational activtivies Without Mitigation Permanent Study Area High Definite HIGH- With Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight May Occur LOW- Cumulative Impact If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented there will be no contamination of water and therefore no cumulative impact. No-go alternative Without Mitigation Negligible

Mitigation Measures: Please refer to impact 7.

5.2.3 Impact 10: Potential bird collision with overhead powerlines and electrocution

Cause and comment:

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 49

The proposed project includes the construction of a 0.75km long powerline with associated pylons located 500m from an existing line. Powerlines pose a collision risk to birds which will likely result in mortality and the placement of the lines may cause mortality by electrocution to birds using the pylon as nesting sites.

Cumulative The additive impact associated with the construction of this facility in relation to the surrounding WEF will be low given that the powerline is only 0.75km in length and is in close proximity to an existing powerline.

No-Go Alternative Under the no-go alternative the impact will be low as there are already powerlines present withing 0.5km of the proposed powerline.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Loss of birds due to collision with overhead powerlines and electrocution Without Mitigation Permanent Local Severe Definite HIGH- With Mitigation Permanent Local Slight Definite LOW - Cumulative Impact With Mitigation Permanent Regional Slight Definite LOW - No-go alternative Without Mitigation Long Term Local Slight Definite LOW -

Mitigation Measures: • The structure will not have stay wires. This must be included as a recommendation for inclusion as a condition of authorisation. • Should birds nest on any portions of the infrastructure a condition in the operational EMPr must state that birds and their nests are not to be removed. • Flappers must be placed along the whole 0.75km line (100%) given the proximity of the two known nesting sites of Verreaux’s Eagle. It is recommended that the earth wires on the spans be fitted with the best available (at the time of construction) anti bird collision line marking device. This should preferably be a dynamic device, i.e. one that moves as it is believed that these are more effective in reducing collisions. It is important that these devices are installed as soon as the conductors are strung, not only once the line is commissioned, as the conductors and earth wires pose a collision risk as soon as they are strung. The devices should be installed alternating a light and a dark colour to provide contrast against dark and light backgrounds respectively. This will make the overhead cables more visible to birds flying in the area. If dynamic flappers are used (as opposed to static) the operational EMPr must include monitoring and replacing of the any broken ones during project lifespan • In the case of bird electrocution, the powerline must be built on a recognised bird- friendly pole structure which provides ample clearance between phases and phase- earth to allow large birds to perch on them in safety. i.e. 1800-2000mm minimum phase-phase and phase-earth clearance

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 50

5.3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

As mentioned in chapter 1, an alternative site was previously assessed for the proposed location of Site A i.e. Site A, alternative 1. Site A, alternative 1 was assessed in 2019 and the vegetation type present and species composition was found to be similar to that of Site A, alternative 2. Due to the high visual intrusion of the infrastructure on the Provincial Heritage Site of Matjiesfontein Village, Site A, alternative 1 was found to be unsuitable. A project layout was never assessed for Site A, alternative 1 due to the unsuitability of the site.

Within each of the sites, the project layout was designed by working with the specialists (ecological specialist, heritage and paleontological specialists) to determine areas of high, moderate and low sensitivity. Using this information, a constraints map showing areas that could and couldn’t be developed was created and sent to the developer. The developer used this map to design the layout in areas that would have the least overall impact.

As such, alternative layouts were not assessed for this project, as the preferred layout has already considered environmental issues.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 51

6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

There are two vegetation types present at the site, both of which are listed as Least Threatened and are intact and of moderate sensitivity. The project infrastructure will result in the loss of approximately 4 ha of natural vegetation.

Six ecological impacts were identified for the project site; one of which was rated as high, four of which are moderate and one as low (Figure 6-1). If mitigation measures are implemented these impacts will be reduced to one moderate and five low impacts.

Unmitigated Impacts MItigated Impacts

High Mod Low

Figure 6-1: Pie charts summarising the number of high, moderate and low impacts before and after mitigation.

6.2 CONDITIONS OF THE EMPR, EA AND MONITORING

It is recommended that the following conditions are included in the Final EMPr as well as the conditions of the Environmental Authorisation (EA), if granted:

• 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 52

• An ecological walkthrough (preferably during the flowering season) by a qualified botanist must be undertaken. If it is found that there are populations of SCC that will be affected, then the infrastructure must be moved to avoid these areas. In addition to this, during the walkthrough exercise, the botanist must identify indigenous plant species suitable for rehabilitation purposes and provide the ECO with a list. • A comprehensive Search and Rescue for fauna and flora should be conducted prior to vegetation clearance; • All SCC must be relocated to nearest appropriate habitat, preferably within the site; • 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; • Prior to the closure of the construction phase, a botanical specialist must assess the site and confirm that there are no introduced alien flora or fauna species on site. If at any stage during the construction phase any such species are noted by the ECO/ecologist they must be eradicated using suitable methods. Confirmation of eradication of all such species must be recorded within the last monitoring report. • The construction site must be fenced with appropriate fencing to reduce the risk of animal species gaining access to the site and speed limits of 30km/h must be enforced along access roads • Staff induction must include information on speed limits and that vehicles must stop when they encounter a tortoise crossing the road. The vehicle must wait until the tortoise has moved off the road before continuing on. • The ECO must observe earth moving earth moving activities and remove fossorial fauna that are exposed • Individuals must be recorded (photographs and GPS location) and relocated elsewhere within the property, out of harms way. The relocation location must be recorded (GPS and photograph) and placed on iNaturalist. • Any mortalities must be collected and donated to SANBI with GPS co-ordinates • The ECO must check trenches daily for faunal species that may have fallen inside. If faunal species are found, these must be recorded and removed to suitable habitat out of harms way.EWT must be contracted prior to construction to conduct a site assessment and micro site the antenna placement. • Should EWT require camera trapping, it is recommended that SANSA sponsor two camera traps for installation on the same property as the antennae • The alien invasive management plan must include the following: o Map of the locations of invasive alien plants in relation to the development areas; o A timeframe and strategy for the removal of alien plants. This should include a recommendation on the best months of the year to destabilise and remove the alien plants, based on weather conditions/patterns; o A list of potential methods of clearing (i.e. herbicides or cutting) appropriate for each identified species); and o A list of possible alien invasive species that occur commonly (with pictures of these species) within the construction sites in an arid ecosystem • A comprehensive Rehabilitation Plan should be compiled and implemented. Only locally indigenous plant species typical of the local vegetation should be used for rehabilitation purposes. It is recommended that individual specimens that will be lost by the placement of infrastructure are collected and kept in a nursery so that they can be used for rehabilitation purposes.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 53

6.3 SPECIALIST STATEMENT

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 54

7 REFERENCES

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.

Bates, M.F. 2018. Hemicordylus capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T110160470A115675522. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T110160470A115675522.en. Downloaded on 22 November 2019.

Bates, M.F., Tolley, K. & Mouton, P.L.F.N. 2018. Cordylus minor. The IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies2018:e.T110159714A115674855. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.201 8-2.RLTS.T110159714A115674855.en. Downloaded on 22 November 2019.

Bennett N, Jarvis J, Visser J, Maree S. 2016. A conservation assessment of Georychus capensis. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors.The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Birdlife, 2015. Anysberg Nature Reserve Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. Accessed from https://www.birdlife.org.za/what-we-do/important-bird-and-biodiversity-areas/what-we- do/iba-directory/anysberg-nature-reserve accessed on 28 November 2019.

Birss, C. 2017. Mammals. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western CAPE Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch.

Bronner GN, Mynhardt S. 2016. A conservation assessment of Amblysomus corriae. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

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.

Du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. (2017). Frogs of Southern Africa: A Complete Guide. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Ecosystem Guidelines For Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape, Edition 2. (2016). Fynbos Forum, Cape Town.

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019). FrogMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=FrogMAP on 2019-11-18

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019). MammalMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=MammalMAP on 2019-11-18

FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019). ReptileMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=ReptileMAP on 2019-11-18

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 55

Hofmeyr, M.D., Loehr, V.J.T., Baard, E.H.W. & Juvik, J.O. 2018. Chersobius boulengeri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T170521A115656360. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T170521A115656360.en. Downloaded on 22 November 2019.

IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2013. Cacosternum karooicum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T58067A18404107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 2.RLTS.T58067A18404107.en. Downloaded on 25 November 2019.

IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2013. Vandijkophrynus angusticeps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T54573A3016485:http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20132.RLTS.T54573A3016485.en. Downloaded on 25 November 2019.

Kleynhans, CJ, Thirion, C, Moolman, J and Gaulana, L (2007). A Level II River Ecoregion classification System for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa

Kurzweil, H. & Victor, J.E. 2005. Holothrix aspera (Lindl.) Rchb.f. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version 2017.1. Accessed on 2019/11/25

Lepage, D. 2019. Checklist of the birds of Laingsburg. Avibase, the world bird database. Retrieved from: https://avibase.bsceoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN®ion=zawc17&list =clements&format=1 [15/11/2019].

Marais, W. and Burger, D (2016). (2016). G7 Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility: 12 Month pre- construction bat activity monitoring. Animalia May 2016

Maritz, B. & Turner, A.A. 2018. Bitis rubida. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22475225A115666792.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T22475225A115666792.en. Downloaded on 22 November 2019.

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

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

Palmer G, Birss C, Kerley GIH, Feely J, Peinke D, Castley G. 2016. A conservation assessment of Raphicerus melanotis. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D,

Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Palmer G, Cassola F. 2016. A conservation assessment of Gerbilliscus afra. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Palmer G, Midgley J, Pence G, Avery DM, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Acomys subspinosus. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 56

HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Radloff FGT, Birss C, Cowell C, Peinke D, Dalton D, Kotze A, Kerley GIH, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Damaliscus pygargus pygargus. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa. Todd, S. (2016). Fauna & Flora Specialist Basic Assessment Report For The Basic Assessment For The Proposed 132kv Overhead Distribution Line And Substation For The Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility. 3Foxes, April 2016

Tolley, K. 2018. Bradypodion gutturale. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T42679297A115667324. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T42679297A115667324.en. Downloaded on 22 November 2019.

Turner, A.A. & de Villers, A.L. 2017. Reptiles. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch.

Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch.

Turner, A.A. & de Villers, A.L. 2017. Amphibians. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western CAPE Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch.

Marais, W. and Moir, M (2016). G7 Brandvalley Wind Energy Facility: 12 Month pre- construction bat activity monitoring. Animalia May 2016

Yarnell RW, Richmond-Coggan L, Bussière E, Williams K, Bissett C, Welch R, Wiesel I. 2016. A conservation assessment of Parahyaena brunnea. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Williams A.J. (2016). Brandvalley Wind Energy Facility: Avifaunal impact Assessment Report. African Insights March 2016

Williams A.J. (2016). Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility: Avifaunal impact Assessment Report. African Insights March 2016.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 57

APPENDIX A: PLANT SPECIES LIST

SA Red Data Family Species Site A Site B PNCO List Aizoaceae Cheiridopsis namaquensis x - - LC Aizoaceae Drosanthemum sp x - - LC Aizoaceae Gibbaeumm geminum x - - - Aizoaceae Glottiphylum sp. x - - LC Aizoaceae Lampranthus haworthii x - LC Aizoaceae Mesembryanthemum resurgens X - - - Aizoaceae Ruschia crassa - x - LC Aizoaceae Ruschia impressa X - - LC Aizoaceae Stomatium murinum X - - LC Amaryllidaceae Gethyllis fimbritula X - Schedule 4 Anacardiaceae Searsia crenata - x - LC Asparagaceae Massonia sp X - - Asparagus Albuca spiralis X - - LC Asparagus Asparagus capensis X X - LC Asphodelaceae Aloe microstigma - x - LC Asphodelaceae Haworthia mucronata x - Schedule 4 DDT Asphodelaceae Haworthiopsis viscosa x - - LC Asphodelaceae Trachyandra thyrsoides x - - LC Asteraceae Athanasia flexuosa - x - LC Asteraceae Berkheya sp X - - Asteraceae Chrysocoma ciliata - x - LC Asteraceae Cotula macroglossa - x - LC Asteraceae Cullumia patula X - - LC Asteraceae Dimorphica cuneata X - - LC Asteraceae Elytropappus rhinocerotis X X - LC Asteraceae Eriocephalus ericoides X X - LC Asteraceae Euryops multifidus - X - LC Asteraceae Felicia filifolia X X - LC Asteraceae Gazania heterochaeta X X - LC Asteraceae Pteronia hutchinsonia X X - Rare Asteraceae Senecio acualis X - - - Asteraceae Senecio scaposus X x - - Brassicaceae Heliophila carnosa X x - LC Colchicaceae Colchicum volutare X - - LC Crassulaceae Adromischus liebenbergii X - - - Crassulaceae Crassula cultrata x X - LC Crassulaceae Crassula alpestris x - - LC Crassulaceae Crassula mucosa - X - LC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 58

Crassulaceae Crassula orbicularis X - - LC Crassulaceae Tylecodon paniculatus X X - LC X - Cruciferae Heliophila pendula - LC Fabaceae Lessertia frutescens x - - LC Fabaceae Lotononis sp. - X - - Hyacinthaceae Drimia cf arenicola x - - LC Babiana cf sambucina subsp. x Schedule 4 Iridaceae sambucina - LC Iridaceae Geissorhiza heterostyla x - Schedule 4 LC Iridaceae Gladiolus venustus x - Schedule 4 LC Iridaceae Ixia sobolifera x - Schedule 4 LC Iridaceae Ixia trifolia x - Schedule 4 LC Malvaceae Hermannia sp. - X - Orchidaceae Holothrix aspera x - Schedule 4 LC Oxalidaceae Oxalis melanosticta x X - LC Poaceae Aristida congesta x - LC poaceae Aristida diffusa x X - LC Poaceae Ehrharta calycina - X - LC Polygalaceae Polygala sp - X - LC Scrophulariaceae Chaenostoma sp. - X - LC Scrophulariaceae Diascia hexensis X - Schedule 4 LC Scrophulariaceae Cf. Globulariopsis wittebergensis x - - Rare Scrophulariaceae Zaluzianskya minima x - - LC Selaginaceae Selago myriophyla - X - - Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllum fulvum x - - LC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 59

APPENDIX B: BIRD SPECIES LIST

Species Common Name Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp-warbler Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper Afrotis afra Southern Black Korhaan Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher Alopochen aegyptiacus Egyptian Goose Anthobaphes violacea Orange-breasted Sunbird Anthoscopus minutus Cape Penduline-tit Anthus cinnamomeus African Pipit Apus affinis Little Swift Apus barbatus African Black Swift Apus caffer White-rumped Swift Aquila pennatus Booted Eagle Aquila verreauxii Verreaux's Eagle Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron Batis pririt Pririt Batis Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda Ibis Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-owl Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Burhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee Buteo rufofuscus Jackal Buzzard Buteo vulpinus Steppe Buzzard Calandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark Calendulauda albescens Karoo Lark Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar Cercomela familiaris Familiar Chat Cercomela schlegelii Karoo Chat Cercotrichas coryphoeus Karoo Scrub-robin Certhilauda subcoronata Karoo Long-billed Lark Chaetops frenatus Cape Rock-jumper Charadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover Chersomanes albofasciata Spike-heeled Lark Cinnyris chalybeus Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus Dusky Sunbird Circus maurus Black Harrier Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky Neddicky Cisticola subruficapilla Grey-backed Cisticola Colius colius White-backed Mousebird Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 60

Columba guinea Speckled Pigeon Columba livia Rock Dove Corvus albicollis White-necked Raven Corvus albus Pied Crow Cossypha caffra Cape Robin-chat Crithagra albogularis White-throated Canary Crithagra flaviventris Yellow Canary Crithagra gularis Streaky-headed Seedeater Dendropicos fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite Emberiza capensis Cape Bunting Emberiza impetuani Lark-like Bunting Eremomela gregalis Karoo Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremopterix verticalis Grey-backed Sparrowlark Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill Euplectes capensis Yellow Bishop Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop Eupodotis vigorsii Karoo Korhaan Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Falco rupicolus Rock Kestrel Fulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot Galerida magnirostris Large-billed Lark Geocolaptes olivaceus Ground Woodpecker Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Hirundo albigularis White-throated Swallow Hirundo cucullata Greater Striped Swallow Hirundo fuligula Rock Martin Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide Lanius collaris Common (Southern) Fiscal Malcorus pectoralis Rufous-eared Warbler Melierax canorus Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Milvus aegyptius Yellow-billed Kite Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher Myrmecocichla formicivora Anteating Chat Nectarinia famosa Malachite Sunbird Neotis ludwigii Ludwig's Bustard Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl Oena capensis Namaqua Dove Oenanthe monticola Mountain Wheatear Onychognathus morio Red-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup Pale-winged Starling

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 61

Parisoma layardi Layard's Tit-babbler Parisoma subcaeruleum Chestnut-vented Tit-babbler Parus afer Grey Tit Passer domesticus House Sparrow Passer melanurus Cape Sparrow Phragmacia substriata Namaqua Warbler Platalea alba African Spoonbill Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Ploceus capensis Cape Weaver Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver Prinia maculosa Karoo Prinia Promerops cafer Cape Sugarbird Pternistis capensis Cape Spurfowl Pycnonotus capensis Cape Bulbul Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet Riparia paludicola Brown-throated Martin Scleroptila africanus Grey-winged Francolin Serinus alario Black-headed Canary Serinus canicollis Cape Canary Sigelus silens Fiscal Flycatcher Sphenoeacus afer Cape Grassbird Spreo bicolor Pied Starling Streptopelia capicola Cape Turtle-dove Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Sylvietta rufescens Long-billed Crombec Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe Tachymarptis melba Alpine Swift Tadorna cana South African Shelduck Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie Bokmakierie Tricholaema leucomelas Acacia Pied Barbet Turdus olivaceus Olive Thrush Turdus smithi Karoo Thrush Tyto alba Barn Owl Upupa africana African Hoopoe Urocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah Zosterops virens Cape White-eye

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 62

APPENDIX C: AMPHIBIAN SPECIES LIST

QDS # Recordings Red list (ADU, Scientific name Common name Endemic category 2019) 3320BA, 3320BC Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC 7 Amietia delalandi Delande's River Frog LC Amietia poyntoni Poynton's River Frog LC Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco LC 2 Cacosternum karooicum Karoo dainty frog LC Endemic Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog LC 3 Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog LC 3 Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape Sand Toad LC 9 Endemic Vandijkophrynus gariepensis Karoo Toad LC Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC 2 26 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 63

APPENDIX D: REPTILE SPECIES LIST

QDS # Recordings Scientific name Common name Red list category ENDEMIC (ADU, 2019) 3320BA, 3320BC Lizards Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink Least Concern Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern 4 Agama hispida Spiny Ground Agama Least Concern Bradypodion gutturale Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon Least Concern 6 ENDEMIC Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern 2 Cordylosaurus subtessellatus Dwarf Plated Lizard Least Concern 1 Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard Least Concern 4 Cordylus minor Dwarf Girdled Lizard Least Concern ENDEMIC Gerrhosaurus typicus Karoo Plated Lizard Least Concern 2 Hemicordylus capensis Graceful Crag Lizard Least Concern ENDEMIC Karusasaurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard Least Concern 2 Meroles knoxii Knox's Desert Lizard Least Concern 3 Meroles suborbitalis Spotted Desert Lizard Least Concern 1 Nucras tessellata Western Sandveld Lizard Least Concern 3 Pachydactylus formosus Southern Rough Gecko Least Concern 7 Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko Least Concern 3 Pachydactylus kladaroderma Thin-skinned Gecko Least Concern 7 Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Gecko Least Concern 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 64

Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Gecko Least Concern 4 Pachydactylus oculatus Golden Spotted Gecko Least Concern 1 Pachydactylus purcelli Purcell's Gecko Least Concern 1 Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard Least Concern 4 Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Comman sand lizard Least Concern 4 Pedioplanis namaquensis Namaqua Sand Lizard Least Concern 1 Pseudocordylus microlepidotus microlepidotus Cape Crag Lizard Least Concern 2 Scelotes caffer Cape Dwarf Burrowing Skink Least Concern 2 Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps Least Concern Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps Least Concern 1 Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps Least Concern Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern Trachylepis occidentalis Western Three-striped Skink Least Concern 2 Trachylepis sulcata sulcata Western Rock Skink Least Concern 5 Trachylepis variegata Variegated Skink Least Concern 4 Tropidosaura gularis Cape Mountain Lizard Least Concern Snakes Aspidelaps lubricus lubricus Coral Shield Cobra Least Concern Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern 4 Bitis rubida Red Adder Least Concern ENDEMIC Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake Least Concern 1 Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Herald Snake Least Concern 1 Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater Least Concern 2 Dipsina multimaculata Dwarf Beaked Snake Least Concern 1 Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern 3 Duberria lutrix Common slug eater Least Concern Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake Least Concern 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 65

Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake Least Concern Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House Snake Least Concern 1 Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake Least Concern Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern 1 Namibiana gracilior Slender Thread Snake Least Concern 3 Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout Least Concern 1 Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake Least Concern 2 Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand snake/whip snake Least Concern 2 Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake/ skaapsteker Least Concern 2 Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake Least Concern 2 Tortoises and terrapins Chersina angulate Angulate Tortoise Least Concern 2 Homopus areolatus Common Padloper / Parrot-beaked Tortoise Least Concern Homopus boulengeri Karoo Dwarf Tortoise Near Threatened Pelomedusa galeata South African Helmeted Terrapin Least Concern Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin Least Concern 1 Psammobates tentorius tentorius Karoo Tent Tortoise Least Concern 2 Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern 62 109 4 44

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 66

APPENDIX E: MAMMAL SPECIES LIST

QDS # Recordings Order Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019) 3320BA, 3320BC Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest Least Concern 31 Alcelaphus buselaphus caama Red Hartebeest Least Concern 7 Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok Least Concern 34 Damaliscus pygargus Blesbok Least Concern Damaliscus pygargus pygargus Bontebok Vulnerable Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer Least Concern 33 Oryx gazella Gemsbok Least Concern 24 Artiodactyla Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok Near Threatened 26 Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig Least Concern Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Least Concern 29 Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok Least Concern Sylvicapra grimmia Bush Duiker Least Concern 55 Taurotragus oryx Common Eland Least Concern 30 Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Least Concern Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu Least Concern 29 Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox Least Concern 7 Vulpes chama Cape Fox Least Concern 18 Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern 8 Carnivora Felis silvestris Wildcat Least Concern 16 Panthera pardus Leopard Vulnerable 27 Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose Least Concern Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose Least Concern 5

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 67

Herpestes ichneumon Egyptian Mongoose Least Concern Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose Least Concern 3 Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter Near Threatened 3 Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat (Zorilla) Least Concern Mellivora capensis Honey Badger Least Concern 20 Genetta genetta Common Genet Least Concern Genetta tigrina Cape Genet Least Concern Canis meomelas Black-backed Jackal Least Concern 89 Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened Proteles cristata Aardwolf Least Concern 19 Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyena Near Threatened 2 Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat Least Concern 13 Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Near Threatened 21 Papio ursinus ursinus Chacma Baboon Least Concern 3 Primates Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Least Concern Equus zebra zebra Cape Mountain Zebra Least Concern 24 Perissodactyla Equus quagga burchellii Burchell's Zebra Least Concern Lepus capensis Cape Hare Least Concern 10 Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare Least Concern 4 Lagomorpha Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Hare Least Concern Bunolagus monticularis Riverine Rabbit Critically Endangered Afrosoricida Amblysomus corriae Fynbos Golden Mole Near Threatened Crocidura cyanea Reddish-gray Musk Shrew Least Concern 9 Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew Least Concern 18 Eulityphla Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew Least Concern Myosorex varius Forest Shrew Least Concern 54 Torycteropus Orycteropus afer Aardvark Least Concern 16 Rodentia Acomys (Subacomys) subspinosus Cape Spiny Mouse Least Concern 40

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 68

Bathyergus suillus Cape Dune Mole-rat Least Concern Cryptomys hottentotus Southern African Mole-rat Least Concern Dasymys incomtus African marsh rat Least Concern Dendromus melanotis Gray African Climbing Mouse Least Concern Dendromus mesomelas Brants's climing mouse Least Concern Georychus capensis Cape Mole-rat Least Concern 9 Gerbilliscus afra Cape Gerbil Least concern Gerbilliscus paeda Hairy-footed gerbil Least concern 153 Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled African Dormouse Least Concern 45 Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine Least Concern 4

Mastomys coucha Southern multimammate mouse Least Concern

Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Rat Least concern Mus (Nannomys) minutoides Southern African Pygmy Mouse Least concern Mus musculu House mouse Least concern Myomyscus verreauxi Verreaux's Mouse Least Concern Otomys irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat Least Concern 99 Otomys karoensis Robert's Vlei Rat Least Concern Rattus rattus House Rat Least Concern 10 Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse Least Concern 320 Saccostomus campestris South African pouched mouse Least Concern 90 Mastomys coucha Southern African Mastomys Least Concern 5 Mus (Nannomys) minutoides Southern African Pygmy Mouse Least Concern 54 Otomys unisulcatus Karoo Bush Rat Least Concern 84 Parotomys brantsii Brants's Whistling Rat Least Concern 3 Petromyscus collinus Pygmy Rock Mouse Least Concern 54 Aethomys granti Grant's Rock Mouse Least Concern 13 Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse Least Concern 252 Hyracoidae Procavia capensis Cape Rock Hyrax Least Concern 15

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 69

Miniopterus fraterculus Lesser Long-fingered Bat Least Concern Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat Least Concern Myotis tricolor Temminck's Myotis Least Concern Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Least Concern 10 Chiroptera Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced Bat Least Concern 9 Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffriy's Horseshoe Bat Least Concern Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat Least Concern 19 Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat Least Concern Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit Bat Least Concern Elephantulus edwardii Cape Elephant Shrew Least Concern 57

Macroscelidea Elephantulus rupestris Western Rock Elephant Shrew Least Concern 144 Macroscelides proboscideus Short-eared Elephant Shrew Least Concern 273

90 2449

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services 70