DRAFT Ecological Impact Assessment
EDENDALE QUARRY, R56, MATATIELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.
DRAFT ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
PORT ELIZABETH
Also in Cape Town, East London, Johannesburg, Grahamstown, Maputo (Mozambique) and Romsey (UK)
www.cesnet.co.za
NOVEMBER 2020
REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE
CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Draft Ecological Impact Assessment Report for the proposed Edendale Quarry, R56, Matatiele Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province. Client Name & The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) Address:
Status: Draft Ecological Impact Assessment
Issue Date: November 2020
Lead Author: Ms Nicole Wienand
Reviewer: Ms Tarryn Martin
Study Leader/ Registered Ms Robyn Thomson Environmental Assessment Dr Alan Carter Practitioner – Approval: No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies
DEFF 0 One (1)
Report Version DRAFT Ecological Impact Assessment
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 www.cesnet.co.za rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.
Ecological Impact Assessment
Contact Details: Junior Botanical Specialist and Report Writer
Name Ms Nicole Wienand Designation Junior Botanical Specialist, CES E-mail [email protected]
Contact Details: Report Reviewer and Quality Control
Name Ms Tarryn Martin Designation Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]
Contact Details: Project Manager
Name Ms Robyn Thomson Designation Senior Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]
Contact Details: EAP/Study Leader
Name Dr Alan Carter Designation Executive and Principal Environmental Consultant E-mail [email protected]
www.cesnet.co.za
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY ii
Ecological Impact Assessment
Contents of the Specialist Report
The contents of this specialist report complies with the legislated requirements as described in Appendix 6 of the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998; NEMA) Regulations of 2014 (as amended) (GN R. 326 of 2017).
SPECIALIST REPORT REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 6 SECTION OF GN R. 982 OF 2014, AS AMENDED IN GN R. 326 OF 2017 OF REPORT 1. A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain— Chapter 1 (a) details of— and (i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Appendix E (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae; (b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be Section 1.2 specified by the competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report Chapter 2 was prepared; (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the Section 3.1 specialist report; (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts Chapter 8 of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; and Section 9.1 (d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the Section 2.3 relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; and 3.1 (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and Chapter 3 modelling used; (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated Chapter7 structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 9.1.3 (h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated Chapter 5; structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of Chapter 7 the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or Section 2.3 gaps in knowledge; (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such Chapter 9 findings on the impact of the proposed activity or activities; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 8.1 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; and Section (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or 9.2 environmental authorisation; (n) a reasoned opinion— (i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and Section 9.3 (ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY iii
Ecological Impact Assessment
(o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report; (p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any Section 2.4 consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and
(q) any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A (No other information has yet been requested) 2. (2) Where a government notice by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.
* This report has been prepared in accordance with Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA Regulations, and not the newly released Protocols for the Specialist Assessment and Minimum Report Content Requirements for Environmental Impacts on Terrestrial Plant and Animal Species (GN R. 1150) gazetted on the 30th October 2020, as the specialist assessment was commissioned prior to September 2020 (please refer to Appendix F for date of the commissioning of this specialist study). This report relates to November 2020.
*
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY iv
Ecological Impact Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT TEAM ...... 1
1.1 Details and Expertise of the Specialists ...... 1 1.2 Declaration ...... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 3
2.1 Project description and Location ...... 3 2.2 Site Sensitivity Verification and Minimum Report Content Requirements ..... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Objectives and Terms of Reference ...... 4 2.4 Assumptions and limitations ...... 5 2.5 Public consultation...... 5 3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 7
3.1 The Assessment ...... 7 3.2 Species of conservation concern ...... 7 3.3 Sampling Protocol ...... 8 3.4 Vegetation Mapping...... 8 3.5 Sensitivity Assessment ...... 9 3.6 Ecological Impact assessment ...... 11 3.6.1 Impact rating methodology ...... 11 4. RELEVANT LEGISLATION ...... 12
5. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 16
5.1 Climate ...... 16 5.2 Topography ...... 16 5.3 Geology and Soils ...... 17 5.5 Land Cover ...... 19 5.6 Vegetation and Floristics ...... 19 5.6.1 National - SANBI Classification (Mucina et al., 2018) ...... 19 5.6.2 Local – ECPTA Eastern Cape Biodiversity Stewardship Assessment .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.6.3 Forest Classification (NFA) ...... 25 5.7 Biodiversity Indicators ...... 25 5.7.1 Provincial - Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2019) .. 25 5.7.2 Threatened Ecosystems ...... 28 5.7.3 Protected areas ...... 29
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY v
Ecological Impact Assessment
5.8 Fauna ...... 30 5.8.1 Birds ...... 30 5.8.2 Mammals...... 32 5.8.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 32 6. SITE INVESTIGATION ...... 35
6.1 Site Characteristics and Vegetation Assessment ...... 35 7. SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...... 39
7.1 Conservation and Spatial Planning Tools ...... 39 7.2 Sensitivity Allocation ...... 39 8. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 42
8.1 Impact Assessment ...... 42 8.2 Cumulative Impacts ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 9. IMPACT STATEMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 79
9.1 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 79 9.1.1 Existing Impacts ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.1.3 No-go Areas ...... 81 9.2 Conditions of Authorisation ...... 82 9.2.1 Mitigation Measures ...... 83 9.3 Ecological Statement and Opinion of the Specialist ...... 83 10. REFERENCES ...... 84
APPENDIX A – LIST OF POSSIBLE PLANT SPECIES ...... 85
APPENDIX B – LIST OF PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA...... 89
APPENDIX C – LIST OF FAUNAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 91
APPENDIX D – IMPACT RATING METHODOLOGY ...... 102
APPENDIX E – CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE PROJECT TEAM ...... 106
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area. 10 Table 4.1: Environmental legislation considered in the preparation of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment for the proposed Edendale Quarry. 12 Table 5.2: Species of Conservation Concern that may occur within the proposed development footprint. 23
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY vi
Ecological Impact Assessment
Table 5.1: Sensitivity features contributing to the plant species sensitivity of the study site. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5.3: Management requirements of the biodiversity priority areas identified by the ECBCP (2019). 26 Table 5.4: Sensitivity features contributing to the Animal Species Sensitivity of the Site. 30 Table 5.5: IUCN Threatened Bird Species likely to occur within the project area. 31 Table 5.6: Mammal species likely to occur within the project area. 32 Table 5.7: Reptile species recorded within 30 km2 of the study site. 33 Table 5.8: Amphibian species recorded within 30 km2 of the study site. 33 Table 9.1: Summary of all twenty (20) impacts identified for the proposed Edendale Quarry. 79 Table D1: Evaluation Criteria. 102 Table D2: Description of Overall Significance Rating 103 Table D3: Post-mitigation Evaluation Criteria 104
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Locality Map of the proposed Edendale Quarry...... 3 Figure 5.1 Contour Map of the study area...... 17 Figure 5.2: Elevation profile of the study site from (a) south-west to north-east and (b) north to south...... 17 Figure 5.3: Soil Map of the study area...... 18 Figure 5.4: Geology Map of the study site...... 18 Figure 5.5: South African National Land-Cover (SANLC, 2018) Map of the project area. .... 19 Figure 5.7: South African (2018) Vegetation Map of the project area...... 21 Figure 5.8: ECBCP (2019) Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area...... 27 Figure 5.9: ECBCP (2019) Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area...... 28 Figure 5.10: NEMBA (2011) Threatened Ecosystems Map of the project area...... 29 Figure 5.11: NPAES Focus Areas, Protected Areas and Threatened Ecosystems surrounding the study site...... 30 Figure 7.1: Sensitivity Map of the proposed site for the Edenvale Quarry...... 41 Figure 9.1: Layout and site sensitivity map of the proposed Edendale Quarry...... 82
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 6.1: Grassland vegetation of the study site during the dry season survey. 36 Plate 6.2: Redunca arundinum (Southern Reedbuck) identified during the site survey. 36 Plate 6.3: Grassland vegetation of the study site during the wet season survey. 37
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY vii
Ecological Impact Assessment
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADU Animal Demography Unit BA Basic Assessment BAR Basic Assessment Report CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resource Act CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CR Critically Endangered DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries DEDEAT Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism DEFF Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries DWS Department of Water and Sanitation EA Environmental Authorisation ECBCP Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan ECPTA Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMPr Environmental Management Programme ESA Ecological Support Area GIS Geographical Information System GN Government Notice Ha Hectares IBA Important Bird Area IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LC Least Concern LM Local Municipality NBA National Biodiversity Assessment NBF National Biodiversity Framework NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NEMA National Environmental Management Act NEM:BA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act NEM:PAA National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act NFA National Forest Act NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas NPAES National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment NWA National Water Act PA Protected Area PNCO Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance POSA Plants of Southern Africa PPP Public Participation Process SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SANLC South African National Land-Cover SANRAL South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd SCC Species of Conservation Concern TOPS Threatened or Protected Species VU Vulnerable WMA Water Management Area WUA Water Use Authorisation
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY viii
Ecological Impact Assessment
1 PROJECT TEAM
1.1 DETAILS AND EXPERTISE OF THE SPECIALISTS
Ms Nicole Wienand (Role: Junior Botanical Specialist and Report Writer)
Ms Nicole Wienand is an Environmental Consultant with two years’ experience based in the Port Elizabeth branch. Nicole obtained her BSc Honours in Botany (Environmental Management) from Nelson Mandela University (NMU) in December 2018. She also holds a BSc Degree in Environmental Management (Cum Laude) from NMU. Nicole’s honours project focused on the composition of subtidal marine benthic communities on warm temperate reefs off the coast of Port Elizabeth and for her undergraduate project she investigated dune movement in Sardinia Bay. Nicole’s key interests include marine ecology, botanical specialist assessments, GIS Mapping, the general EIA process, Public Participation Process (PPP) and Ecological Impact Assessments. Since her appointment with CES in January 2019, Nicole has undertaken a number of Ecological Impact Assessments under the guidance of Dr Greer Hawley and Tarryn Martin.
Ms Tarryn Martin (Role: Report Review)
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 in South Africa, Mozambique and other African countries. These assessments are often to IFC standards, specifically Performance Standard 6. Tarryn has also undertaken critical habitat assessments for areas requiring biodiversity offsets. Other botanical related work includes, developing alien management plans and biodiversity management and monitoring plans.
1.2 DECLARATION
Role on Study Declaration of independence Team Report • I, Nicole Wienand, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental production 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;
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 1
Ecological Impact Assessment
• 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.
09 November 2020 ……………………………………….. ………………………… SIGNED DATE
Report • I, Tarryn Martin, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental Reviewer & Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Final Sign-off 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.
09 November 2020 ……………………………………….. ………………………… SIGNED DATE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 2
Ecological Impact Assessment
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL) is proposing to develop a weathered gravel quarry adjacent to an existing privately-owned quarry on Edendale Farm 185, between the towns of Cedarville and Matatiele, on the R56 within the Matatiele Local Municipality (Figure 2.1). The purpose of the quarry is to provide SANRAL with weathered gravel (sandstone) material for the fill and subbase layer works associated with the upgrading of the R56 between Matatiele and Cedarville. The existing commercial quarry is situated on a dolerite intrusion and does not produce the weathered gravel material that is required. As such, SANRAL intend to develop their own quarry.
This site was chosen due to the suitability of the material, the landowner’s willingness to grant permission for a second quarry on their land, as well as the locality, which is adjacent to an existing quarry (Figure 2.2) thereby minimising the overall impacts of developing a quarry on a greenfields site. The commercial quarry operates under a mining right that was granted by the Department of Minerals Resources (DMR) in 2015. The road upgrade was subject to a separate environmental assessment process, which was authorised by the National Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), previously known as the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), in 2016.
Figure 2.1: Locality Map of the proposed Edendale Quarry.
CES has been appointed by GIBB Engineers, on behalf of SANRAL, to apply for Environmental Authorisation (EA) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 3
Ecological Impact Assessment
(NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998 and subsequent amendments) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (2014 and subsequent amendments) by means of conducting a Basic Assessment (BA) Process, inclusive of the relevant specialist studies. This Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment forms part of the BA Process for the proposed Edendale Quarry.
Figure 2.2: Layout Map of the proposed Edendale Quarry.
2.2 OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The main objective of this report is to determine the baseline terrestrial ecological environment of the study site and to assess the potential impacts the proposed development may have on the terrestrial habitat.
The following terms of reference were used for the objectives of this study:
➢ Describe the study site in terms of land cover and terrestrial habitat. This will include a full desktop analysis of the fauna and flora. ➢ Review relevant legislation, policies, guidelines and standards. ➢ Conduct a site survey to determine the baseline ecological conditions of the study site. This will entail the identification of any Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), areas that may be susceptible to invasion by alien plant species, and existing environmental degradation. ➢ Produce a sensitivity map that illustrates areas with significant development constraints.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 4
Ecological Impact Assessment
➢ Describe the likely scope, scale and significance of direct and indirect positive and negative impacts resulting from the proposed development both in terms of the footprint and the immediate surrounding area during construction and operation, as well as the no- go option. ➢ Provide a detailed description of appropriate mitigation measures that could be adopted to reduce negative impacts for each phase of the project, where required. ➢ Identify any need for future permitting. [NB: It is not the purpose of the study to comply with or apply for any permitting requirements at this stage.]
2.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the information available at the time of compiling the report and, as a result, is subject to the following assumptions and limitations:
➢ The report is based on the project description and the site layout provided to CES by the Proponent; ➢ Descriptions of the natural and social environments are based on a dry and wet season site visit and available literature. Although the time available in the field was limited to one day per season, it was sufficient to provide enough information to make a decision on the status of the affected area; ➢ A detailed faunal survey was not conducted. The faunal survey was a desktop study, using information from previous ecological surveys conducted in the area and, available literature supplemented by recording animal species that were observed during the site survey; ➢ The report is based on a combination of desktop and on-site analysis; ➢ Sampling was conducted on the 8th of September 2020 (dry season) and again on the 8th of February 2021 (wet season). As such, it is possible that some winter or autumn floral species could have been missed; ➢ A separate Aquatic Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of the BA Process for the proposed Edendale Quarry. As such, this report does not cover aspects relating to the aquatic environment of the study site; ➢ Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are difficult to find and identify, thus species described in this report do not comprise an exhaustive list. It is almost certain that additional SCC will be found during construction of the proposed development. As such, should environmental authorisation for the proposed development be obtained, a comprehensive Floral (and Faunal) Search and Rescue is recommended prior to vegetation clearance; and ➢ The information, as presented in this document, only has reference to the study site as indicated on the project maps. Therefore, this information cannot be applied to any other area without a detailed investigation being undertaken.
2.4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Public Participation Process (PPP) followed to date has been described in detail in the Draft Basic Assessment Report. The Draft BAR, together with the Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment Report, will be made available for a 30-day commenting and public
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 5
Ecological Impact Assessment
review period. Any comments received on the Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment Report will be included in the Final Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment Report.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 6
Ecological Impact Assessment
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1 THE ASSESSMENT
The study site and surrounding areas were assessed using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop and baseline assessment of the project area was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. Published literature on the ecology of the area was referenced in order to describe the study site in the context of the region and the Eastern Cape Province. The following documents/plans are referenced:
➢ South African Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP) (Mucina et al., 2018); ➢ Council for Geoscience (2013); ➢ Soil and Terrain (SOTER) Database of South Africa (2008); ➢ Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2019); ➢ The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA, 2011); ➢ The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), 2004: List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011); ➢ National Biodiversity Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) List of Threatened or Protected Species (2004); ➢ The National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES, 2010); ➢ Review of the SANBI Red Data List; ➢ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES); ➢ The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (SANBI, 2018); ➢ The Animal Demography Unit (ADU); ➢ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); ➢ Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO); ➢ Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) – Quarter degree square level; ➢ National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) List of Alien Invasive Vegetation; and ➢ Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) List of Protected Trees (2014).
In addition to the above, a site visit was conducted on the 8th of September 2020 (dry season) and again on the 8th of February 2021 (wet season). The aim of the assessment was to assess the site-specific ecological conditions, identify areas of ecological importance and to evaluate these in terms of their conservation importance. In order to do so, the ecological sensitivity of the area was assessed and potential plant and animal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) that may occur in habitats present in the area were identified. To a large extent, the condition and sensitivity of the vegetation also provided the basis for identifying areas of high biodiversity. The site survey also served to identify potential impacts the proposed development may have on the surrounding natural environment and to inform the significance of those impacts.
3.2 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
Data on the known distribution and conservation status for each potential plant SCC was obtained from the Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) database, the list of important taxa
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 7
Ecological Impact Assessment
relevant to the vegetation on site (Mucina et al., 2006), the list of sensitive plant species identified within the screening report, as well as the list of plant species identified for the Biodiversity Stewardship Assessment undertaken for the site (see Section 5.7.3), in order to develop a list of SCC likely to occur within the project area. SSC are species that are already known to be threatened or at risk and which will be most affected by the proposed activity. SCC have been selected for conservation/protection by means of a combination of applicable legislation, guidelines and conservation status lists. The following publications were utilised to cross reference conservation and protection statuses of various species:
➢ National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) - Chapter 4, Part 2 - Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS list); ➢ Endangered and Protected Flora in the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) – Schedule 3 and 4; ➢ 1976 List of Protected Trees (Government Gazette No. 9542 Schedule A) in the 1998 National Forest Act (NFA) as amended in November 2014; and ➢ SA Red Data List (http://redlist.sanbi.org).
The South African Red Data List of plants use the internationally recognised IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria to measure a species risk of extinction. The Red List of South African plants is used widely for conservation management and planning throughout South Africa.
Species that are afforded special protection and are protected by CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna) are also regarded as SCC (see http://www.cites.org/).
3.3 SAMPLING PROTOCOL
The study area was visually surveyed to evaluate vegetation composition and to provide detailed information on the plant communities present. The aim of the site visit was to characterise and describe each vegetation community within the study site as well as identify areas of high sensitivity and SCC. Visible species within the study site were identified using plant identification guides and other published literature. Vegetation types within the study area were assessed and surveyed and vegetation communities were then described according to the dominant set of species recorded from each type. These were mapped and assigned a sensitivity score.
3.4 VEGETATION MAPPING
The revised SA VEGMAP (2018) was established in order to “provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.” The map was developed using a wealth of data provided by a network of ecologists, biologists and conservation planners that make periodic contributions to the project. These contributions have allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. The SANBI Vegetation map informs finer scale bioregional plans and includes an additional 47 new vegetation units since its refinement in 2012.
The SA VEGMAP project has two main aims:
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 8
Ecological Impact Assessment
1. To determine the variation in and units of Southern African vegetation based on the analysis and synthesis of data from vegetation studies throughout the region, and 2. To compile a vegetation map. The aim of the map was to accurately reflect the distribution and variation on the vegetation and indicate the relationship of the vegetation with the environment. For this reason, the collective expertise of vegetation scientists from various universities and state departments were harnessed to make this project as comprehensive as possible.
The map and accompanying book describes each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species, including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important. The SA VEGMAP is compared to actual conditions of vegetation observed onsite during the site assessment through mapping from satellite images, literature descriptions (e.g. SANBI and ECBCP) and related data gathered on the ground.
3.5 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
The approach used to determine the vegetation sensitivity of the study area is described below. Zones of low, moderate and highly sensitive areas were delineated according to a system developed by CES and used in numerous ecological studies. Ultimately sensitivity was determined based on the presence or lack of the following:
➢ Degree of disturbance and transformation; ➢ Presence of floral Species of Conservation Concern (SCC); ➢ Vegetation types (which also constitute faunal habitats) of conservation concern; ➢ Areas of high biodiversity as determined by species composition and community structure; and ➢ The presence of important process areas such as: • Ecological corridors • Topographical features (especially steep and rocky slopes that provide niche habitats for both plants and animals).
It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological characteristics and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on twelve (12) criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity. The method predominantly involves identifying sensitive vegetation or habitat types, topography and land transformation, biodiversity patterns (hotspots) and biodiversity process areas (ecological infrastructure and corridors) (Table 3.1).
Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 9
Ecological Impact Assessment
Table 3.1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area. LOW MODERATE CRITERIA HIGH SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY 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 endangered special concern occasional vulnerable species, some and vulnerable species, - Presence and regional endemics indeterminate or rare or more than 2 endemics number endemics or rare species
5 Habitat Extensive areas of Reasonably extensive Limited areas of this fragmentation preferred habitat areas of preferred habitat habitat, susceptible to leading to loss of present elsewhere elsewhere and habitat fragmentation viable in region not susceptible to populations susceptible to fragmentation fragmentation
6 Biodiversity Low diversity or Moderate diversity, and High species diversity, contribution species richness moderately high species complex plant and richness animal communities
7 Erosion Very stable and an Some possibility of erosion Large possibility of potential or area not subjected or change due to episodic erosion, change to the instability of the to erosion events site or destruction due to region climatic or other factors
8 Rehabilitation Site is easily There is some degree of Site is difficult to potential of the rehabilitated difficulty in rehabilitation of rehabilitate due to the area or region the site terrain, type of habitat or species required to reintroduce 9 Disturbance due Site is very There is some degree of The site is hardly or very to human disturbed or disturbance of the site slightly impacted upon by habitation or degraded human disturbance other influences (alien invasive species) 10 Ecological Low ecological N/A High ecological function. function in the function. No (There are NO moderate Portions of entire landscape corridors or niche ecological functions. It is sections of the site (corridor, niche habitats considered either high or contains corridors or habitats) low) niche habitats 11 Ecological Low to no Some sections of the site Most of the site contains services (food, ecological contains ecological ecological services water filter, services on site services grazing, etc.)
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 10
Ecological Impact Assessment
LOW MODERATE CRITERIA HIGH SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY 12 Aquatic Outside of the Within 32m of the Development within the environments 32m watercourse watercourse. Within 500m watercourse. (Rivers, buffer. Outside of of a natural wetland, but wetlands, the 500m wetland outside of 50m wetland drainage line etc) buffer buffer
A sensitivity map was developed with the aid of a satellite image so that the sensitive regions and vegetation types could be plotted (see Chapter 7).
3.6 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.6.1 Impact rating methodology
To ensure a balanced and objective approach to assessing the significance of potential impacts, a standardized rating scale was adopted which allows for the direct comparison of specialist studies. This rating scale has been developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014 and subsequent 2017 amendments).
The details of this rating scale are included in Appendix D.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 11
Ecological Impact Assessment
4. RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Environmental legislation relevant to the biodiversity assessment of the proposed development is summarised in Table 4.1 below. Biodiversity Plans and Programmes are discussed in Chapter 5 where they are used to describe the desktop ecological conditions of the study area.
Table 4.1: Environmental legislation considered in the preparation of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment for the proposed Edendale Quarry. LEGISLATION/POLICY DESCRIPTION The Constitution (Act The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the supreme law of the 108 of 1996) land. As a result, all laws, including those pertaining to this Management Plan, must conform to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights - Chapter 2 of the Constitution, includes an environmental right (Section 24) according to which, everyone has the right:
a) To an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and b) To have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that: i. Prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. Promote conservation; and iii. Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. National Environmental Relevant Sections of the Act: Section 2, 23, 24, 24-1, 28-33 Management Act (NEMA) (Act 108 of • Application of the NEMA principles (e.g. need to avoid or minimise 1998), and its impacts, use of the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, subsequent etc.) amendments. • Application of fair decision-making and conflict management procedures are provided for in NEMA. NEMA Amended EIA • Application of the principles of Integrated Environmental Management Regulations (GNR. 326) and the consideration, investigation and assessment of the potential (2017) impact of existing and planned activities on the environment; socio- economic conditions; and the cultural heritage.
NEMA introduces the duty of care concept, which is based on the policy of strict liability. This duty of care extends to the prevention, control and rehabilitation of significant pollution and environmental degradation. It also dictates a duty of care to address emergency incidents of pollution. A failure to perform this duty of care may lead to criminal prosecution and may lead to the prosecution of managers or directors of companies for the conduct of the legal persons.
In addition, NEMA introduced a framework for environmental impact assessments, the Amended EIA Regulations (2017). The NEMA EIA Regulations aim to avoid detrimental environmental impacts through the regulation of specific activities that cannot commence without prior environmental authorisation. Authorisation either requires a Basic Assessment or a Full Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment, depending on the type of activity. These assessments specify mitigation and management guidelines to minimise negative environmental impacts and optimise positive impacts. National Environmental The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), No. Management: 10 of 2004, aims to assist with the management and conservation of South Biodiversity Act (Act 10 Africa’s biological diversity through the use of legislated planning tools.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 12
Ecological Impact Assessment
LEGISLATION/POLICY DESCRIPTION of 2004), and its These planning tools include the declaration of bioregions and the subsequent associated bioregional plans as well as other mechanisms for managing amendments. and conserving biodiversity. The objectives of the Act include inter alia: Threatened Ecosystems To provide for: • The management and conservation of biological diversity within Threatened and the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; Protected Species • The use of indigenous biological resources in a suitable manner; • The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio- Alien Invasive Species prospecting of genetic material derived from indigenous Regulations, 2014. biological resources; and • To give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic. • To provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and • To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of the Act.
In addition to this, Sections 50-62 of the Act provide details relating to the protection of threatened or protected ecosystems and species, while Sections 63-77 of the Act provide details relating to alien and invasive species with the purpose of preventing their introduction and spread, managing, controlling and eradicating of alien and invasive species.
The NEMBA Alien and Invasive Species List (Government Notice 599 of 2014) lists Alien and Invasive species that are regulated by the NEMBA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (Government Notice 98 of 2014). Conservation of The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, No. 43 of 1983 aims to Agricultural Resources control over-utilisation of the natural agricultural resources to promote the Act, (Act 43 of 1983). conservation of soil, water sources and vegetation through the combat of weeds and invader plants. Regulations 15 and 16 under this Act, which relate problem plants were amended in March 2001.
It should be noted that the CARA regulations for the legal obligations regarding alien invasive plants in South Africa have been superseded by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004) – Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations which was promulgated on 1 October 2014. However, CARA has not been repealed and is still included as a reference point to use in terms of the management of AIS where certain species may not be included in the NEM:BA AIS list. National Forest Act (Act The NFA provides the legal framework for the protection and sustainable 84 of 1998) and its use of South Africa’s indigenous forests. Any area that has vegetation subsequent which is characterised by a closed and contiguous canopy and under amendments. storey plant establishment is defined as a ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF): Forestry sector. National Water Act (Act The purpose of this Act (Section 2) is to ensure that the Nation’s water 36 of 1998) resources are protected, used, developed, conserved and controlled in ways that take into account, including: (a) Promoting sustainable use of water (b) Protection of aquatic and associated ecosystems and their biological diversity (c) Reducing and preventing pollution and degradation of water resources
Protection of Water Resources (Sections 12-20)
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 13
Ecological Impact Assessment
LEGISLATION/POLICY DESCRIPTION Provides details of measures intended to ensure the comprehensive protection of all water resources, including the water reserve and water quality.
With respect to the establishment of water quality objectives, objectives may relate to (Section 13): • the presence and concentration of particular substances in the water • the characteristics and quality of the water resource and the in- stream and riparian habitat • the characteristics and distribution of aquatic biota • the regulation and prohibition of in-stream and land-based activities which may affect the quantity and quality of the water resources
Section 19 deals with Pollution Prevention (Part 4) The person (including a municipality) who owns, controls occupies or uses the land in question, is responsible for taking reasonable measures to prevent pollution of water resources. If such measures are not taken, the catchment management agency concerned, may itself do whatever is necessary to prevent the pollution or remedy its effects and recover all reasonable costs from the persons responsible for the pollution.
The ‘reasonable measures’ which have to be taken may include measures to: • Cease, modify or control any act or process causing the pollution; • Comply with any prescribed waste standard or management practice; • Contain or prevent the movement of pollutants; • Eliminate any source of the pollution; • Remedy the effects of the pollution; and • Remedy the effect of any disturbance to the bed and banks of a watercourse.
With respect to pollution of rivers, the following definition is relevant when considering the potential impacts of development on water resources. Pollution may be deemed to occur when the following are affected: • the quality, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of instream flow; • the water quality, including the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water; • the character and condition of the in-stream and riparian habitat; • the characteristics, condition and distribution of the aquatic biota.
The Act defines ‘instream habitat’ as including the physical structure of a watercourse and the associated vegetation in relation to the bed of the watercourse.
Riparian Ecosystems ‘Riparian habitat’ includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas. Section 21 deals with the Use of Water
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 14
Ecological Impact Assessment
LEGISLATION/POLICY DESCRIPTION Section 21 (a-k) describes activities defined as a water use under the Act. These activities may only be undertaken subject to the application for, and issue of, a water use licence. National Environmental The purpose of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of Management: Protected ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological Areas Amendment Act diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes. The objectives of this (No. 31 of 2004) Act are-
• To provide, within the framework of national legislation, including the National Environmental Management Act, for the declaration and management of protected areas; • To provide for co-operative governance in the declaration and management of protected areas; • To effect a national system of protected areas in South Africa as part of a strategy to manage and conserve its biodiversity; • To provide for a representative network of protected areas on state land, private land and communal land; • To promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas; • To promote participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, where appropriate; and • To provide for the continued existence of South African National Parks. Protocol for the This Protocol provides the criteria for the assessment and reporting of Specialist Assessment impacts on terrestrial biodiversity for activities requiring Environmental and Minimum Report Authorisation (EA). The assessment and minimum reporting requirements Content Requirements outlined in the Protocol are based on the outcomes of the environmental for Environmental sensitivity identified by the national web based Environmental Screening Impacts on Terrestrial Tool. The relative sensitivity of the site, as identified by the national web- Biodiversity (GN R. 320 based Screening Tool and the site sensitivity verification, ultimately March 2020) determines the minimum report content requirements for environmental impacts on terrestrial biodiversity. For a site identified as being ‘very high sensitivity’ in terms of terrestrial biodiversity, a Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment must be undertaken while for a site identified and confirmed as ‘low sensitivity’ in terms of terrestrial biodiversity, a Terrestrial Biodiversity Compliance Statement can be compiled. Protocol for the The Protocol provides the criteria for the assessment and minimum report Specialist Assessment content requirements for impacts on terrestrial plant species for activities and Minimum Report requiring Environmental Authorisation (EA) and replaces the requirements Content Requirements outlined in Appendix 6 of the EIA Regulations. The assessment and for Environmental minimum reporting requirements outlined in the Protocol are based on the Impacts on Terrestrial outcomes of the environmental sensitivity identified by the national web Plant Species (GN R. based Environmental Screening Tool and the site sensitivity verification 1150 October 2020) undertaken by a qualified Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) or a specialist.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 15
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
5. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
5.1 CLIMATE
The information provided herewith is based on the climate data for Matatiele, the nearest urban area in close proximity to the study site. The climate of Matatiele is moderate with maximum temperatures reaching an average of 26°C in January and dropping to an average low of around 5°C in July. Frost occurs on more than 75 days a year, particularly in the mountainous areas south of Matatiele and north eastern parts of the border region. Rainfall occurs in the summer months, typically from October through till April, with an average annual rainfall of approximately 550 mm to 1000 mm (Integrated Development Plan (IDP) Matatiele Local Municipality 2016/17 to 2021/22).
5.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The topography of the broader area varies from very steep gradients of 1:1.5 to relatively gentle slopes of less than 1:7 at mountain foothills and river plains. The very steep gradients mainly occur in the western and south-eastern boundary of the Matatiele LM due to the extension of the Drakensberg Mountain Range (IDP Matatiele Local Municipality 2016/17 to 2021/22). The study site is located at an altitude of approximately 1502-1570 m above sea-level (asl), decreasing gently in elevation towards the north-east of the site and more sharply towards the south (Figure 5.1).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 16
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 5.1 Contour Map of the study area.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2: Elevation profile of the study site from (a) south-west to north-east and (b) north to south.
5.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Vegetation types are influenced by a range of biotic and/or abiotic factors at different spatial and temporal scales, which together influence the distribution, composition, structure and diversity of plant communities (Rodrigues et al., 2016). Among the abiotic factors influencing vegetation types, topography (landform), geology, and soils are considered three of the major factors determining habitat heterogeneity and species diversity. The vegetation types of the study site, East Griqualand Grassland and Mabela Sandy Grassland, are typically associated with mudstone and sandstone of the Beaufort Group (Karoo Supergroup), but sedimentary rocks of the Molteno, Elliot and Clarens Formation are also present. The soils are usually well drained, with a depth of 500-800 mm underlying East Griqualand Grassland and 200-300 mm underlying Mabela Sandy Grassland.
The broader Matatiele area is located on Karoo sediments (IDP Matatiele Local Municipality 2016/17 to 2021/22). According to SOTER (1995), the soils underlying the majority of the study area are classified as Dystric Regosols, with a portion of the study site underlain by Eutric Gleysols (Figure 5.3). Regosols are typically ‘young’ soils with poorly developed horizons, except for an ochric (surface) horizon which is generally thin and low in organic matter. These soils are highly permeable and have a low water holding capacity making them unfavourable for agricultural purposes and sensitive to drought. Regosols are prone to erosion, particularly on sloping surfaces, and often form a hard surface crust during dry periods that prevents the infiltration of water and the emergence of seedlings. These soils are typically used for extensive grazing. Gleysols are wetland soils and are typically well saturated within 50 cm of the surface of the soil for extended periods of time (Sposito et al., 2008).
The geology underlying the study area consists of sedimentary deposits including fine-grained sandstone and mudstone of the Tarkastad Subgroup (Beaufort Group) (Figure 5.4).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 17
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 5.3: Soil Map of the study area.
Figure 5.4: Geology Map of the study site.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 18
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
5.5 LAND COVER
According to the SA National Land-Cover Map (SA NLC, 2018) the broader area surrounding the study site comprises mostly of Natural Grassland and Commercial Annual Crops. Large Herbaceous Wetlands are also located within close proximity to the site and the existing Edendale Hardrock Quarry is recognised as Mines: Extraction Sites: Open Case and Quarries Combined by the SA NLC (2018). The land cover class in which the study site occurs is Natural Grassland (Figure 5.6) which corresponds to the East Griqualand and Mabela Sandy Grassland vegetation of the study site (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5: South African National Land-Cover (SANLC, 2018) Map of the project area.
5.6 VEGETATION AND FLORISTICS
5.6.1 National - SANBI Classification (Mucina et al., 2018)
The South African Vegetation Map (SA VEGMAP) of 2018 is an important resource for biodiversity monitoring and conservation management in South Africa. Under the custodianship of the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) the SA VEGMAP, (2018) was updated in order to ‘provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before’. The map provides a detailed description of each of South Africa’s unique vegetation types along with a comprehensive list of the important species associated with each, including endemic and biologically important species.
Grassland Biome
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 19
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
The project area falls within the grassland biome. Grasslands in South Africa boast remarkable biodiversity and cover approximately one third of South Africa’s total land surface area, stretching over the majority of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces. These ecosystems provide important habitat for a range of the country’s rare, endangered and endemic animal and plant species, with plant diversity of the grassland biome only second to that of the fynbos biome. The incredible diversity and provision of ecosystem services has contributed to the classification of this ecosystem as an important biodiversity asset of global significance. Grasslands are considered important water production landscapes and provide various ecosystem services particularly for rural communities in South Africa (SANBI, 2013). Approximately 40% of the grassland biome in South Africa has been transformed, while almost 60% of the remaining grassland areas are classified as threatened due to the loss of vital aspects of their composition, structure and functioning. Only 3% of this valuable ecosystem is formally conserved. The fragmentation and degradation of grassland ecosystem severely affects the ecosystems ability to provide valuable ecosystem services such as soil formation, freshwater, climate regulation and erosion prevention. As such, development within the remaining natural grassland areas should be well informed and err on the side of caution (SANBI, 2013).
The two (2) key ecological drivers of grassland ecosystems include climate and fire which influences their character, community structure, composition and primary productivity. In addition to climate and fire, other ecological drivers influencing these factors include grazing, soil types and nutrient status. Due to their high biodiversity and their suitability for human habitation, these ecosystems are often negatively impacted by various anthropogenic activities including grazing by livestock, over harvesting of natural resources, misappropriation of fire, mining, agriculture, urban and industrial expansion, amongst others (SANBI, 2013).
According to the SA VEGMAP (2018), the vegetation type of the majority of the study site is East Griqualand Grassland while a small portion of the study site occurs within Mabela Sandy Grassland (Figure 5.7).
East Griqualand Grassland
East Griqualand Grassland, classified as Least Concern (Skowno et al., 2019), occurs in the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces, with major portions covering East Griqualand around Kokstad and Matatiele. This vegetation type is dominated by grassland with patches of bush clumps dominated by Leucosidea sericea in wetter areas and Diospyros lycoides, Vachellia karroo and Ziziphus mucronata in dryer, low-lying areas.
The conservation target of East Griqualand Grassland is 23% with minor portions of this vegetation type statutorily conserved in Malekgonyane (Ongeluksnek) Wildlife Reserve and Mount Currie Nature Reserve. Over one quarter of the area covered by East Griqualand Grassland has been transformed due to cultivation, plantations and urban sprawl. Invasion by Acacia dealbata and A. mearnsii pose a threat to this vegetation type. The majority of the project site occurs within this vegetation type.
Mabela Sandy Grassland
Mabela Sandy Grassland, classified as Vulnerable (Skowno et al., 2019), occurs in flat valley basins and relatively high proportions of poorly drained, nutrient poor soils of the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces. This vegetation type is characterised by low species diversity,
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 20
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
tussock sour grasslands dominated by Sporobolus pyramidalis and Astrida junciformis (indicator species), and the absence of indigenous trees.
The conservation target of Mabela Sandy Grassland is 23%, with only minor portions statutorily conserved in Malekgonyane (Ongeluksnek) Wildlife Reserve. More than 20% of this vegetation type has been transformed due to cultivation and urban sprawl, while heavy overgrazing poses a significant threat to the degradation of remaining grassland. A small portion of the project site in the north east occurs within this vegetation type (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7: South African (2018) Vegetation Map of the project area.
Plant Species of Conservation Concern
Plant species of conservation concern comprise those species that are either threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable), rare or declining. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) plant database (http://posa.sanbi.org), the list of sensitive plant species identified in the Screening Report, and the list of important taxa common to East Griqualand Grassland and Mabela Sandy Grassland (Mucina et al., 2006) was consulted, along with the categories indicated in the SANBI Threatened Species Programme website (http://redlist.sanbi.org/species.php?species) to identify potential species of conservation concern within the proposed development footprint (Table 5.1).
The following list of plant SCC that may potentially be found within the development footprint has been derived from current literature for possible vegetation found in the area as well as the South African Red Data List, DAFF protected trees, the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO), NEM:BA List of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species, and Mucina et al., List of Endemic Taxa. A full list of plant species that were
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 21
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
identified during the site survey can be found in Appendix B while the full list of the potential species that could occur within the project area are listed in Appendix A.
The likelihood of occurrence for each species listed as Critically Endangered, Critically Rare, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened was assessed to determine if the species could occur within the project area based on its habitat preferences (Table 5.1). Of these species it was determined that one endangered species (Sensitive species 303) had a low likelihood of occurrence, one vulnerable species (Dierama tysonii) had a high likelihood of occurrence and two vulnerable species had a moderate likelihood of occurrence on site (Berkheya griquana and Sensitive species 275). One near threatened species (Cyrtanthus mackenii) had a high likelihood of occurrence on site, one near threatened species (Encephalartos friderici-guilielmi) had a moderate likelihood of occurrence on site and one near threatened species (Eucomis bicolor) had a low likelihood of occurrence on site (Table 5.1).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 22
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Table 5.1: Species of Conservation Concern that may occur within the proposed development footprint. Confirmed Probability of SANBI NEMBA/ on site occurrence on site FAMILY SPECIES ECOLOGY Red PNCO Comment TOPS based on habitat List requirements A formerly widespread and frequently recorded species. This species is now extremely rare as a result of the destruction and disturbance of wetlands. Its habitats include wetlands, Sensitive Schedule seepages, or stream edges in high altitude grassland, 1 500 - EN - NO Low species 303 4 – 2000m. A small portion of a delineated seepage occurs within the south western corner of the development site. Should this species occur on site, it would be restricted to this corner of the site. This species has an Extent of Occurrence of 2024 km2 and Indigenous; Schedule is known from only 10 locations within the Eastern Cape and Iridaceae Dierama tysonii VU - NO High Endemic 4 KwaZulu-Natal East Griqualand, between Ngele and the Swartberg Mountains. A range-restricted species (EOO < 100 km²), known from Berkheya Indigenous; fewer than five locations. Its habitat includes East Griqualand Asteraceae VU - - NO Moderate griquana Endemic Grassland in mountain foothills within the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Drakensberg Mountains, near Kokstad. This species has a relatively wide distributional range and occurs within the Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Western Cape Sensitive Schedule Provinces. Its habitat includes wooded and relatively mesic - VU - NO Moderate species 2751 4 places, such as the moister bushveld areas, coastal bush and wooded mountain kloofs. East Griqualand Grassland is not listed as a habitat type in which this species has been recorded. A widespread species (EOO 36 000 km²) occurring in the Cyrtanthus Indigenous; Schedule moist, subalpine grasslands of the Eastern Cape. Habitat Amaryllidaceae NT - NO High mackenii Endemic 4 includes seasonally damp places in open grasslands, Indian Ocean Coastal Belt, and Savanna. Eucomis Occurs on well-drained, grassy mountain slopes, sometimes Hyacinthaceae Indigenous NT - - NO Low bicolor in forests, along watercourses and on rocky cliffs, generally
1 Some SCC are sensitive to illegal harvesting. As such, their names are obscured and listed as “Sensitive species #”. As per the best practice guideline that accompanies the protocol and screening tool, the name of the sensitive species may not appear in any BAR or EIA report, nor any specialist reports released into the public domain.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 23
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
at higher altitudes up to 2800 m in the Free State, KwaZulu- Natal and Lesotho Provinces. A widespread and common species that is declining due to Encephalartos over-collecting and harvesting for traditional medicine. Its Indigenous; Schedule Zamiaceae friderici- NT Protected NO habitat includes montane grassland and open shrubland on Moderate Endemic 3 guilielmi rocky ridge within the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces (from Queenstown to Kokstad).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 24
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
5.6.2 Forest Classification (NFA)
No natural forest, or forest patches, will be impacted by the proposed development.
5.7 BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
South Africa's policy and legislative framework for biodiversity is well developed, providing a strong basis for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. South Africa is one of the few countries in the world to have a Biodiversity Act and a National Biodiversity Institute.
Key components of the national policy and legislative framework for biodiversity include:
➢ The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biological Diversity (1997); ➢ The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA); ➢ NEMBA List of Ecosystems in need of Protection; ➢ NEMBA List of Threatened or Protected Species; ➢ NEMBA List of Alien Invasive Species; ➢ The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) (NEMPAA); ➢ The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (2018); ➢ The National Biodiversity Framework (2008) (NBF); ➢ The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (2008) (NPAES); and ➢ Important Bird Areas (2015) (IBA).
In addition to national legislation, some of South Africa's nine provinces have their own provincial biodiversity legislation, as nature conservation is a concurrent function of national and provincial government in terms of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP) covers the entire Eastern Cape Province. 5.7.1 Provincial - Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2019)
The ECBCP (2019) replaces the ECBCP (2007) in its entirety and provides a map of important biodiversity areas, outside of the Protected Areas network, which can be used to inform land use and resource-use planning and decision making. The objectives of the ECBCP (2019) are to:
1) Identify the minimum spatial requirements needed to maintain a living landscape that continues to support all aspects of biodiversity and retain/maintain essential ecological infrastructure. This is achieved through the selection of areas, based on achieving targets, which represent important biodiversity pattern AND ecological processes; 2) Serve as the primary source of biodiversity information for land use planning and decision- making; and 3) Inform conservation and restoration action in important biodiversity areas.
The aim of the ECBCP were to map biodiversity priority areas through a systematic conservation planning process. The main outputs of the ECBCP include Protected Areas (PA), Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA), Ecological Support Areas (ESA), Other Natural Areas (ONA) and No Natural Habitat Remaining (NNR) for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 25
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
The ECBCP has been adopted by DEDEAT as a systematic biodiversity plan for the Eastern Cape Province. According to the ECBCP (2019), the study site occurs within a terrestrial CBA 2 and ESA 2 and an aquatic ESA 1 (Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 respectively).
According to the ECBCP 2019 Handbook, Terrestrial CBA 2 areas are selected in order to meet targets for: (1) vegetation types, (2) species points, (3) expert areas. In terms of the aquatic sensitivity of the site, based on the results of the Screening Tool report the aquatic biodiversity of the site is classified as high due to prescience of Freshwater ecosystem priority area quinary catchments
The management requirements of the biodiversity priority areas in which the study site occur are outlined in Table 5.3 below.
Table 5.3: Management requirements of the biodiversity priority areas identified by the ECBCP (2019). Biodiversity Management requirements Priority Area CBA 2 Maintain in natural (or near-natural state if this is the current condition of the site) that secures the retention of biodiversity pattern and ecological processes:
For areas classified as CBA2, the following objectives must apply: • Ecosystem and species must remain intact and undisturbed; • There is some flexibility in the landscape to achieve biodiversity targets in these areas. It must be noted that the loss of a CBA2 area may elevate other CBA 2 areas to a CBA 1 category. • These biodiversity features are at risk of reaching their limits of acceptable change.
If land use activities are unavoidable in these areas, and depending on the condition of the site, set-aside areas must be designed in the layout and implemented. If site specific data confirms that biodiversity is significant, unique and/or highly threatened or that a Critically Endangered or Endangered species is present, Biodiversity Offsets must be implemented ESA 1 Maintain ecological function within the localised and broader landscape. A functional state in this context means that the area must be maintained in a semi-natural state such that ecological function and ecosystem services are maintained.
For areas classified as ESA1, the following objectives apply: • These areas are not required to meet biodiversity targets, but they still perform essential roles in terms of connectivity, ecosystem service delivery and climate change resilience. • These systems may vary in condition and maintaining function is the main objective, therefore: o Ecosystems still in natural, near natural state should be maintained. o Ecosystems that are moderately disturbed/degraded should be restored. ESA 2 Maintain current land use with no intensification
For areas classified as ESA2, the following objectives apply: • These areas have already been subjected to severe and/or irreversible modification • These areas are not required to meet biodiversity targets, but they may still perform some function with respect to connectivity, ecosystem service delivery and climate change resilience • Objective is to maintain remaining function, therefore:
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 26
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
o Areas should not undergo any further deterioration in ecological function o Opportunities to change land use practices to improve ecological function (i.e. cultivation agriculture to livestock grazing agriculture) are desirable in ESA2 areas.
Figure 5.8: ECBCP (2019) Terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 27
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 5.9: ECBCP (2019) Aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) located within the project area.
5.7.2 Threatened Ecosystems
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, (Act No. 10 OF 2004) (NEM:BA) provides a National List of Ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection – GN 1002 of 2011. Although the study site is not located within a NEM:BA threatened ecosystem, it is situated within 697 m from a Vulnerable ecosystem (Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands) (Figure 5.10), with which it may share some transitional elements and species. Additionally, according to the NBA (2018) spatial dataset,a very small portion (0.4 ha) of the north eastern corner of the site is located within Mabela Sandy Grassland, an ecosystem classified as Vulnerable. The remainder of the site (18.4 ha) is located within East Griqualand grassland (classified as Least Concern).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 28
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 5.10: NEMBA (2011) Threatened Ecosystems Map of the project area.
5.7.3 Protected areas
The National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES, 2008) was developed to “achieve cost-effective protected area expansion for ecological sustainability and increased resilience to climate change.” The NPAES originated as Government recognised the importance of protected areas in maintaining biodiversity and critical ecological process. The NPAES sets targets for expanding South Africa’s protected area network, placing emphasis on those ecosystems that are least protected.
The southern tip of the site is located within the Southern Berg Griqualand NPAES Focus Area. Additionally, a number of protected areas identified by SAPAD (2019) are located within less than 10 km of the site (Figure 5.11).
It should be noted that the property on which the proposed quarry is located has been assessed by Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency (ECPTA) as part of the Grootvlei Stewardship Assessment. All properties assessed as part of Grootvlei Stewardship Assessment qualified for nature reserve status however, the owner of the land opted for protected environment status. ECPTA are currently in the process of declaring the Grootvlei properties as a protected environment.
There are no Important Bird Areas (IBAs) located within the project area. The nearest IBA (Franklin Flei) is located approximately 51 km east of the site.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 29
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 5.11: NPAES Focus Areas, Protected Areas and Threatened Ecosystems surrounding the study site.
5.8 FAUNA
According to the Screening Report generated for the proposed site, the animal species sensitivity of the majority of the site is classified as HIGH. The sensitivity features contributing to the sensitivity classification is listed in Table 5.4 below.
Table 5.4: Sensitivity features contributing to the Animal Species Sensitivity of the Site. Common SANBI Red Sensitivity Species IUCN PNCO NEM:BA Name List High Neotis Denhams Near Near Schedule - denhami Bustard Threatened Threatened 2 High Sensitive - Endangered Endangered - - Species 9 Medium Paracilacris Drakensberg lateralis Grass False - Vulnerable - - Shieldback Medium Ourebia Oribi Least Schedule Endangered Endangered ourebi ourebi Concern 1 Medium Sagittarius Secretarybird Vulnerable Vulnerable - - serpentarius Medium Geronticus Southern Schedule Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable calvus Bald Ibis 1
5.8.1 Birds
Birds are excellent early-warning signs for environmental change as they typically occupy high trophic levels in food webs. Bird species diversity in South Africa is high, with approximately 856
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 30
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
bird species recorded in the region (including the Prince Edward Islands). Of the 856 recorded species, 68 are endemic or near-endemic species while 132 are classified as threatened or near threatened (Taylor and Peacock, 2018). Of South Africa’s nine (9) biomes, the majority of threatened bird species occur in the Savannah and Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Biomes. The Grassland Biome (in which the study site occurs) is third most species richness of South Africa’s nine (9) biomes. According to Taylor and Peacock (2018), approximately 389 species occur within this biome. In terms of threated species, the grassland biome as well as the marine biome host the greatest percentage of threatened bird species, with 36% of the bird species within the grassland biome classified as threatened. Several of South Africa’s bird endemic rely on the grassland biome, including the Southern Bald Ibis, Red-winged Francolin, Melodious Lark, Rudd’s Lark, Botha’s Lark, Blue Swallow, and the Yellow-breated Pipit (Taylor and Peacock, 2018).
According to IUCN, approximately 355 bird species are likely to occur within the project area, of which three (3) are classified as Critically Endangered (CR), six (6) are classified as Endangered (EN), nine (9) are classified as Vulnerable (VU) and fourteen (14) are classified as Near Threatened (NT) (Table 5.5).
According to Avibase (Clements version, 2019), approximately 298 bird species are likely to occur within the project area, of which 16 are classified as globally threatened and thirteen (13) of which are Endemic. Two (2) of the bird species are classified as CR, four (4) as EN, ten (10) as Vulnerable, and thirteen (13) bird species are classified as NT. Please refer to Appendix C for a list of all the bird species likely to occur within the project area.
The Grootvlei Biodiversity Stewardship Assessment recorded 41 bird species for the project area. The threatened SCC have been incorporated into Table 5.5 below and the remainder of these species are listed in Appendix C. It should be noted that all birds are listed under Schedule 2 of PNCO, except those listed as exempted and those specified in Schedule 1, and are therefore protected.
Although there is a possibility that the site is utilised as feeding and/or breeding ground by a number of bird SCC, it is assumed that these species are unlikely to inhabit the project area due to the noise and movement associated with the existing mine activities.
Table 5.5: IUCN Threatened Bird Species likely to occur within the project area. IUCN THREAT NEMBA SPECIES COMMON NAME PNCO CATEGORY TOPS Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture Critically Endangered Schedule 2 Endangered Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture Critically Endangered Schedule 2 Endangered Sarothrura ayresi White-winged Flufftail Critically Endangered Schedule 2 - Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture Endangered Schedule 2 Scheduled Torgos tracheliotos Lappet-faced Vulture Endangered Schedule 2 Endangered Gyps coprotheres Cape Vulture Endangered Schedule 2 Endangered Circus maurus Black Harrier Endangered Schedule 2 - Heteromirafra ruddi Rudd's Lark Endangered Schedule 2 - Geronticus calvus Southern Bald Ibis Vulnerable Schedule 2 Vulnerable Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane Vulnerable Schedule 2 Endangered Bugeranus carunculatus Wattled Crane Vulnerable Schedule 2 Scheduled Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck Vulnerable Schedule 2 - Sagittarius serpentarius Secretary bird Vulnerable Schedule 2 - Hemimacronyx chloris Yellow-breasted Pipit Vulnerable Schedule 2 -
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 31
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Poicephalus robustus Cape Parrot Vulnerable Schedule 2 Scheduled Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground- Vulnerable Schedule 2 Protected hornbill Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle Vulnerable Schedule 2 Vulnerable Neotis denhami Denhams Bustard Near Threatened Schedule 2 Protected Monticola explorator Sentinel Rock Thrush Near Threatened Schedule 2 -
5.8.2 Mammals
According to The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho (Child et al., 2016), of the 331 taxa within the region, 57 are classified as Threatened (six Critically Endangered, 20 Endangered and 31 Vulnerable) and 35 are classified as Near Threatened. Large game makes up less than 15% of the mammal species in South Africa and a much smaller percentage in numbers and biomass. According to IUCN, 88 mammal species have a distribution that includes the project site. The Animal Demography Unit (ADU) historical records for QDS 3028BD confirms that six (6) mammal species have been recorded within 30 km2 of the project area all of which are classified as Least Concern (LC) except for Ourebia ourebi which is classified as Endangered (Table 5.6).
In South Africa, Oribi inhabit savannah woodlands, floodplains and other open grasslands at altitudes of around 2,200 m above sea level in the Mpumalanga Province, where they generally occur in association with other larger grazers. Population densities are greatest on floodplains and moist tropical grasslands in good condition and characterised by a mosaic of short and long grass for feeding and shelter. Oribi are selective feeders and focus primarily on grasses, including Themeda triandra, Hyparrhenia hirta, Panicum natalense and Andropogon chinensis, and therefore most commonly occur in vegetation types including Northern Kwazulu-Natal Moist Grassland, Income Sandy Grassland and Midlands Mistbelt Grassland (Shrader et al., 2016). Oribi are typically shy and vigilant creatures and are therefore unlikely to occur in close proximity to human settlements (Tekalign and Bekele, 2016). Based on the habitat requirements and behaviour of Oribi, although there is a possibility that the site is utilised as feeding ground, it is assumed that this species is unlikely to inhabit the project area due to the noise and movement associated with the existing mine activities.
Table 5.6: Mammal species likely to occur within the project area. COMMON RED LIST FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME PNCO NEMBA NAME CATEGORY Bovidae Damaliscus Blesbok Least Concern Schedule - pygargus phillipsi (2016) 2 Bovidae Ourebia ourebi Oribi Endangered Schedule Endangered 1 Bovidae Redunca arundinum Southern Least Concern Schedule Protected Reedbuck (2016) 2 Leporidae Pronolagus rupestris Smith's Red Least Concern - - Rock Hare (2016) Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Aardvark Least Concern Schedule - (2016) 2 Soricidae Suncus infinitesimus Least Dwarf Least Concern Schedule - Shrew (2016) 2 Canidae Canis mesomelas Black backed Least Concern - - Jackal Felidae Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern - - SUIDAE Potamochoerus Bushpig Least Concern - - larvatus
5.8.3 Amphibians and Reptiles
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 32
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Amphibians and reptiles are well represented in sub-Saharan Africa. However, distribution patterns in southern Africa are uneven both in terms of species distribution and in population numbers (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Climate, centres of origin and range restrictions are the three main factors that determine species distribution. The eastern coast of South Africa has the highest amphibian diversity and endemicity while reptile diversity is generally highest in the north eastern extremes of South Africa and declines to the south and west (Alexander and Marais, 2010).
Reptiles
South Africa has 350 species of reptiles, comprising 213 lizards, 9 worm lizards, 105 snakes, 13 terrestrial tortoises, 5 freshwater terrapins, 2 breeding species of sea turtle and 1 crocodile (Branch, 1998). Of those 350 reptile species, the Eastern Cape is home to 133 which include 21 snakes, 27 lizards and eight chelonians (tortoises and turtles). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats. According to IUCN, approximately 26 reptile species are likely to occur within the project area. Consultation of the ADU historical records for QDS 3028BD indicates that 2 species have been confirmed to occur within at least 30 km2 of the project area, both of which are classified as Least Concern (Table 5.7).
It should be noted that all lizards are listed under Schedule 2 of PNCO and are therefore protected. Permits for the removal are required.
Table 5.7: Reptile species recorded within 30 km2 of the study site. SCIENTIFIC RED LIST FAMILY COMMON NAME PNCO NEMBA TOPS NAME CATEGORY Lacertidae Pedioplanis Burchell's Sand Least Concern Schedule 2 - burchelli Lizard (SARCA 2014) Varanidae Varanus Water Monitor Least Concern - - niloticus (SARCA 2014) Colubridae Philothamnus Western Natal Least Concern Schedule 2 - occidentalis Green Snake
Amphibians
Amphibians are important in wetland systems, particularly where fish are excluded or of minor importance. In these habitats’ frogs are dominant predators of invertebrates. Frog abundance and diversity is a poignant reflection of the general health and well-being of aquatic ecosystems. According to IUCN, 25 amphibian species have a distribution which includes the project area. Consultation of the ADU historical records confirms that 10 species of amphibian are likely to occur within the project area, all of which are considered Least Concern (Table 5.8).
All frogs and toads, except those specified in Schedule 1, are listed under Schedule 2 of PNCO and are therefore protected. Permits for their removal are required.
Table 5.8: Amphibian species recorded within 30 km2 of the study site. COMMON RED LIST NEMBA FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME PNCO NAME CATEGORY TOPS Bufonidae Sclerophrys Raucous Toad Least Concern Schedule 2 - capensis Hyperoliidae Kassina Bubbling Least Concern Schedule 2 - senegalensis Kassina Hyperoliidae Semnodactylus Rattling Frog Least Concern Schedule 2 - wealii
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 33
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Least Concern Schedule 2 - Platanna Ptychadenidae Ptychadena Striped Grass Least Concern Schedule 2 - porosissima Frog Pyxicephalidae Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog Least Concern Schedule 2 - (2017) Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum Common Caco Least Concern Schedule 2 - boettgeri (2013) Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum Bronze Caco Least Concern Schedule 2 - nanum (2013) Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus Striped Stream Least Concern Schedule 2 - fasciatus Frog Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Least Concern Schedule 2 - Frog
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 34
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
6. SITE INVESTIGATION
6.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
The site visits conducted on the 8th of September 2020 (dry season) and the 8th of February 2021 (wet season) confirmed that the vegetation of the study site is East Griqualand Grassland. According to SANBI’s (2013) Grasslands Ecosystem Guidelines, the key indicators of a healthy grassland ecosystem include: • High basal cover, which binds the soil and prevents erosion; • A high diversity of growth forms (e.g. soft-leaved herbaceous plants – or forbs, bulbs etc in addition to grasses); • A high diversity of grass species, rather than dominance by any single species; • Intact topsoil, rich in organic matter and uncompacted with evidence of soil turning by animals; • An even grass sward, rather than tussocked veld – tussocked veld is an indicator that all the palatable species have been eaten, leaving tufts of unpalatable species; • An absence of invasive alien plants or areas of heavy bush encroachment.
Dry Season Survey – 8 September 2020
The grassland vegetation of the study site was extremely dry at the time of the survey and characterised as highly tussocked with a low diversity of grass species and moderate to low basal cover (Plate 6.1). Grass species dominated with very few other growth forms observed The differentiation between East Griqualand Grassland of the majority of the site and Mabela Sandy Grassland in the eastern corner of the site as indicated on project maps (refer to Figure 5.7) was not apparent on site or on Google Earth aerial imagery. Grazing of the grassland vegetation by livestock was observed during the site visit.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 35
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Plate 6.1: Grassland vegetation of the study site during the dry season survey.
Plate 6.2: Redunca arundinum (Southern Reedbuck) identified during the site survey.
Wet Season Survey – 08 February 2021
The composition and community structure of the grassland vegetation during the wet season survey was a stark contrast to that observed during the dry season survey (Plate 6.3). The increased diversity of species, basal cover, and greenery confirmed that the project area had recently received substantial rainfall. The East Griqualand Grassland vegetation of the study site was characterised by a near continuous cover of grasses reaching approximately 1 m in height, dominated by Themeda triandra, Aristida junciformis, Hyperrhenia hirta, Tristachya leucothrix and Heterpogon contortus, with scattered low shrubs and herbs such as Helichrysum
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 36
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
spp, Hermannia depressa, Senecio retrorsus, and Felicia sp, amongst others Although the grassland vegetation of the site displayed a high basal cover characterised by an even grass sward, a diversity of growth forms and grass species, and intact topsoil which are all indicators of a healthy grassland ecosystem, the presence of scattered exotic species such as Zinnia sp., Verbena bonariensis and Ammi majus are all indicative of disturbance (see Table 6.1 below).
The importance of the grassland vegetation in the ecological functioning of the landscape is apparent in both the small scale ecological process occurring on site (pollination, seed dispersal) as well as the large scale ecological processes such as erosion prevention, water purification, carbon sequestration, megaherbivory and predation. These ecosystem processes ensure the continued provision of important ecosystem goods and services.
Plate 6.3: Grassland vegetation of the study site during the wet season survey.
No species of conservation concern were recorded during the site visit. However, it is possible that there are geophytes from the Iridaceae family and some species from the Orchidaceae family that have gone undetected because the site visit was undertaken during a period when they are not in flower. A walkthrough of the site must be undertaken during the flowering season of the SCC likely to occur on site to identify any SCC that will require permits for their removal. The species observed within the study site are listed in Appendix B. An additional list of plant species that may occur in the broader area can be found in Appendix A.
6.2 ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES
An “invasive species” is any species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural distribution range (i) threatens ecosystems, habitats or other species or has a demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species; and (ii) may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive alien plant species are globally considered as one of the greatest threats to the environment, biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and the economy.
According to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (No. 43 of 1983 - Regulation 15, 30 March 2001) (CARA), for agricultural land, and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), for natural areas, invasive alien plant species should be controlled and eradicated with an emphasis on urgent action in biodiversity priority areas. NEMBA published a list of Alien and Invasive Species (No 599) in 2014 which regulates the management of alien and invasive plants in natural environments.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 37
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
During the site visit, the following alien invasive species were recorded:
Table 6.1: Alien Invasive species recorded on site for the proposed Edendale Quarry. NEMBA NATIONAL LIST OF COMMON CARA (Act No. FAMILY SPECIES INVASIVE SPECIES NAME 43 of 1983) IN TERMS SECTIONS 70(1), 71(3) and 71A Verbenaceae Verbena Purpletop - Category 1b bonariensis vervain Apiaceae Ammi majus Queen Anne's - - lace Asteraceae Zinnia sp. - - - Rosaceae Rosa Multiflora Rambling Rose
Verbena bonariensis is listed under Category 1b of the NEMBA: National List of Invasive Species in Terms Sections 70(1), 71(3) and 71A. Plants classified as Category 1b alien invasive species are prohibited from:
➢ Being imported into the Republic; ➢ Growing or in any other way propagating any specimen; ➢ Conveying, moving or otherwise translocating any specimen; ➢ Spreading or allowing the spread of any specimen; and ➢ Releasing any specimen.
All Category 1b alien and invasive plant species must be controlled during all phases of development according to the recommendations outline in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 38
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
7. SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
7.1 CONSERVATION AND SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS
In order to identify any potential site sensitivities or ecologically important areas during the early stages of a development, the conservation planning tools available for a particular area should be consulted. This could potentially assist with the fine-tuning of plans and infrastructure layouts.
The following relevant conservation planning tools were consulted for this assessment: ➢ SANBI NBA (2018) Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat Status; ➢ NEMBA Threatened Ecosystems; ➢ NPAES Focus Areas; ➢ SAPAD (2019) Protected Areas; ➢ ECBCP Critical Biodiversity Areas (Terrestrial and Aquatic) (2019); and ➢ Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974.
The conservation status of the East Griqualand Grassland of the study site is classified as Least Concern and the Mabela Sandy Grassland of the eastern corner of the site, although not distinguished during the site visit, is classified as Vulnerable (Skowno et al., 2019). According to the ECBCP (2019), the study site occurs within a Terrestrial CBA 2 and ESA 2 and an Aquatic ESA 1 (see Section 5.7.1). The study site does not occur within a threatened ecosystem identified by NEMBA. However, the Mabela Sandy Grassland vegetation of the eastern corner of the study site is classified as Vulnerable in terms of the NBA (2018) Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat Status Assessment. The southern tip of the study site occurs within the Southern Berg Griqualand NPAES Focus Area (Section 5.7.3).
7.2 SENSITIVITY ALLOCATION
The proposed site has been mapped in terms of the ecological sensitivity (Figure 7.1). The sensitivity ratings and reasons therefore have been provided below. The recommended mitigation measures that need to be implemented in order to minimise the ecological impacts of the development are described in Chapter 8.
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 special 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 moderate sensitivity include:
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 39
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
→ 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 special 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 special concern.
Moderate Sensitivity The majority of the site (grassland areas) has been assigned moderate sensitivity due to its location within a Terrestrial CBA 2 and ESA 2, Aquatic ESA 1 (ECBCP, 2019) and its proximity to the Southern Berg Griqualand NPAES Focus Area. Furthermore, the site is currently in the process of being declared a protected environment by ECPTA. The East Griqualand Grassland vegetation of the site supports various ecological processes and contributes to the ecological functioning of the landscape thereby ensuring the continued provision of ecosystem goods and services such as erosion prevention, water purification, carbon sequestration, amongst others.
* Any SCC within the grassland areas are considered highly sensitive and will require permits for their removal. Although no SCC were identified during the site survey, it is possible that there are geophytes from the Iridaceae family and some species from the Orchidaceae family that have gone undetected because the site visit was undertaken during a period when they are not in flower. A walkthrough of the site must be undertaken during the flowering season of the SCC likely to occur on site to identify any SCC that will require permits for their removal.
High Sensitivity
The surrounding drainage lines, as well as the surrounding 100 m drainage buffers, have been delineated and classified as HIGH and MODERATE sensitivity respectively. The purpose for this, is to highlight the importance of the surrounding aquatic habitats. Impacts and mitigation measures related to these areas are covered in the Aquatic Impact Assessment undertaken as part of the BA Process for the proposed Edendale Quarry. Areas of high sensitivity should be considered no-go areas.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 40
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 7.1: Sensitivity Map of the proposed site for the Edenvale Quarry.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 41
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
8. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
The study that has been undertaken provides the necessary information in order to assess the impacts of the proposed Edendale Quarry on the ecology of the area at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. The impacts identified and described in Section 8.1 below have been assessed in terms of the criteria described in Appendix D of this report.
8.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 42
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Legal and Failure to obtain and adhere • All necessary permitting Policy to the necessary permits and authorisations must Compliance and/or authorisations, as well be obtained prior to the as failure to adhere to commencement of any existing policies and legal construction activities; obligations relating to the • A suitably qualified ecological environment, Environmental Control could lead to the project Officer (ECO) must be conflicting with local,
appointed prior to the
provincial and national commencement of the
lost
policies, legislation, etc. This
construction phase;
could result in lack of • Ensure that all relevant
institutional support for the will be will Preferred project, overall project failure Occur HIGH (-) legislation and policy is LOW (-)
Severe Severe consulted and further
and undue disturbance to the Negative
May May
Permanent Achievable Achievable
natural environment. Irreversible ensure that the project is Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
Regional/National compliant with such Resource Resource legislation and policy; and • Planning for the construction and operation of the proposed development should consider available best practice guidelines. The no-go alternative will not result in any conflict with local, provincial, and/or
national policies, legislation, No-Go N/A N/A N/A
etc. N/A
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 43
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
During the construction • An Erosion Management phase, the clearance of Plan or method vegetation will result in statement must be increased soil exposure compiled indicating what which could lead to erosion measures will be and subsequent loss of implemented during the
topsoil within the Construction Phase;
development site and • Vegetation clearance
surrounds. Additionally,
must be kept to a
failure to rehabilitate minimum and retained temporary development Erosion Preferred MODERATE (-) where possible to avoid LOW (-) areas, which were impacted
Direct Direct soil erosion;
Definite Definite
Difficult Difficult Negative Negative
during the construction Moderate
Reversible Reversible Permanent Permanent phase, could lead to the Study Area • Disturbed areas must be
erosion of- and permanent rehabilitated if and when Resource will be lost lost be will Resource loss of valuable soil. possible; and • The site should be monitored regularly for signs of erosion. Remedial action must be taken at the first signs of erosion.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 44
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Erosion and loss of topsoil It is difficult to implement has already occurred due to mitigation measures the mining activities adjacent to the site. As such, the specific to the cumulative
clearance of vegetation and impacts as the Proponent
mining activities associated only has jurisdiction over
with the proposed Edendale their development and not
Quarry will contribute to the over other developments or Cumulative cumulative erosion and loss MODERATE (-) farming activities in the LOW (-)
of topsoil in the area. Direct
Definite Difficult Difficult
Negative Negative area.
Moderate Moderate
Localised
Reversible Reversible Permanent Permanent
Resource will be lost be will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above. The no-go alternative will not require the clearance of vegetation for mining activities and will therefore
not result in erosion or the
No-Go loss of top soil but rather the N/A N/A N/A conservation of the site as it N/A is currently in the process of being proclaimed as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 45
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Loss of East Vegetation clearance for the • The clearance of Griqualand Edendale Quarry will result in vegetation at any given Grassland the direct loss of 18.4 ha of time should be kept to a East Griqualand Grassland. minimum; Such vegetation loss • Employees must be represents permanent prohibited from making vegetation and habitat loss fires and harvesting from naturally vegetated plants; areas, however, this • Any alien vegetation vegetation type is fairly which establishes during widespread and is listed as the construction phase Least Threatened. As such should be removed from the significance of the impact will be moderate.. site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. Continuous monitoring
for alien plant seedlings
should take place
throughout the
construction phase; Preferred MODERATE (-) • Only indigenous species MODERATE (-)
Direct Direct must be used for
Achievable Achievable
Definite Definite
Negative Negative
Moderate Moderate
Study Site Site Study Permanent Permanent Irreversible Irreversible rehabilitation purposes; Not Not • As far as practically
Resource will be lost lost be will Resource possible, existing roads should be utilised; and • An alien vegetation management plan or method statement must be compiled (for implementation during the phases that follow). • Construction vehicles and machinery must not encroach into identified ‘no-go’ areas or areas outside the project footprint. • Activities within 500m of a wetland must obtain the necessary
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 46
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Water Use License prior to the commencement of such activities. • Topsoil (20 cm, where possible) must be collected and stored in an area of low sensitivity and used to rehabilitate impacted areas that are no longer required during the operational phase (e.g. laydown areas). Portions of this vegetation It is difficult to implement type have already been lost mitigation measures due mining and farming activities that are currently specific to the cumulative occurring adjacent to the site. impacts as the Proponent
As such, the proposed only has jurisdiction over
Edendale Quarry will their development and not contribute approximately over other developments or
Cumulative 18.4 ha to the cumulative MODERATE (-) farming activities in the MODERATE (-) Direct Direct
loss of the East Griqualand Achievable
Definite Definite Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Moderate Moderate Permanent Permanent Grassland ecosystem. Irreversible
Not Not Resource will be lost lost be will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 47
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of East
Term Term
No-Go Griqualand Grassland but - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
rather the conservation of the N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
site as it is currently in the Long
process of being proclaimed Direct/Indirect as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
Loss of East Vegetation clearance for the • In addition to the Mabela Sandy Edendale Quarry will result in mitigation measures Grassland) the direct loss of 0.4 ha of listed above, this Mabela Sandy Grassland. vegetation type should Since this is a small area of be avoided as far as this vegetation type and it is possible and the located on the ecotone infrastructure layout between vegetation types and in a previously disturbed designed to avoid
area, the significance will be impacting this
moderate. vegetation type.
• No laydown areas
Preferred MODERATE should occur in this MODERATE
Direct Direct
Achievable Achievable
Definite Definite Negative Negative
Moderate Moderate vegetation type.
Study Site Site Study
Permanent Permanent Irreversible Irreversible
Not Not • Access and service
Resource will be lost lost be will Resource roads must avoid this vegetation type where possible. • A botanical walkthrough of the final layout to ensure no populations of SCC is recommended.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 48
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Portions of this vegetation It is difficult to implement type have already been lost mitigation measures due mining and farming
activities that are currently specific to the cumulative
occurring adjacent to the site. impacts as the Proponent
As such, the proposed only has jurisdiction over
Edendale Quarry will their development and not
contribute approximately 0.4 over other developments or
Cumulative ha to the cumulative loss of MODERATE (-) farming activities in the MODERATE
Direct Direct Achievable Achievable
the Mabela Sandy Grassland Definite
Negative Negative Regional Regional
Moderate Moderate area. Permanent Permanent ecosystem. Irreversible
Not Not Resource will be lost lost be will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above. The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of
Term Term
No-Go Mabela Sandy Grassland but - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
rather the conservation of the N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
site as it is currently in the Long
process of being proclaimed Direct/Indirect as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 49
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Loss of The proposed development • None identified Critical of the Edendale Quarry will • In line with the Biodiversity result in the loss of recommended Area approximately 15 ha of an management area classified as a terrestrial measures for CBA2
CBA 2 and 3.8 ha of an area areas, set aside areas
classified as an ESA 2, as will need to be
well as an aquatic ESA 1 considered.
Preferred (ECBCP, 2019). This MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Direct Direct
classification was driven by Achievable
Definite Definite
Negative Negative
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised Permanent Permanent the vegetation type, threat Irreversible status and the established Not
national conservation target. lost be will Resource As such, the loss of this area signifies the potential inability to achieve national targets for this ecosystem type.
Portions of CBA 2 and ESA 1 It is difficult to implement areas have already been lost mitigation measures due mining and farming activities that are currently specific to the cumulative occurring adjacent to the site. impacts as the Proponent
As such, the proposed only has jurisdiction over
Edendale Quarry will result in their development and not the loss of approximately 15 over other developments or
Cumulative ha of an area classified as a MODERATE (-) farming activities in the MODERATE (-) Direct Direct
terrestrial CBA 2 and 3.8 ha Achievable
Definite Definite Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Moderate Moderate Permanent Permanent of an area classified as an Irreversible
ESA 2, as well as an aquatic Not
ESA 1. lost be will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 50
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of vegetation for mining activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of
approximately 15 ha of an
area classified as a terrestrial Term Term
No-Go CBA 2 and 3.8 ha of an area - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
classified as an ESA 2, as N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised well as an aquatic ESA 1 but Long rather the conservation of the Direct/Indirect site as it is currently in the process of being proclaimed as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 51
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Establishmen The removal of existing • A method statement t of Alien natural vegetation creates must be developed and Plant Species ‘open’ habitats which favours implemented to prevent the establishment of the establishment and undesirable vegetation in spread of undesirable areas that are typically very alien plant species difficult to eradicate and during all phases of could pose a threat to development. If the site surrounding ecosystems. becomes infested with
undesirable species
then an Alien Vegetation
Management Plan must term term Preferred - MODERATE (-) be developed; and LOW (-)
Direct Direct • Any alien vegetation
Negative Negative
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Long
Reversible Reversible May Occur Occur May Achievable Achievable which establishes during the construction phase
Resource could be lost lost be could Resource should be removed from site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. Continuous monitoring for alien plant seedlings should take place throughout the construction phase.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 52
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Failure to control the spread It is difficult to implement of alien invasive plant mitigation measures species during the specific to the cumulative construction phase of the impacts as the Proponent
proposed Edendale Quarry only has jurisdiction over
could contribute to the their development and not
spread of alien plant species over other developments or term term Cumulative - MODERATE (-)
and threats to surrounding farming activities in the LOW (-) Direct Direct
Negative Negative area.
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Long Reversible Reversible
ecosystems. Occur May Achievable Achievable
Resource could be lost lost be could Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
The no-go alternative will N/A
likely result in the further
establishment and spread of
alien species already
occurring on site. term term
No-Go - MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-)
Direct Direct
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Long
Reversible Reversible
May Occur Occur May
Achievable Achievable
MODERATE MODERATE Resource could be lost lost be could Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 53
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Habitat During the construction • The clearance of
Loss/Fragme phase, the loss of vegetation vegetation at any given ntation coincides with the loss of time should be kept to a
faunal habitat which could minimum;
result in the reduction in • Employees must not breeding and feeding locales trap, hunt, handle or Preferred for some species. While MODERATE (-) remove any faunal MODERATE (-)
large mobile species are Direct Definite Definite
Negative Negative species from the site;
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Permanent Achievable Achievable likely to move away from the Irreversible • As far as practically site, smaller less mobile possible, existing roads species and subterranean
Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource must be utilized. species may be more negatively affected.
Large portions of natural It is difficult to implement vegetation which conincides mitigation measures with the loss of faunal habitat
has already been lost due specific to the cumulative mining and farming activities impacts as the Proponent
that are currently occurring only has jurisdiction over
adjacent to the site. As such, their development and not
the proposed Edendale over other developments or Cumulative Quarry will contribute to the MODERATE (-) farming activities in the MODERATE (-)
cumulative habitat Direct
Definite Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Moderate Moderate
Permanent Achievable Achievable loss/fragmentation within the Irreversible area.
Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 54
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in habitat
Term Term
No-Go loss/fragmentation but rather - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
the conservation of the site N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
as it is currently in the Long
process of being proclaimed Direct/Indirect as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 55
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Wildlife During the construction • All faunal species, Mortalities phase, vehicles, crew and including livestock, materials may increase must be removed animal fatalities through from site prior to opportunistic hunting, vegetation collisions, accidents or clearance. baiting and trapping. • Vehicle speed must be limited to 40km/hr to reduce faunal collision mortality; • Train all staff on site regarding the proper management and
response should animals be
encountered;
• Search and clear
the construction
Preferred MODERATE (-) region prior to LOW
Direct Direct Negative
Moderate Moderate work commencing,
Localised Localised
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable Irreversible Irreversible relocating animals where found; Resource could be lost lost be could Resource • No animal shall be killed or hurt; and • No hunting, baiting or trapping shall be allowed. • ECO to walk ahead of clearing construction machinery and move slow moving species e.g. tortoises out of harms way and into suitable neighbouring habitat.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 56
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
• Any faunal species that may die as a result of construction must be recorded (photographed, gps co-ord) and if somewhat intact preserved and donated to SANBI. • Any faunal species observed onsite must be recorded (photographed, gps co-ord) and loaded onto iNaturalist. • Staff and contractors are not permitted to capture, collect or eat any faunal species onsite.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 57
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
During the construction It is difficult to implement phase, vehicles, crew and mitigation measures materials may increase specific to the cumulative
animal fatalities through opportunistic hunting, impacts as the Proponent
collisions, accidents or only has jurisdiction over
baiting and trapping which their development and not
will contribute to the over other developments or Cumulative cumulative loss of wildlife in MODERATE (-) farming activities in the LOW (-)
the region. Direct Negative
Regional area.
Moderate Moderate
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent
Achievable Achievable Irreversible Irreversible
Resource could be lost lost be could Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above. The no-go alternative will not None required. result in animal fatalities due
to opportunistic hunting,
collisions, accidents or
baiting and trapping. Should
Term Term
No-Go the no-go alternative apply, - LOW (+) LOW (+)
N/A N/A N/A
the conservation of the site Low
Positive Positive
Probable Probable Localised Localised
as part of the Grootvlei Long
Protected Environment will indirect / Direct have low positive outcome for wildlife in the area.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 58
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Loss of Plant During the construction • A comprehensive in situ Species of phase, construction Plant and Faunal Search Conservation activities, including the and Rescue must be Concern clearance of vegetation, conducted prior to (SCC) could permanently damage vegetation clearance; or destroy plant SCC which • A qualified botanical are present on site, specialist must conduct contributing to the cumulative the translocation of any loss of plant SCC in the SCC; region. • SCC should be translocated to the nearest appropriate habitat, preferably a
protected portion of the
property;
• The clearance of
vegetation at any given time should be kept to a Preferred HIGH (-) MODERATE (-)
minimum and vegetation
Negative Negative
Probable Probable Moderate Moderate
Achievable Achievable clearance must be
Permanent Permanent
Study Area Study Area Irreversible Irreversible
strictly limited to the Direct & Cumulative Cumulative & Direct
Resource will be lost lost be will Resource development footprint; • Employees must be prohibited from making fires and harvesting plants; • Only indigenous species should be used for rehabilitation purposes which must aim to re- vegetate exposed soil; and • As far as practically possible, existing roads should be utilised.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 59
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
If populations of SCC with It is difficult to implement restricted ranges are mitigation measures present within the site and specific to the cumulative are impacted by the impacts as the Proponent
proposed Edendale Quarry, only has jurisdiction over
the cumulative impact will their development and not
be very high as some SCC over other developments or
have already been lost as a farming activities in the consequence of mining and area. Cumulative HIGH (-) MODERATE (-) farming that is currently
Negative Negative
Regional Regional
Probable Probable Moderate Moderate
occurring in the region. Achievable
Permanent Permanent Irreversible Irreversible However, it is imperative
Direct & Cumulative Cumulative & Direct Resource will be lost lost be will Resource that the Proponent This impact can be reduced implement the mitigation if a thorough botanical measures listed above. walkthrough of the site is undertaken during the optimum flowering season.
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of plant
Term Term
No-Go SCC but rather the - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
conservation of the site as it N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
is currently in the process of Long
being proclaimed as part of Direct/Indirect the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 60
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Loss of Although found with relative • A botanical walkthrough sensitive ease in the wild particularly of the site must be plant species close to Durban and the undertaken prior to any 275 KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, this clearing and the location species is classified as of these populations “vulnerable and declining” as identified and recorded it is highly exploited for the using a GPS. The medicinal market number of individuals (Cunningham, 1993). Its present within each habitat includes wooded and population must also be relatively mesic places, such calculated. as the moister bushveld
• Where feasible,
areas, coastal bush and
populations of this
wooded mountain kloofs. species must be
East Griqualand Grassland is avoided. Where this is Preferred not listed as a habitat type in LOW (-) LOW (-) not possible, a
which this species has been Slight Negative Negative
Localised Localised comprehensive Plant
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable recorded. Therefore the Irreversible Search and Rescue likelihood of this species Indirect & Direct
occurring on site is low and lost be will Resource must be conducted prior the impact is rated as low. to vegetation clearance; • A qualified botanical
specialist must conduct the translocation of any SCC; and • SCC should be translocated to the nearest appropriate habitat, preferably a protected portion of the property.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 61
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
If populations of sensitive It is difficult to implement plant species 275 are mitigation measures present within the site and specific to the cumulative are impacted by the impacts as the Proponent proposed Edendale Quarry, only has jurisdiction over
the cumulative impact will their development and not
be moderate as some of over other developments or these species have already farming activities in the
Cumulative been lost due to MODERATE (-) area. MODERATE (-)
Negative Negative Regional Regional
exploitation for the Moderate
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable
medicinal market. Irreversible Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
This impact can be reduced lost be will Resource However, it is imperative if a thorough botanical that the Proponent walkthrough of the site is implement the mitigation undertaken during the measures listed above. optimum flowering season.
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of
Term Term
No-Go sensitive plant species 275 - LOW (+) LOW (+)
N/A N/A N/A
but rather the conservation of Slight
Positive
Probable Probable Localised Localised
the site as it is currently in the Long
process of being proclaimed Direct/Indirect as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 62
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Loss of A formerly widespread and • A botanical walk through Sensitive frequently recorded species. must be conducted prior Plant Species This species is now to vegetation clearance 303 extremely rare as a result of in order to ground truth the destruction and the site and identify the disturbance of wetlands. Its need permitting. habitats include wetlands,
• A comprehensive Plant
seepages, or stream edges
Search and Rescue
in high altitude grassland, 1 must be conducted prior
500 – 2000m. A small to vegetation clearance; Preferred portion of a delineated LOW (-) LOW (-) • A qualified botanical
seepage occurs within the Slight
Negative Negative Localised Localised
May Occur May specialist must conduct
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable south western corner of the Irreversible
development site. Should Indirect & Direct the translocation of any
this species occur on site, it lost be will Resource SCC; and would be restricted to this • SCC should be corner of the site. If impacts translocated to the on seeps and wetlands is nearest appropriate avoided, the impact on this habitat, preferably a species will be low. protected portion of the property.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 63
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
If populations of sensitive It is difficult to implement plant species 303 are mitigation measures present within the site and specific to the cumulative are impacted by the impacts as the Proponent proposed Edendale Quarry, only has jurisdiction over
the cumulative impact will their development and not
be moderate as some of over other developments or these species have already farming activities in the
Cumulative been lost due to MODERATE (-) area. MODERATE (-)
Negative Negative Regional Regional
exploitation for the Moderate
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable
medicinal market. Irreversible Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
This impact can be reduced lost be will Resource However, it is imperative if a thorough botanical that the Proponent walkthrough of the site is implement the mitigation undertaken during the measures listed above. optimum flowering season.
The no-go alternative will not • None required. require the clearance of
vegetation for mining
activities and will therefore
not result in the loss of
Term Term
No-Go sensitive plant species 303 - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
but rather the conservation of N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
the site as it is currently in the Long
process of being proclaimed Direct/Indirect as part of the Grootvlei Protected Environment.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 64
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Loss of Preferred Sensitive species 9 is listed • None identified.
sensitive as Endangered and has
animal been recorded within the
species 9 broader area surrounding the
project site. Although this species is likely to move MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-)
away from the area if an
Negative
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable
increase in activity occurs, it Irreversible
is possible that the loss of Indirect & Direct
habitat may affect its foraging lost be will Resource areas.
Cumulative It is unlikely that mining • None identified. activities will result in the loss of sensitive animal species 9 as it is likely to move away
with the increase in activity
within the area. However, be lost lost be the proposed Edendale Quarry represents a loss of MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-)
habitat which may affect its
Negative
Regional
Moderate Moderate
May Occur May
Permanent Permanent Achievable Achievable foraging areas. The Irreversible
cumulative impact will Indirect & Direct
therefore be moderate as this will Resource species is already listed as endangered due habitat loss, poisoning, and disturbance.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 65
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
No-Go The no-go alternative will not • None required. result in the loss of sensitive
animal species 9 but rather
the conservation of its
potential foraging habitat as
Term Term
the site is currently in the - MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+)
N/A N/A
process of being proclaimed N/A
Positive
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
as part of the Grootvlei Long
Protected Environment. Direct/Indirect
• Ensure machinery and Impacts of During the construction Noise and phase, construction activities plant is in good working
Lighting on will lead to the increase in order. The appropriate
Surrounding ambient noise levels and silencers should be fitted
Faunal increased lighting in the on equipment if required; term term Populations Preferred project area. This could - MODERATE (-) • Where possible, external LOW (-)
disturb surrounding faunal lighting should be
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short
populations. Achievable avoided.
Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 66
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The adjacent mine has It is difficult to implement already caused an increase mitigation measures
in ambient noise in the area.
The additional noise specific to the cumulative
generated from the proposed impacts as the Proponent
only has jurisdiction over
Edendale Quarry will be a
long-term impact and will be their development and not term term
of moderate significance. - Cumulative MODERATE (-) over other developments in LOW (-)
the area.
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short
Achievable Achievable Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
However, it is imperative Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
Under the no-go alternative, It is difficult to implement some faunal populations at
mitigation measures
the study site will still be
specific to the cumulative
impacted by noise from the
adjacent mine. impacts as the Proponent term term No-Go - MODERATE (-) only has jurisdiction over LOW (-)
their development and not
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short Achievable Achievable over other developments in
Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct the area.
Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource
OPERATIONAL PHASE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 67
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Erosion Failure to rehabilitate • Stormwater control must temporary areas, which were be undertaken to impacted during the prevent soil loss from the construction phase, could site;
lead to the erosion of- and • All erosion control permanent loss of valuable mechanisms, such as
topsoil.
silt traps, must be
regularly maintained;
Term Term • Natural vegetation must Preferred - MODERATE (-) LOW (-)
be retained where
Direct Direct
Negative Negative
Moderate Moderate Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible possible to avoid soil
May Occur Occur May
Long Achievable Achievable erosion;
• Any cleared areas, Resource could be lost lost be could Resource which are not used, should be rehabilitated post-construction using only indigenous plant species;
Erosion and loss of topsoil It is difficult to implement has already occurred due to mitigation measures the mining activities adjacent to the site. As such, erosion specific to the cumulative
associated with the proposed impacts as the Proponent
Edendale Quarry will result in only has jurisdiction over
the cumulative loss of topsoil their development and not
in the area. over other developments or
Cumulative MODERATE (-) farming activities in the LOW (-)
Direct Direct
Definite
Difficult Difficult Negative Negative
Regional area.
Moderate Moderate
Reversible Reversible Permanent Permanent
Resource will be lost be will Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 68
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will not N/A result in erosion or the loss of topsoil but rather the conservation of the site as it
is currently in the process of
No-Go being proclaimed as part of N/A N/A the Grootvlei Protected N/A Environment.
Reduction of The proposed development • Given that the impact will Ecological will result in the reduction of be low and localised to Corridors / ecological corridors / the study site and
Processes processes on site (including immediate surrounding
nutrient cycling, carbon areas around the quarry,
sequestration, pollination, no further mitigation term term Preferred amongst others). However, - LOW (-) measures are LOW (-)
due to the presence of Slight recommended.
Negative Negative
Localised Localised
Long
May Occur Occur May Achievable Achievable extensive area of similar Irreversible
habitat surrounding the Indirect & Direct
proposed project site this lost be will Resource impact is anticipated to be of low significance.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 69
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The Edendale Quarry is It is difficult to implement located adjacent to an mitigation measures existing hard rock quarry, which is already considered specific to the cumulative a highly fragmented impacts as the Proponent
environment, as well as only has jurisdiction over
farmlands. However, due to their development and not
the prese3nce of similar over other developments or term term habitat surrounding the - Cumulative ersible LOW (-) farming activities in the LOW (-)
proposed developments, the Slight Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Long
May Occur Occur May Achievable Achievable additional break in habitat Irrev
caused by the Edendale Indirect & Direct
Quarry will be of low lost be will Resource significance. However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above. Although under the no-go N/A alternative, habitat fragmentation has already
occurred and will continue to
do so while mining and
farming activities takes place Term
No-Go adjacent to the site, the site is - LOW (+) LOW (+)
N/A N/A N/A
currently in the process of Slight
Positive Positive
Probable Probable Localised Localised being proclaimed as part of Long
the Grootvlei Protected Indirect & Direct Environment. There the no- go alternative will have a low positive impact.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 70
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Establishmen During the operational • Monitoring for the t of Alien phase, failure to remove and establishment of alien Plant Species manage alien vegetation plant seedlings should
during construction could continue throughout the
result in the permanent operational phase. Any
establishment of alien
alien seedlings should
vegetation in the study area. be removed and The poor rehabilitation of
Term Term disposed of at a Preferred - MODERATE (-) LOW (-) disturbed areas could lead to registered landfill or
the permanent degradation Direct Negative Negative
Localised Localised treated with an
Reversible Reversible
May Occur May
Long Achievable Achievable of ecosystems as well as appropriate herbicide.
allow invasion by alien plant severe Moderately • If the site becomes
species. lost be could Resource infested with undesirable species then an Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be developed.
Failure to control the spread It is difficult to implement of alien invasive plant mitigation measures species during the specific to the cumulative operational phase of the impacts as the Proponent
proposed Edendale Quarry only has jurisdiction over
could contribute to the their development and not
spread of alien plant species over other developments or
term term - Cumulative ect MODERATE (-)
and threats to surrounding farming activities in the LOW (-)
Dir Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Moderate Moderate
Long Reversible Reversible
ecosystems. Occur May Achievable Achievable
Resource could be lost lost be could Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 71
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will • N/A
likely result in the further
establishment and spread of
alien species already
occurring on site. term term
No-Go - MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-)
Direct Direct
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Long
Reversible Reversible
May Occur Occur May
Achievable Achievable
MODERATE MODERATE Resource could be lost lost be could Resource
• Where possible, external Impacts of During the operational Noise and phase, noise and lighting lighting should be
Lighting on associated with the proposed avoided.
Faunal Edendale Quarry could • Operational activities
Populations cause a disturbance to must be limited to term term Preferred surrounding faunal - LOW (-) daylight hours. LOW (-)
populations within the project Direct
Negative Negative
Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Long Reversible Reversible
area. Achievable Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 72
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The adjacent mine has It is difficult to implement already caused an increase mitigation measures
in ambient noise in the area.
The additional noise specific to the cumulative
generated from the proposed impacts as the Proponent
only has jurisdiction over
Edendale Quarry will be a
long-term impact and will be their development and not term term
of moderate significance. - Cumulative MODERATE (-) over other developments in LOW (-)
the area.
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short
Achievable Achievable Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
However, it is imperative Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
Under the no-go alternative, It is difficult to implement some faunal populations at
mitigation measures
the study site will still be
specific to the cumulative
impacted by noise from the
adjacent mine. impacts as the Proponent term term No-Go - MODERATE (-) only has jurisdiction over LOW (-)
their development and not
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short Achievable Achievable over other developments in
Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct the area.
Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 73
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Inadequate Failure to rehabilitate the • The site must be
Rehabilitation area in accordance with the rehabilitated in
and approved EMPr and Mine accordance with the
Maintenance Rehabilitation Plan could approved EMPr and
of Disturbed result in the further loss of Mine Rehabilitation term term Areas Preferred indigenous vegetation, - HIGH (-) Plan. LOW (-)
erosion, degradation of the
Severe Severe
Negative Negative
Probable
Localised Localised
Long Achievable Achievable
natural environment, Irreversible
invasion of alien plant Indirect & Direct
species, amongst others. lost be will Resource
Failure to rehabilitate the It is difficult to implement area in accordance with the mitigation measures approved EMPr and Mine specific to the cumulative Rehabilitation Plan could
result in the further loss of impacts as the Proponent
only has jurisdiction over
indigenous vegetation,
erosion, degradation of the their development and not
natural environment, term
- over other developments in Cumulative HIGH (-) LOW (-)
invasion of alien plant the area.
Severe Severe
Negative Negative Probable
species, amongst others Localised
Long Achievable Achievable
contributing to the cumulative Irreversible Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
loss of indigenous Resource will be lost lost be will Resource vegetation, spread of alien However, it is imperative species, and degradation of that the Proponent surrounding ecosystems. implement the mitigation measures listed above.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 74
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The no-go alternative will • Should the proposed
likely result in the further Edendale Quarry not be
establishment and spread of authorised, it is
alien species already recommended that alien
occurring on site and the vegetation management term term No-Go potential degradation of - MODERATE (-) is undertaken should the LOW (-)
surrounding ecosystems. proposed site be
Negative Negative
Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Long Achievable Achievable Irreversible proclaimed a protected
Indirect & Direct environment. Resource will be lost lost be will Resource
Impacts of During the decommissioning • Where possible,
Noise and phase, noise and lighting external lighting should
Lighting on associated with the proposed be avoided.
Faunal quarry could cause a • Work before sunrise and
Populations disturbance to surrounding after sunset should be
Term Term
Term Term - Preferred faunal populations within the - MODERATE (-) restricted. LOW (-)
project area. Direct
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible
Long
Achievable Achievable
Short Resource will not be lost be not will Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 75
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
The adjacent mine has It is difficult to implement already caused an increase mitigation measures
in ambient noise in the area.
The additional noise specific to the cumulative
generated from during the impacts as the Proponent
only has jurisdiction over
decommissioning phase of
the proposed Edendale their development and not term term
Quarry will therefore be of - Cumulative MODERATE (-) over other developments in LOW (-)
moderate significance. the area.
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short
Achievable Achievable Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct
However, it is imperative Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
Under the no-go alternative, It is difficult to implement some faunal populations at
mitigation measures
the study site will still be
specific to the cumulative
impacted by noise from the
adjacent mine. impacts as the Proponent term term No-Go - MODERATE (-) only has jurisdiction over LOW (-)
their development and not
Negative
Probable Probable
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised
Reversible Reversible Short Achievable Achievable over other developments in
Direct & Indirect Indirect & Direct the area.
Resource will not be lost lost be not will Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 76
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Establishmen During the decommissioning • The Alien Vegetation t of Alien phase, failure to remove and Management Plan must Plant Species manage alien vegetation be implemented to during operation could result prevent the in the permanent establishment and the
establishment of alien spread of undesirable
vegetation in the study area. alien plant species
The poor rehabilitation of during the Operational
disturbed areas could lead to Phase; and Term Term
the permanent degradation Term - Preferred - MODERATE (-) • Monitoring of the LOW (-) of ecosystems as well as
establishment of alien
Moderate Moderate
Localised Localised Reversible Reversible
allow invasion by alien plant Occur May
Long Long Achievable Achievable seedlings should
species. Indirect / Direct continue throughout the Resource will be lost be will Resource operational phase. Any alien seedlings should be removed and disposed of at a registered landfill.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 77
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES SOURCE OF ISSUE WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES WITH
ISSUES loss
Type Extent
Nature MITIGATION MITIGATION
Duration Duration
Probability
POTENTIAL
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Reversibility
Irreplaceable Irreplaceable Consequence
Failure to control the spread It is difficult to implement of alien invasive plant mitigation measures species during the specific to the cumulative decommissioning phase of impacts as the Proponent
the proposed Edendale only has jurisdiction over
Quarry could contribute to their development and not
the spread of alien plant over other developments or term term Cumulative - MODERATE (-)
species and threats to farming activities in the LOW (-)
Direct Direct Negative Negative
Regional Regional area.
Moderate Moderate
Long Reversible Reversible
surrounding ecosystems. Occur May Achievable Achievable
Resource could be lost lost be could Resource However, it is imperative that the Proponent implement the mitigation measures listed above.
The no-go alternative will • N/A
likely result in the further
establishment and spread of
alien species already
occurring on site. term term
No-Go - MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-)
Direct Direct
Moderate Moderate
Study site Study site
Long
Reversible Reversible
May Occur Occur May
Achievable Achievable
MODERATE MODERATE Resource could be lost lost be could Resource
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 78
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
9. IMPACT STATEMENT, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
9.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study assessed the ecological impacts associated with the proposed Edendale Quarry. Analysis of the project description and layout plan of the proposed Edendale Quarry indicates that a total of 18.8 ha of grassland vegetation will be cleared. The lifespan of the proposed quarry is anticipated to be approximately ten (10) years, after which the facility will be decommissioned, and the project area rehabilitated in accordance with the EMPr and the Mine Rehabilitation Plan.
Based on the desktop assessment for the proposed Edendale Quarry, the site is located within two (2) vegetation types; East Griqualand Grassland (classified as Least Concern), and Mabela Sandy Grassland (classified as Vulnerable) (SA VEGMAP, 2018). However, the distinction between the two vegetation types was not apparent on site, nor on Google Earth aerial imagery, and the findings of the site visit and vegetation assessment subsequently classified the vegetation of the site as East Griqualand Grassland. A significant difference in the characteristics of the grassland vegetation was observed between the dry season and wet season surveys. The site supports a diversity of species and various ecological processes including pollination, herbivory, seed dispersal, amongst others. These ecological processes play an important role in ecological functioning of the landscape thereby contributing to the provision of ecosystem goods and services such as erosion prevention, nutrient cycling, soil formation, carbon sequestration, water filtration, amongst others.
It should be noted that the development of the proposed Edendale Quarry will result in the loss of approximately 15 ha of an area classified as a terrestrial CBA 2 and 3.5 ha of an area classified as an ESA 2, as well as an aquatic ESA 1 (ECBCP, 2019). This classification was driven by the vegetation type, threat status and the established national conservation target. As such, the loss of this are signifies the potential inability to achieve national targets for this ecosystem type.
The Ecological Impact Assessment conducted identified twenty impacts associated with the proposed Edendale Quarry. These are summarised in Table 9.1 below. Most (11) Impacts were identified for the construction phase and are rated as moderate negative, with one impact rated as high negative. The remainder of the impacts were identified for the operational and decommissioning phase of the proposed development, and only one impact was identified for the planning and design phase.
Table 9.1: Summary of all twenty (20) impacts identified for the proposed Edendale Quarry. Alternative PRIOR TO IMPACT POST-MITIGATION MITIGATION PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE Preferred Impact 1: Legal and HIGH (-) LOW (-) Policy Compliance No-Go N/A N/A CONSTRUCTION PHASE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 79
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Preferred MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Impact 2: Erosion Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) No-Go N/A N/A Preferred MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Impact 3: Loss of East Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Griqualand Grassland No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Impact 4: Loss of Mabela Sandy Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Grassland No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Impact 5: Loss of Critical Biodiversity Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Area No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Impact 6: Establishment of Alien Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Plant Species No-Go MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Preferred MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Impact 7: Habitat Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Loss/Fragmentation No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Impact 8: Wildlife Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Mortalities No-Go LOW (+) LOW (+) Preferred HIGH (-) MODERATE (-) Impact 9: Loss of Plant Cumulative HIGH (-) MODERATE (-) SCC No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred LOW (-) LOW (-) Impact 10: Loss of sensitive plant species Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) 275 No-Go LOW (+) LOW (+) Preferred LOW (-) LOW (-) Impact 11: Loss of sensitive plant species Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) 303 No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Preferred Impact 12: Loss of MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) sensitive animal Cumulative MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) species 9 No-Go MODERATE (+) MODERATE (+) Impact 13: Impacts of Preferred MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Noise and Lighting on Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) surrounding Faunal Populations No-Go MODERATE (-) LOW (-) OPERATIONAL PHASE Preferred MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Impact 14: Erosion Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) No-Go N/A N/A
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 80
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Preferred Impact 15: Reduction LOW (-) LOW (-) of Ecological Corridors Cumulative LOW (-) LOW (-) / Processes No-Go LOW (+) LOW (+) Preferred Impact 16: MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Establishment of Alien Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Plant Species No-Go MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) Preferred Impact 17: Impacts of LOW (-) LOW (-) Noise and Lighting on Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Faunal Populations No-Go MODERATE (-) LOW (-) DECOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact 18: Inadequate Preferred HIGH (-) LOW (-) Rehabilitation and Cumulative HIGH (-) LOW (-) Maintenance of Disturbed Areas No-Go MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Preferred Impact 19: Impacts of MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Noise and Lighting on Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Faunal Populations No-Go MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Preferred Impact 20: MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Establishment of Alien Cumulative MODERATE (-) LOW (-) Plant Species No-Go MODERATE (-) LOW (-)
9.1.1 No-go Areas
Although no no-go areas have been identified within the boundary of the proposed site for the Edendale Quarry, it is critical that should the proposed development be authorised, that vegetation clearance and construction activities associated with the proposed development are restricted to the delineated boundaries of the development footprint as indicated on Figure 9.1 below. It is recommended that the boundaries of the development footprint be clearly demarcated prior to the clearing of vegetation to prevent the encroachment of activities into the surrounding natural areas. The drainage lines within and surrounding the site have been allocated high sensitivity and all mitigation measures as stipulated in the Aquatic Impact Assessment should be implemented in these areas.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 81
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Figure 9.1: Layout and site sensitivity map of the proposed Edendale Quarry.
9.2 CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATION
The following recommendations must be included in the Final EMPr and as well as the conditions of the Environmental Authorisation (EA), if granted:
➢ A botanical walk through must be conducted prior to vegetation clearance in order to ground truth the site and identify the need permitting; ➢ 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; ➢ 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; ➢ 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; ➢ An Alien Vegetation Management plan/method statement should be compiled (for implementation during the phases that follow the Planning and Design Phase); ➢ A Mine Rehabilitation Plan must be compiled and implemented as part of the BA Process for the proposed Edendale Quarry. Only indigenous plant species typical of East Griqualand Grassland and/or Mabela Sandy Grassland should be used for rehabilitation purposes.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 82
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
9.2.1 Mitigation Measures
All mitigation measures identified for the impacts associated with the proposed development must be implemented during the relevant phases of the proposed Edendale Quarry (please refer to Section 8.1 above for the recommended mitigation measures associated with each impact).
9.3 ECOLOGICAL STATEMENT AND OPINION OF THE SPECIALIST
A botanical walk through must be conducted during the peak flowering season, prior to vegetation clearance, in order to ground truth the site and identify the need permitting. Populations with species listed as Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) should be avoided and no further loss should be permitted for these species.
Where the destruction of SCC (not listed as EN or CR) cannot be avoided, plant permits must be obtained, and an in-situ search and rescue program implemented for species that can successfully be relocated. The search and rescue must include both fauna and flora.
Furthermore, the development footprint of the proposed Edendale Quarry must be demarcated to prevent any encroachment of construction or operational activities into surrounding natural areas. Minor location deviations from the proposed works is deemed acceptable but the footprint may not be made larger.
The no-go option refers to the proposed Edendale Quarry not being constructed. This option will have a moderately positive outcome for the indigenous vegetation and surrounding natural environment relative to the proposed development, as the proposed site is currently in the process of being declared a Protected Environment through the ECPTA Biodiversity Stewardship Program.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 83
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
10. REFERENCES
Branch, B. 1994. Field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik publishers, Cape town.
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2020). FrogMAP Virtual Museum. Available at: http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=FrogMAP [Accessed November 2020].
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2020). MammalMAP Virtual Museum. Available at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=MammalMAP [Accessed November 2020].
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2020). ReptileMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=ReptileMAP [Accessed November 2020].
Johnson, MR., Anhaeusser, CR., Thomas, RJ. 2006. The geology of Southern Africa. The Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg, and the Council for Geosciences, Pretoria.
Sposito G., Chesworth W., Evans L., Chesworth W., Spaargaren O. (2008) Gleysols. In: Chesworth W. (eds) Encyclopedia of Soil Science. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3995-9_252
Skowno, AL., Raimando, DC., Poole, CJ., Fizotti, B (eds) (2019). National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical report Volume 1: Terrestrial realm. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Skowno AL, Matlala M, Slingsby J, Kirkwood D, Raimondo DC, von Staden L, Holness SD, Lotter M, Pence G, Daniels F, Driver A, Desmet PG, Dayaram A (2019). Terrestrial ecosystem threat status assessment 2018 - comparison with 2011 assessment for provincial agencies. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
SANBI Red List of South African Plants. Available at: http://redlist.sanbi.org/species.php?species=2206-25 [Accessed November 2020].
South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006-2018). The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. and Powrie, L.W. (Editors), Online, http://bgis.sanbi.org/Projects/Detail/186, Version 2018.
Taylor A, Cowell C, Drouilly M, Schulze E, Avenant N, Birss C, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Pelea capreolus. 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.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 84
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
APPENDIX A – LIST OF POSSIBLE PLANT SPECIES
The following list of plant species may occur within the project area of the proposed Edendale Quarry (source: http://posa.sanbi.org/sanbi/Explore).
FAMILY SPECIES IUCN ECOLOGY Acanthaceae Crabbea nana LC Indigenous Acanthaceae Crabbea hirsuta LC Indigenous Acanthaceae Thunbergia atriplicifolia LC Indigenous Achariaceae Kiggelaria africana LC Indigenous Agapanthaceae Agapanthus campanulatus LC Indigenous Agapanthaceae Agapanthus africanus LC Indigenous; Endemic
Aizoaceae Mesembryanthemum granulicaule Indigenous Alliaceae Tulbaghia ludwigiana LC Indigenous Amaranthaceae Cyathula uncinulata LC Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Nerine appendiculata LC Indigenous; Endemic Amaryllidaceae Cyrtanthus mackenii NT Indigenous; Endemic Amaryllidaceae Cyrtanthus macowanii LC Indigenous; Endemic Anacardiaceae Searsia discolor LC Indigenous Anacardiaceae Searsia pyroides LC Indigenous Anacardiaceae Searsia rigida LC Indigenous; Endemic
Apiaceae Alepidea sp. Apiaceae Afrosciadium platycarpum LC Indigenous; Endemic Apiaceae Alepidea peduncularis DD Indigenous Apiaceae Stenosemis angustifolia LC Indigenous; Endemic Apiaceae Alepidea cirsiifolia LC Indigenous; Endemic Apocynaceae Raphionacme hirsuta LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Pachycarpus plicatus LC Indigenous; Endemic Apocynaceae Xysmalobium stockenstromense LC Indigenous
Apocynaceae Schizoglossum sp.
Apocynaceae Periglossum sp. Apocynaceae Pachycarpus macrochilus LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Pachycarpus grandiflorus LC Indigenous; Endemic Apocynaceae Vinca major NE Not indigenous; Naturalised; Invasive Apocynaceae Asclepias gibba LC Indigenous
Asphodelaceae Kniphofia sp. Asphodelaceae Kniphofia triangularis LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine abyssinica LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Kniphofia linearifolia LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Kniphofia fluviatilis LC Indigenous; Endemic Asphodelaceae Bulbine narcissifolia LC Indigenous
Asphodelaceae Aloe kraussii Indigenous Asphodelaceae Kniphofia baurii LC Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Helichrysum aureonitens LC Indigenous Asteraceae Berkheya sphaerocephala LC Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Nidorella anomala LC Indigenous
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 85
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Asteraceae Oedera pungens Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Berkheya speciosa LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum chionosphaerum LC Indigenous Asteraceae Metalasia densa LC Indigenous Asteraceae Hilliardiella hirsuta LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum nudifolium LC Indigenous Asteraceae Dimorphotheca caulescens LC Indigenous
Asteraceae Senecio sp.
Asteraceae Oedera pungens Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Senecio polyodon LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum pallidum LC Indigenous Asteraceae Ursinia montana LC Indigenous Asteraceae Senecio othonniflorus LC Indigenous
Asteraceae Cosmos bipinnatus Not indigenous; Naturalised Asteraceae Helichrysum tenax LC Indigenous Asteraceae Geigeria aspera LC Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Gazania linearis LC Indigenous Asteraceae Schistostephium crataegifolium LC Indigenous Asteraceae Berkheya setifera LC Indigenous
Boraginaceae Echium plantagineum Not indigenous; Naturalised; Invasive Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Not indigenous; Naturalised; Invasive Bryaceae Bryum torquescens Indigenous Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia krebsii LC Indigenous Campanulaceae Craterocapsa tarsodes LC Indigenous Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia appressifolia LC Indigenous
Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia krebsii Indigenous Caryophyllaceae Dianthus crenatus LC Indigenous; Endemic Celastraceae Maytenus acuminata LC Indigenous Celastraceae Mystroxylon aethiopicum LC Indigenous; Endemic Celastraceae Gymnosporia buxifolia LC Indigenous Celastraceae Maytenus undata LC Indigenous
Cucurbitaceae Zehneria sp. Cyperaceae Pycreus mundii LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Bulbostylis hispidula LC Indigenous Dipsacaceae Cephalaria oblongifolia LC Indigenous Ebenaceae Diospyros lycioides LC Indigenous Equisetaceae Equisetum ramosissimum LC Indigenous Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia pulvinata LC Indigenous Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia clavarioides LC Indigenous Euphorbiaceae Acalypha depressinerva LC Indigenous Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia natalensis LC Indigenous Fabaceae Indigofera longibarbata LC Indigenous Fabaceae Dolichos falciformis LC Indigenous Fabaceae Rhynchosia pentheri LC Indigenous Fabaceae Lotononis carnosa LC Indigenous; Endemic
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 86
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Fabaceae Crotalaria obscura LC Indigenous; Endemic Fabaceae Indigofera hedyantha LC Indigenous Fabaceae Lessertia perennans NE Indigenous Fabaceae Rhynchosia caribaea LC Indigenous Fabaceae Tephrosia macropoda LC Indigenous Gentianaceae Chironia palustris LC Indigenous Geraniaceae Pelargonium pulverulentum LC Indigenous; Endemic Geraniaceae Geranium wakkerstroomianum LC Indigenous Geraniaceae Pelargonium alchemilloides LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Eucomis autumnalis LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Eucomis bicolor NT Indigenous Iridaceae Aristea abyssinica LC Indigenous Iridaceae Gladiolus crassifolius LC Indigenous Iridaceae Moraea robusta LC Indigenous; Endemic Iridaceae Dierama reynoldsii LC Indigenous; Endemic Iridaceae Dierama tysonii VU Indigenous; Endemic Iridaceae Gladiolus oppositiflorus LC Indigenous; Endemic Lamiaceae Mentha aquatica LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Lobelia flaccida LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Lobelia neglecta LC Indigenous; Endemic Lobeliaceae Monopsis stellarioides LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Cyphia longifolia LC Indigenous; Endemic Malvaceae Hermannia geniculata LC Indigenous Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia LC Indigenous Ophioglossaceae Ophioglossum polyphyllum LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa crassicornis LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Orthochilus aculeatus LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa nervosa LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disperis wealei LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa nivea LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Neobolusia tysonii LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa patula LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Satyrium macrophyllum LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa fragrans LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Satyrium parviflorum LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Disa oreophila LC Indigenous; Endemic Orchidaceae Brownleea parviflora LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Schizochilus bulbinella LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Satyrium sphaerocarpum LC Indigenous Orobanchaceae Striga bilabiata LC Indigenous Orobanchaceae Alectra capensis LC Indigenous Orobanchaceae Graderia scabra LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis curvula LC Indigenous
Poaceae Imperata cylindrica Indigenous Poaceae Cynodon hirsutus LC Indigenous Poaceae Setaria pumila LC Indigenous
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 87
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Poaceae Thamnocalamus tessellatus LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis chloromelas LC Indigenous Poaceae Paspalum distichum LC Not indigenous; Naturalised; Invasive Poaceae Hemarthria altissima LC Indigenous Poaceae Echinochloa jubata LC Indigenous Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli LC Indigenous Poaceae Sporobolus stapfianus LC Indigenous Poaceae Cynodon transvaalensis LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum natalense LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis plana LC Indigenous
Pottiaceae Pseudocrossidium crinitum Indigenous
Pottiaceae Bryoerythrophyllum Indigenous campylocarpum Pottiaceae Trichostomum brachydontium Indigenous Proteaceae Protea roupelliae LC Indigenous
Proteaceae Protea roupelliae Indigenous Proteaceae Protea caffra LC Indigenous Rosaceae Geum capense LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Pentanisia angustifolia LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Pavetta cooperi LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Anthospermum herbaceum LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Galium capense LC Indigenous Rutaceae Zanthoxylum davyi LC Indigenous Rutaceae Zanthoxylum capense LC Indigenous Santalaceae Thesium resedoides LC Indigenous Santalaceae Thesium racemosum LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Diclis rotundifolia LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Jamesbrittenia breviflora LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Hebenstretia comosa LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Jamesbrittenia filicaulis LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Chaenostoma polelense LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Zaluzianskya angustifolia LC Indigenous; Endemic Scrophulariaceae Zaluzianskya microsiphon LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Phygelius aequalis LC Indigenous Scrophulariaceae Chaenostoma patrioticum LC Indigenous Stilbaceae Halleria lucida LC Indigenous Thymelaeaceae Gnidia phaeotricha LC Indigenous; Endemic Thymelaeaceae Gnidia gymnostachya LC Indigenous
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 88
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
APPENDIX B – LIST OF INDIGENOUS PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
COMMON NAME SA RED DATA FAMILY SPECIES PNCO NEMBA LIST ASTERACEAE Nidorella podocephala Bakbossie Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE cf Haplocarpha scaposa Tonteldoosbossie Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Helichrysum nudifolium Boleba Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Senecio retrorsus Grass Stagger's Weed Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Tolpis capensis Fukuthoane Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Felicia sp. - Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Helichrysum sp. - Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE cf Helichrysum dregeanum Bergankerkaroo Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE Sonchus dregeanus Leharasoana Least Concern - -
CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia dentata - Least Concern - - CYPERACEAE Cyperus obtusiflorus Blunt-flowered Sedge Least Concern - - FABACEAE Indigofera sp. - Least Concern - - ASTERACEAE cf Berkheya sp. - Least Concern - - LOBELIACEAE Lobelia flaccida - Least Concern - -
MALVACEAE Hermannia depressa Itshesizwe Least Concern - - MALVACEAE cf Hibiscus aethiopicus Dwarf Yellow Hibiscus Least Concern - - PLANTAGINACEAE cf Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain Least Concern - - POACEAE Alloteropsis semialata - Least Concern - - POACEAE Aristida congesta Cat's-tail Three-awned Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Brachiaria serrata Red-Topped Signal Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas Blue Love Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Themeda triandra Red Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Tristachya leucothrix Rooisaadgras Least Concern - - POACEAE Urochloa panicoides Annual Signal Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Cymbopogon pospischilii - Not Evaluated - - POACEAE cf Andropogon appendiculatus Blue Grass Least Concern - -
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 89
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
COMMON NAME SA RED DATA FAMILY SPECIES PNCO NEMBA LIST POACEAE Cynodon incompletus Karoo Quick Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Sporobolus africanus Taaipol Least Concern - - POACEAE Hyperrhenia hirta Thatch Grass Least Concern - - POACEAE Heteropogon contortus Spear Grass Least Concern - - RUBIACEAE Anthospermum rigidum Umlomomnandomncane Least Concern - -
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 90
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
APPENDIX C – LIST OF FAUNAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
The following lists of bird species may occur within the project area for the proposed Edendale Quarry.
Birds species
ANSERIFORMES: Anatidae
White-faced Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna viduata
White-backed Duck Thalassornis leuconotus
Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca
South African Shelduck Tadorna cana
Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis
Hottentot Teal Spatula hottentota
Cape Shoveler Spatula smithii
African Black Duck Anas sparsa
Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata
Cape Teal Anas capensis
Red-billed Duck Anas erythrorhyncha
Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma
Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa Vulnerable
GALLIFORMES: Numididae
Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris
GALLIFORMES: Phasianidae
Common Quail Coturnix coturnix
Natal Francolin Pternistis natalensis
Red-winged Francolin Scleroptila levaillantii
Gray-winged Francolin Scleroptila afra Endemic (country/region)
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES: Phoenicopteridae
Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus
Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor Near-threatened
PODICIPEDIFORMES: Podicipedidae
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus
COLUMBIFORMES: Columbidae
Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea
Rameron Pigeon Columba arquatrix
Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata
Ring-necked Dove Streptopelia capicola
Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis
Namaqua Dove Oena capensis
African Green-Pigeon Treron calvus
OTIDIFORMES: Otididae
Denham's Bustard Neotis denhami Near-threatened
White-bellied Bustard Eupodotis senegalensis
MUSOPHAGIFORMES: Musophagidae
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 91
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Knysna Turaco Tauraco corythaix
CUCULIFORMES: Cuculidae
White-browed Coucal Centropus superciliosus
Great Spotted Cuckoo Clamator glandarius
Pied Cuckoo Clamator jacobinus
Dideric Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius
African Emerald Cuckoo Chrysococcyx cupreus
Black Cuckoo Cuculus clamosus
Red-chested Cuckoo Cuculus solitarius
Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus
CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Caprimulgidae
Eurasian Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus
CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Apodidae
Alpine Swift Apus melba
Common Swift Apus apus
African Swift Apus barbatus
Little Swift Apus affinis
Horus Swift Apus horus
White-rumped Swift Apus caffer
GRUIFORMES: Sarothruridae
Buff-spotted Flufftail Sarothrura elegans
Red-chested Flufftail Sarothrura rufa
Striped Flufftail Sarothrura affinis
GRUIFORMES: Rallidae
African Rail Rallus caerulescens
Eurasian Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Red-knobbed Coot Fulica cristata African Swamphen Porphyrio
madagascariensis
Black Crake Zapornia flavirostra
GRUIFORMES: Gruidae
Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus Vulnerable
Wattled Crane Bugeranus carunculatus Vulnerable
CHARADRIIFORMES: Burhinidae
Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis
CHARADRIIFORMES: Recurvirostridae
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus
Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta
CHARADRIIFORMES: Charadriidae
Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus
Black-winged Lapwing Vanellus melanopterus
Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus
Kittlitz's Plover Charadrius pecuarius
Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula
Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris
White-fronted Plover Charadrius marginatus
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 92
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
CHARADRIIFORMES: Rostratulidae
Greater Painted-Snipe Rostratula benghalensis
CHARADRIIFORMES: Jacanidae
African Jacana Actophilornis africanus
CHARADRIIFORMES: Scolopacidae
Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata Near-threatened
Ruff Calidris pugnax
Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Near-threatened
Little Stint Calidris minuta
African Snipe Gallinago nigripennis
Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos
Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia
Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola
CHARADRIIFORMES: Laridae Gray-hooded Gull Chroicocephalus
cirrocephalus
White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus
Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida
CICONIIFORMES: Ciconiidae
Black Stork Ciconia nigra
White Stork Ciconia ciconia
SULIFORMES: Anhingidae
African Darter Anhinga rufa
SULIFORMES: Phalacrocoracidae
Long-tailed Cormorant Microcarbo africanus
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo
PELECANIFORMES: Scopidae
Hamerkop Scopus umbretta
PELECANIFORMES: Ardeidae
Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus
Gray Heron Ardea cinerea
Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala
Goliath Heron Ardea goliath
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea
Great Egret Ardea alba
Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia
Little Egret Egretta garzetta
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides
Striated Heron Butorides striata
Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
PELECANIFORMES: Threskiornithidae
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus
African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 93
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Southern Bald Ibis Geronticus calvus Rare/Accidental Vulnerable
Hadada Ibis Bostrychia hagedash
African Spoonbill Platalea alba
ACCIPITRIFORMES: Sagittariidae
Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Vulnerable
ACCIPITRIFORMES: Pandionidae
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
ACCIPITRIFORMES: Accipitridae
Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus
African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus
Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus Near-threatened
African Cuckoo-Hawk Aviceda cuculoides
Lappet-faced Vulture Torgos tracheliotos Endangered
Hooded Vulture Necrosyrtes monachus Critically endangered
White-backed Vulture Gyps africanus Critically endangered
Cape Griffon Gyps coprotheres Endangered
Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis
Crowned Eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus Near-threatened
Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Vulnerable
Long-crested Eagle Lophaetus occipitalis
Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii
African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus
Black Harrier Circus maurus Endangered
African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro
Rufous-breasted Accipiter rufiventris Sparrowhawk
Black Goshawk Accipiter melanoleucus
African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo
Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus Endemic (country/region) Near- threatened
Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus
STRIGIFORMES: Tytonidae
African Grass-Owl Tyto capensis
Barn Owl Tyto alba
STRIGIFORMES: Strigidae
African Scops-Owl Otus senegalensis
Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis
Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus
African Wood-Owl Strix woodfordii
Marsh Owl Asio capensis
COLIIFORMES: Coliidae
Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus
Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus
TROGONIFORMES: Trogonidae
Narina Trogon Apaloderma narina
BUCEROTIFORMES: Upupidae
Eurasian Hoopoe Upupa epops
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 94
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
BUCEROTIFORMES: Phoeniculidae
Green Woodhoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus
BUCEROTIFORMES: Bucorvidae
Southern Ground-Hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri Vulnerable
CORACIIFORMES: Alcedinidae
Malachite Kingfisher Corythornis cristatus
Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maxima
Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis
CORACIIFORMES: Coraciidae
European Roller Coracias garrulus
PICIFORMES: Lybiidae
Red-fronted Tinkerbird Pogoniulus pusillus
Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas
Black-collared Barbet Lybius torquatus
PICIFORMES: Indicatoridae
Wahlberg's Honeyguide Prodotiscus regulus
Lesser Honeyguide Indicator minor
Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator
PICIFORMES: Picidae
Rufous-necked Wryneck Jynx ruficollis
Cardinal Woodpecker Chloropicus fuscescens
Olive Woodpecker Chloropicus griseocephalus
Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus Endemic (country/region) Near- threatened
FALCONIFORMES: Falconidae
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni
Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus
Amur Falcon Falco amurensis
Eurasian Hobby Falco subbuteo
Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
PSITTACIFORMES: Psittacidae
Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus Vulnerable
PASSERIFORMES: Oriolidae
Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus
African Black-headed Oriole Oriolus larvatus
PASSERIFORMES: Platysteiridae
Cape Batis Batis capensis
Chinspot Batis Batis molitor
PASSERIFORMES: Malaconotidae
Black-backed Puffback Dryoscopus cubla
Southern Tchagra Tchagra tchagra
Southern Boubou Laniarius ferrugineus
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 95
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus
PASSERIFORMES: Dicruridae
Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis
PASSERIFORMES: Monarchidae
African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis
PASSERIFORMES: Laniidae
Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio
Southern Fiscal Lanius collaris
PASSERIFORMES: Corvidae
Cape Crow Corvus capensis
Pied Crow Corvus albus
White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis
PASSERIFORMES: Chaetopidae
Drakensberg Rockjumper Chaetops aurantius Endemic (country/region) Near- threatened
PASSERIFORMES: Stenostiridae
Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita
PASSERIFORMES: Paridae
Southern Black-Tit Melaniparus niger
Gray Tit Melaniparus afer
PASSERIFORMES: Remizidae
Southern Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus
PASSERIFORMES: Alaudidae
Spike-heeled Lark Chersomanes albofasciata
Eastern Long-billed Lark Certhilauda semitorquata Endemic (country/region)
Rufous-naped Lark Mirafra africana
Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea
Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris
PASSERIFORMES: Macrosphenidae
Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer
PASSERIFORMES: Cisticolidae
Bar-throated Apalis Apalis thoracica
Yellow-breasted Apalis Apalis flavida
Tawny-flanked Prinia Prinia subflava
Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa
Drakensberg Prinia Prinia hypoxantha Endemic (country/region)
Rock-loving Cisticola Cisticola aberrans
Wailing Cisticola Cisticola lais
Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens
Croaking Cisticola Cisticola natalensis
Piping Cisticola Cisticola fulvicapilla
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix
Pale-crowned Cisticola Cisticola cinnamomeus
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 96
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Wing-snapping Cisticola Cisticola ayresii
PASSERIFORMES: Acrocephalidae
African Yellow-Warbler Iduna natalensis
Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris
African Reed Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus
Lesser Swamp Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris
PASSERIFORMES: Locustellidae
Barratt's Warbler Bradypterus barratti
Little Rush-Warbler Bradypterus baboecala
PASSERIFORMES: Hirundinidae
Plain Martin Riparia paludicola
Banded Martin Riparia cincta
Rock Martin Ptyonoprogne fuligula
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis
Greater Striped Swallow Cecropis cucullata
Lesser Striped Swallow Cecropis abyssinica
South African Swallow Petrochelidon spilodera
Common House-Martin Delichon urbicum
Black Sawwing Psalidoprocne pristoptera
PASSERIFORMES: Pycnonotidae
Sombre Greenbul Andropadus importunus
Terrestrial Brownbul Phyllastrephus terrestris
Common Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus
Black-fronted Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans
PASSERIFORMES: Phylloscopidae
Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus
Yellow-throated Woodland- Phylloscopus ruficapilla Warbler
PASSERIFORMES: Sylviidae
Bush Blackcap Sylvia nigricapillus Vulnerable
Layard's Warbler Sylvia layardi
PASSERIFORMES: Sturnidae
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Introduced species
Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio
African Pied Starling Lamprotornis bicolor Endemic (country/region)
Cape Starling Lamprotornis nitens
PASSERIFORMES: Turdidae
Orange Ground-Thrush Geokichla gurneyi
Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus
PASSERIFORMES: Muscicapidae
African Dusky Flycatcher Muscicapa adusta
Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata
Ashy Flycatcher Fraseria caerulescens
Fiscal Flycatcher Melaenornis silens
Red-backed Scrub-Robin Cercotrichas leucophrys
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 97
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra
Chorister Robin-Chat Cossypha dichroa
White-starred Robin Pogonocichla stellata
Sentinel Rock-Thrush Monticola explorator Near-threatened
Cape Rock-Thrush Monticola rupestris Endemic (country/region)
African Stonechat Saxicola torquatus
Buff-streaked Chat Campicoloides bifasciatus
Sickle-winged Chat Emarginata sinuata
Southern Anteater-Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora
Mountain Wheatear Myrmecocichla monticola
Familiar Chat Oenanthe familiaris
PASSERIFORMES: Promeropidae
Gurney's Sugarbird Promerops gurneyi Near-threatened
PASSERIFORMES: Nectariniidae
Collared Sunbird Hedydipna collaris
Amethyst Sunbird Chalcomitra amethystina
Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa
Southern Double-collared Cinnyris chalybeus Sunbird
Greater Double-collared Cinnyris afer Sunbird
PASSERIFORMES: Ploceidae
Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis Endemic (country/region)
Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus
Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea
Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix
Yellow-crowned Bishop Euplectes afer
Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis
Red-collared Widowbird Euplectes ardens
Fan-tailed Widowbird Euplectes axillaris
Long-tailed Widowbird Euplectes progne
PASSERIFORMES: Estrildidae
Swee Waxbill Coccopygia melanotis
Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild
African Firefinch Lagonosticta rubricata
Red-headed Finch Amadina erythrocephala
Zebra Waxbill Sporaeginthus subflavus
Quailfinch Ortygospiza atricollis
Bronze Mannikin Spermestes cucullata
PASSERIFORMES: Viduidae
Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura
Variable Indigobird Vidua funerea
PASSERIFORMES: Passeridae
House Sparrow Passer domesticus Introduced species
Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus
Southern Gray-headed Passer diffusus Sparrow
Yellow-throated Bush Gymnoris superciliaris Sparrow
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 98
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
PASSERIFORMES: Motacillidae
Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis
African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus
Mountain Pipit Anthus hoeschi Near-threatened
Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis
Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys
Buffy Pipit Anthus vaalensis
Yellow-tufted Pipit Anthus crenatus Endemic (country/region) Near- threatened
Yellow-breasted Pipit Hemimacronyx chloris Endemic (country/region) Vulnerable
Orange-throated Longclaw Macronyx capensis
Yellow-throated Longclaw Macronyx croceus
PASSERIFORMES: Fringillidae
Yellow-fronted Canary Crithagra mozambica
Forest Canary Crithagra scotops Endemic (country/region)
Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis
Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris
Streaky-headed Seedeater Crithagra gularis
Drakensberg Siskin Crithagra symonsi Endemic (country/region)
Cape Canary Serinus canicollis
Black-headed Canary Serinus alario
PASSERIFORMES: Emberizidae
Golden-breasted Bunting Emberiza flaviventris
Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis
Cinnamon-breasted Bunting Emberiza tahapisi
Faunal Species recorded within the project area during the Grootvlei Biodiversity Stewardship Assessment
SCIENTIFIC COMMON RED LIST FAMILY PNCO NEMBA NAME NAME CATEGORY AVIFAUNA
Accipitridae Gyps Cape Vulture Endangered Schedule 2 Endangered coprotheres Sagittariidae Sagittarius Secretary Bird Endangered Schedule 2 - serpentarius Otididae Neotis denhami Denhams Near Schedule 2 Protected Bustard Threatened Phasianidae Scleroptila Red Winged Least Concern Schedule 2 - levaillantii Francolin Threskiornithidae Bostrychia Hadada ibis Least Concern Schedule 2 - hagedash Ciconiidae Ciconia ciconia White Stork Least Concern Schedule 2 - Muscicapidae Monticola Sentinel Rock Near Schedule 2 - explorator Thrush Threatened Sturnidae Lamprotornis Cape glossy Least Concern Schedule 2 - nitens starling Passeridae Passer House sparrow Least Concern Schedule 2 - domesticus Dicruridae Dicrurus Fork tailed Least Concern Schedule 2 - adsimilis drongo
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 99
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Laniidae Lanius collaris Common fiscal Least Concern Schedule 2 - Muscicapidae Muscicapa African dusky Least Concern Schedule 2 - adusta flycatcher Phasianidae Coturnix Common quail Least Concern Schedule 2 - coturnix Accipitridae Buteo Jackal buzzard* Least Concern Schedule 2 - rufofuscus Podicipedidae Tachybaptus Little grebe Least Concern Schedule 2 - ruficollis Anatidae Dendrocygna White faced Least Concern Schedule 2 - viduata whistling duck Anatidae Alopochen Egyptian goose Least Concern Schedule 2 - aegyptiaca Anatidae Plectropterus Spur-winged Least Concern Schedule 2 - gambensis goose Fringillidae Serinus Cape canary Least Concern Schedule 2 - canicollis Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Least Concern Schedule 2 - Numididae Numida Helmeted Least Concern Schedule 2 - meleagris Guinea fowl Columbidae Spilopelia Laughing dove Least Concern Schedule 2 - senegalensis Columbidae Streptopelia Cape turtle dove Least Concern Schedule 2 - capicola Accipitridae Elanus axillaris Black Least Concern Schedule 2 - shouldered kite Corvidae Corvus albus Pied crow Least Concern - - Falconidae Falco amurensis Amur falcon Least Concern Schedule 2 - (abundant) Threskiornithidae Threskiornis Sacred ibis Least Concern Schedule 2 - aethiopicus Ploceidae Ploceus velatus Southern Least Concern - - masked weaver Ploceidae Ploceus Cape weaver Least Concern - - capensis Ploceidae Euplectes Long tailed Least Concern Schedule 2 - progne widow bird Motacillidae Anthus African pipit Least Concern Schedule 2 - cinnamomeus Muscicapidae Myrmecocichla Ant eating chat Least Concern Schedule 2 - formicivora Corvidae Corvus albicollis White-necked Least Concern - - raven Passeriformes Cecropis Greater striped Least Concern Schedule 2 cucullata swallow Coliidae Colius striatus Speckled mouse Least Concern - - bird Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus Dark capped - Schedule 2 tricolor bulbul Malaconotidae Telophorus Bokmakiere Least Concern Schedule 2 - zeylonus Muscicapidae Saxicola African stone Least Concern Schedule 2 - torquatus chat Motacillidae Macronyx Yellow throated Least Concern Schedule 2 - croceus) longclaw Gruidae Anthropoides Blue Crane Vulnerable Schedule 2 Endangered paradiseus
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 100
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Accipitridae Aquila verreauxii Verreaux’s Least Concern Schedule 2 - eagle MAMMALS BOVIDAE Redunca Southern Least Concern - - arundinum reedbuck Bovidae Ourebia ourebi Oribi Endangered - Endangered Canidae Canis Black backed Least Concern - - mesomelas Jackal Bovidae Redunca Mountain Least Concern - - arundinum Reedbuck Felidae Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern - - Orycteropodidae Orycteropus Aardvark Least Concern - - afer SUIDAE Potamochoerus Bushpig Least Concern - - larvatus AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Colubridae Philothamnus Western Natal Least Concern Schedule 2 - occidentalis Green Snake
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 101
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
APPENDIX D – IMPACT RATING METHODOLOGY
To ensure a balanced and objective approach to assessing the significance of potential impacts, a standardised rating scale was adopted which allows for the direct comparison of specialist studies. This rating scale has been developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the EIA Regulations (2014 and subsequent 2017 amendments).
Impact significance pre-mitigation This rating scale adopts six key factors to determine the overall significance of the impact prior to mitigation: 1. Nature of impact: Defines whether the impact has a negative or positive effect on the receiving environment. 2. Type of impact: Defines whether the impact has a direct, indirect or cumulative effect on the environment. 3. Duration: defines the relationship of the impact to temporal scales. The temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales as an indication of the duration of the impact. This may extend from the short-term (less than 5 years, equivalent to the construction phase) to permanent. Generally, the longer the impact occurs the greater the significance of any given impact. 4. Extent: describes the relationship of the impact to spatial scales i.e. the physical extent of the impact. This may extend from the local area to an impact that crosses international boundaries. The wider the spatial scale the impact extends, the more significant the impact is considered to be. 5. Probability: refers to the likelihood (risk or chance) of the impact occurring. While many impacts generally do occur, there is considerable uncertainty in terms of others. The scale varies from unlikely to definite, with the overall impact significance increasing as the likelihood increases. 6. Severity or benefits: the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on the receiving environment. The severity of an impact can be evaluated prior and post mitigation to demonstrate the seriousness of the impact if it is not mitigated, as well as the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The word ‘mitigation’ does not only refer to ‘compensation’, but also includes concepts of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization refers to any measure that can enhance the benefits. Mitigation or optimisation should be practical, technically feasible and economically viable.
For each impact, the duration, extent and probability are ranked and assigned a score. These scores are combined and used to determine the overall impact significance prior to mitigation. They must then be considered against the severity rating to determine the overall significance of an activity. This is because the severity of the impact is far more important than the other three criteria. The overall significance is either negative or positive (Criterion 1) and direct, indirect or cumulative (Criterion 2).
Table D1: Evaluation Criteria. Duration (Temporal Scale) Short term Less than 5 years Medium term Between 5-20 years
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 102
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also Long term permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always Permanent be there Extent (Spatial Scale) Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs Regional District and Provincial level National Country International Internationally Probability (Likelihood) Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur Severity Scale Severity Benefit An irreversible and permanent A permanent and very substantial benefit Very Severe/ change to the affected system(s) or to the affected system(s) or party(ies), with Beneficial party(ies) which cannot be no real alternative to achieving this benefit. mitigated. Long term impacts on the affected A long-term impact and substantial benefit system(s) or party(ies) that could be to the affected system(s) or party(ies). Severe/ mitigated. However, this mitigation Alternative ways of achieving this benefit Beneficial would be difficult, expensive or time would be difficult, expensive or time consuming, or some combination of consuming, or some combination of these. these. A medium to long term impact of real benefit to the affected system(s) or Medium to long term impacts on the party(ies). Other ways of optimising the Moderately affected system(s) or party (ies), beneficial effects are equally difficult, severe/Beneficial which could be mitigated. expensive and time consuming (or some combination of these), as achieving them in this way. A short to medium term impact and Medium- or short-term impacts on negligible benefit to the affected system(s) the affected system(s) or party(ies). Slight or party(ies). Other ways of optimising the Mitigation is very easy, cheap, less beneficial effects are easier, cheaper and time consuming or not necessary. quicker, or some combination of these. The system(s) or party(ies) is not No effect/don’t or In certain cases, it may not be possible to affected by the proposed can’t know determine the severity of an impact. development.
* In certain cases, it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know.
Table D2: Description of Overall Significance Rating
Significance Rate Description In certain cases, it may not be possible to determine the significance Don’t Know of an impact. For example, the primary or secondary impacts on the social or natural environment given the available information. There are no primary or secondary effects at all that are important to NO SIGNIFICANCE scientists or the public.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 103
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
Impacts of low significance are typically acceptable impacts for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is LOW LOW insufficient, even in combination with other low impacts, to prevent the NEGATIVE POSITIVE development being approved. These impacts will result in negative medium to short term effects on the natural environment or on social systems. Impacts of moderate significance are impacts that require mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the MODERATE MODERATE project but in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its NEGATIVE POSITIVE implementation. These impacts will usually result in a negative medium to long-term effect on the natural environment or on social systems. Impacts that are rated as being high are serious impacts and may prevent the implementation of the project if no mitigation measures HIGH HIGH are implemented, or the impact is very difficult to mitigate. These NEGATIVE POSITIVE impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually long-term change to the environment or social systems and result in severe effects. Impacts that are rated as very high are very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project. The VERY HIGH VERY HIGH impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are NEGATIVE POSITIVE unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.
Impact significance post-mitigation Once mitigation measures are proposed, the following three factors are then considered to determine the overall significance of the impact after mitigation.
1. Reversibility Scale: This scale defines the degree to which an environment can be returned to its original/partially original state.
2. Irreplaceable loss Scale: This scale defines the degree of loss which an impact may cause.
3. Mitigation potential Scale: This scale defines the degree of difficulty of reversing and/or mitigating the various impacts ranges from very difficult to easily achievable. Both the practical feasibility of the measure, the potential cost and the potential effectiveness is taken into consideration when determining the appropriate degree of difficulty.
Table D3: Post-mitigation Evaluation Criteria Reversibility Reversible The activity will lead to an impact that can be reversed provided appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Irreversible The activity will lead to an impact that is permanent regardless of the implementation of mitigation measures. Irreplaceable loss Resource will not The resource will not be lost/destroyed provided mitigation measures are be lost implemented. Resource will be The resource will be partially destroyed even though mitigation measures are partly lost implemented. Resource will be The resource will be lost despite the implementation of mitigation measures. lost Mitigation potential Easily achievable The impact can be easily, effectively and cost effectively mitigated/reversed.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 104
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
The impact can be effectively mitigated/reversed without much difficulty or Achievable cost. The impact could be mitigated/reversed but there will be some difficultly in Difficult ensuring effectiveness and/or implementation, and significant costs. The impact could be mitigated/reversed but it would be very difficult to ensure Very Difficult effectiveness, technically very challenging and financially very costly.
The following assumptions and limitations are inherent in the rating methodology: ➢ Value Judgements: Although this scale attempts to provide a balance and rigor to assessing the significance of impacts, the evaluation relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. ➢ Cumulative Impacts: These affect the significance ranking of an impact because it considers the impact in terms of both on-site and off-site sources. This is particularly problematic in terms of impacts beyond the scope of the proposed development. For this reason, it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature. ➢ Seasonality: Certain impacts will vary in significance based on seasonal change. Thus, it is difficult to provide a static assessment. Seasonality will need to be implicit in the temporal scale, with management measures being imposed accordingly (e.g. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 105
DRAFT Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment
APPENDIX E – CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE PROJECT TEAM
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services EDENDALE QUARRY 106