Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

Prepared for NM Environmental by GJ McDonald and L Mboyi 07 February 2018

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

Executive summary The proposed development is sited in an area which has either been transformed or impacted upon by commercial and small-scale agricultural activities and alien plant invasion to a greater or lesser extent. Such vegetation as is found is often of a secondary nature where cane fields have been allowed to become fallow and these disturbed and secondary habitats are substantially invaded by forbs and woody species. Near-natural vegetation is limited and may be found along water courses and certain roads.

Local sensitivities - vegetation  Plants protected provincially The following Specially Protected species will be affected by the proposed development: Aloe maculata (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at and around 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E, Freesia laxa (Iridaceae) found at WTW1, Kniphofia sp. (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at both WTW1 and WTW2. These will require a permit from eKZNw to translocate.

Specially Protected species in the general area such as Millettia grandis, Dioscorea cotinifolia (Dioscoreaceae) and Ledebouria ovatifolia (Liliaceae/Hyacinthaceae) will require the developers to apply to the relevant competent authority for permits to move or destroy such species (as appropriate) should they be encountered during construction. Although these species were not encountered in the proposed footprint of the areas sampled for this survey, this was not an exhaustive survey and the potential exists that they may be present.

 Plants protected by the National Forests Act Pittosporum viridiflorum and Sclerocarya caffra were encountered in the general area during this survey and, if encountered once the final pipeline route is selected, will require a permit from DAFF for their removal.

 Rare, Red Listed and Endemic species The Red-Listed species Hypoxis hemerocallidea (DECLINING) is encountered in large numbers at the sites

i McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

designated as WTW1 and WTW2 and will require permit authorization for their translocation. Local sensitivities – fauna The faunal study revealed that a number of species of potential Conservation Significance have been recorded from suitable habitat within the same Quarter Degree Grid Squares. None was recorded from the site during the site visit, nor are they expected to occur there for the most part due to the absence of suitable habitat for these species at the study site. If present, many of these species are likely to move away from the area during construction and should return after rehabilitation of the area.

However, the areas designated as WTW1 and WTW2 constitute sensitive areas in the context of the proposed development, especially from an amphibian perspective.

The site designated as WTW1 is an extensive hygrophilous grassland with a stream running through it. Low-lying areas may well be inundated at times and the area indicated in red (below) provides a valuable link to an off-site amphibian breeding area (a number of species were heard calling). That area is indicated in yellow (below). Although the WTW1 site does not fall within the D’MOSS, its loss would impact on the remaining D’MOSS habitat and its use for siting the proposed water treatment works is questionable. Furthermore, it would be prudent to re-route the gravity main indicated in green (below) so as to avoid impacting on the amphibian breeding habitat.

The WTW2 site has a number of small water courses associated with it and hygrophilous grassland which may well be inundated in years of high rainfall. The area falls within the D’MOSS and should be excluded from development activities.

Rocky areas as indicated in red (below) provide valuable habitat for herpetofauna and care should be exercised during construction within these areas to minimize disturbance and habitat loss (30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E and 30°11'18.84"S/30°44'56.82"E).

ii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

Conclusion For the most part, the proposed development can be executed within acceptable limits of impact on the environment; many of these impacts can be mitigated. The proposed pipeline, pump station and reservoir are to be sited in highly transformed habitat and/or secondary habitat and can be supported. The proposed WTW sites are problematic. WTW1 is a hygrophilous grassland and is a sensitive habitat on the broader environmental context of the area. Any activity in this area would require a WULA and should take into account the possibility that the site may provide breeding and transit opportunities for amphibians of conservation significance. The same can be said of the WTW2 site with the additional restriction of the site being designated as part of the D’MOSS.

Floral and faunal diversity is likely to be highest in the region of 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E and 30°11'18.84"S/30°44'56.82"E as these areas are most natural and undisturbed and contain rock habitats suitable for reptiles in particular.

It is my opinion that there should be no opposition to the proposed development provided that the WTW2 option is not entertained and that an alternative siting for WTW1 is investigated.

iii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Terms of reference ...... 1

1.2 Scope of the study ...... 1

2. METHODOLOGY ...... 3

2.1 Constraints of study/fieldwork ...... 3

2.2 Study area ...... 4

3. DESKTOP FINDINGS ...... 9

3.1 Vegetation types ...... 10

3.2 Spatial Planning Tools: EKZN Wildlife C-plan and D’MOSS impacts of proposed development ...... 15

4. STUDY FINDINGS: VEGETATION ...... 19

4.1 Indigenous and Protected species found in the study area ...... 22

4.2 Species of conservation significance Recorded from the site ...... 24

4.2.1 Plants protected provincially ...... 24

4.2.2 Plants protected by the National Forests Act ...... 24

4.2.3 Red Listed and Endemic species ...... 24

4.2.4 Local sensitivities ...... 30

4.3 Alien and invasive species encountered in the study area ...... 30

4.4 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL METHODS ...... 30

4.4.1 Manual Control Methods ...... 30

4.4.2 Chemical Control ...... 31

4.4.3 Biological Control ...... 32

5. STUDY FINDINGS: FAUNA ...... 33

5.1 Mammals ...... 33

iv McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

5.1.1 Threatened species ...... 33

5.2 Birds ...... 33

5.2.1 Threatened species ...... 35

5.3 Reptiles ...... 35

5.3.1 Threatened species ...... 36

5.4 Amphibians ...... 36

5.4.1 Threatened species ...... 37

5.5 Invertebrates ...... 37

5.5.1 Threatened species ...... 37

6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY ...... 38

6.1 Direct mortality of faunal species during construction phase ...... 38

6.1.1 Description of impact ...... 38

6.1.2 Assessment of impact ...... 38

6.1.3 Mitigation objectives and measures ...... 38

6.2 Loss and alteration of habitats (Vegetation Disturbance) ...... 39

6.2.1 Description of impact ...... 39

6.2.2 Assessment of impact ...... 39

6.2.3 Mitigation objectives and measures ...... 39

6.3 Local faunal sensitivities ...... 39

6.3.1 Description of impact ...... 39

6.3.2 Assessment of impact ...... 39

6.3.3 Mitigation objectives and measures ...... 40

7. Management & Monitoring ...... 47

8. Conclusions ...... 51

9. References and resources ...... 52

v McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

vi McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2-1 ...... 4

Figure 2.2-2 Proposed area of activity ...... 5

Figure 2.2-3 Soil type distribution in the general study area ...... 6

Figure 2.2-4 Land use ...... 8

Figure 3-1 Proposed development area in relation to vegetation types ...... 9

Figure 3.1-1 KZN vegetation type conservation status ...... 13

Figure 3.1-2Rivers and wetlands associated with the site ...... 14

Figure 3.2-1 Development site in relation to eKZNw terrestrial C-Plan ...... 15

Figure 3.2-2 Development site in relation to eKZNw freshwater C-Plan ...... 16

Figure 3.2-3. Development site in relation to eKZNw dispersal corridors ...... 17

Figure 3.2-4 Development site in relation to the D’MOSS ...... 18

Figure 4-1. Sensitive habitats with species of conservation significance ...... 19

Figure 4-2 Water treatment works 1 and 2 ...... 20

Figure 4-3 Site of proposed pump station and reservoir ...... 21

Figure 4.2.3-1. Hypoxis hemerocallidea (Red-Listed as DECLINING) are abundant ...... 24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1-1. List of plant species associated with the site, including specially protected species expected to occur in the area...... 22

Table 4.2.3-1. Indigenous Plant Species encountered on site, GPS Location , Threat Status and Identification ...... 25

Table 4.3-1. List of invasive alien plant species occurring in the area ...... 30

Table 4.3-2. Characterization of some of most commonly encountered species in the area ...... 28

Table 4.4.1-1. Manual methods for invasive alien plant control ...... 30

vii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

Table 4.4.2-1. Chemical methods for invasive alien plant control ...... 31

Table 5.1-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings( Mammal Atlas Project) ...... 33

Table 5.2-1. IUCN Red Listed birds recorded in 3030BA (SABAP1) ...... 34

Table 5.2-2. IUCN Red Listed birds recorded in 3030BB (SABAP1) ...... 34

Table 5.3-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings( Reptile Atlas Project) ...... 36

Table 5.4-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings(Amphibian Atlas Project)...... 36

Table 6.3.3-1. Significance scores related to negative environmental impacts ...... 42

Table 6.3.3-2. Spatial Extent of impact ...... 43

Table 6.3.3-3. Severity, Intensity and Magnitude of impact ...... 43

Table 6.3.3-4. Duration of impact ...... 44

Table 6.3.3-5. Irreplaceability of lost resource as a result of impact ...... 44

Table 6.3.3-6. Reversibility of impact ...... 45

Table 6.3.3-7. Probability that an impact will occur ...... 45

Table 6.3.3-8. Impact Significance Scoring ...... 46

Table 7-1. Management and Monitoring Plan ...... 47

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. FOz 7 Northern Coastal Forest ...... 10

Box 2. CB 3 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt ...... 12

viii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report

Responsible person Role Signed Date GJ McDonald Fieldwork and Report 07/02/2018

L Mboyi Fieldwork and Report 07/02/2018

I, GJ McDonald M.Sc.; Pr. Sci. Nat. (400083/97), declare that --

General declaration:

 I act as the independent specialist in this application;  do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010;  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 form are true and correct; and  I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company (if applicable):

Date: 07th February 2018 (Updated) ______

ix McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

1. INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes to construct a water pipeline and associated infrastructure in the lower uMkomazi area. The primary objective of the terrestrial biodiversity assessment was to provide information to guide the proposed water pipeline development project with respect to the potential impact on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity within the area of study, specifically related to:  Ensuring that natural habitat connectivity is maintained as far as possible;  Ensuring that natural habitat degradation is avoided as far as possible;  To limit the impact on indigenous fauna and flora, particularly endangered/protected species of plants/animals;  To limit the risk of slope instability and erosion; and  To limit the risk of pollution of natural habitats during all phases of the project.

1.1 Terms of reference In order to comply with South Africa’s environmental legislation, NM Environmental was appointed to carry out the environmental assessment for the proposed development. The main aim of this assessment was to identify any limitations that the environment may impose on the proposed project and the proposed project on the receiving biophysical, cultural and socio-economic environments. GJ McDonald Consulting was sub-contracted to assess the likely impacts of the activity on the vegetation and fauna of the area.

1.2 Scope of the study The focus of work involved a specialist terrestrial biodiversity assessment which included the following tasks:  A desktop review of the conservation context of the site in relation to areas of biodiversity importance based on available conservation planning for the Province/Municipal area;  A review of habitat requirements for key species flagged as potentially occurring on the site based on available systematic conservation planning information for the area;  Mapping and classification of all habitat types within 50m of the proposed pipeline alignments;  Field visits to survey habitats (concentrating on untransformed areas) in order to obtain an indication of the current status of mapped vegetation units (vegetation composition, condition of habitats, etc.);  An assessment of the potential of habitats to support key species of flora/fauna of conservation concern identified as potentially occurring on the site;  Recommending the need for further specialist studies if required (e.g. to verify the occurrence of cryptic species);  Developing a terrestrial biodiversity sensitivity map based on field visits and supported by appropriate regional information to inform the impact assessment and guide possible alternative realignment options;  An assessment of potential impacts to terrestrial biodiversity; 1 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

 Recommendation of site-specific mitigation measures;  Refinement of recommendations through interactions with EAP (and developers/engineers); and  Compilation of a specialist terrestrial biodiversity assessment report detailing the methodology and findings of the assessment.

2 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

2. METHODOLOGY  GIS study undertaken to generate overlays for the area taking into account: o National vegetation type and KZN vegetation type; o Wetlands and watersheds; o eKZN Wildlife’s C-Plan and D’MOSS impacts; and o Soils  Desktop study using Google Earth to determine areas of interest such as wetlands, watercourses and changes in vegetation.  Ground study undertaken to determine the likely impact of the proposed development on the vegetation and fauna of the study area on 11th, 13th and 14th June 2017.  The generation of recommendations.  The vegetation literature search was undertaken utilising The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) for the vegetation description as well as the National Red List of Threatened Plants of South Africa (Raimondo et al. 2009). Mammal names are those used by Skinner and Chimimba (2005), bird names by Hockey, Dean and Ryan (2006), reptile names by Branch (1998) and amphibian names by Du Preez and Carruthers (2009).

2.1 Constraints of study/fieldwork The major constraints of such surveys are time and season. Often where more intensive field work is possible, rarer and more cryptic species may be encountered. Furthermore, flowering is season- dependent and makes it easier to locate and identify certain non-woody forb and geophyte species. After the site visits it can be assumed that it is unlikely that returning to the site in other seasons or extending the duration of the survey would yield any different overall findings. The species checklists provided in this report are, nevertheless, reflective of only those species identified at the time of the survey and cannot be regarded as exhaustive.

Any faunal study is largely limited to a literature survey of species known to occupy the general area or vegetation type as a result of the mobility of the species involved. Repeated visits and intensive sampling may still not reveal the true presence or absence of certain species.

The study area falls within two Quarter Degree Grid Squares (QDGS), namely 3030 BA (Dududu) and 3030 BB (Umkomaas). The latter QDGS is largely under-sampled in terms of fauna in the databases consulted and the majority of the proposed development would fall within this QDGS. Very little of the proposed development falls within QDGS 3030BB, which contains a large proportion of coastal habitat, which means many of the species recorded from faunal databases are unlikely to occur at the site (eg. numerous Red Data sea birds).

3 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

2.2 Study area The study area falls within the QDGSs 3030 BA and 3030 BB in the eThekwini Municipality which is 229190.6 hectares in extent. Areas remaining natural constitute some 106016.1 hectares (46.3% of municipality), while areas where no natural habitat remains constitute 122641.2 hectares (53.5% of municipality).

There are six formal land-based protected areas covering 999.8 hectares (0.4% of municipality) and includes Beachwood Mangroves (Provincial) Nature Reserve (77.6ha - 0.03% of municipality), Bluff (Provincial) Nature Reserve (46ha - 0.02% of municipality), Kenneth Stainbank (Provincial) Nature Reserve (211ha - 0.09% of municipality), Krantzkloof (Provincial) Nature Reserve (588.4ha - 0.26% of municipality), North Park (Provincial) Nature Reserve (42.1ha - 0.02% of municipality) and uMhlanga Lagoon (Provincial) Nature Reserve (34.8ha - 0.02% of municipality).

There are no Ramsar sites in the eThekwini Municipality.

Figure 2.2-1

The study site in geographic context

4 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Proposed area of activity

Figure 2.2-2 Proposed area of activity

5 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Soils Soils in the general study area are uniformly distributed and are characterised as soils with minimal development, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock, with or without intermittent diverse soils. Lime is rare or absent in the landscape. These soils are classed as Lithosols.

Figure 2.2-3 Soil type distribution in the general study area

Vegetation types The Municipality falls within two Biomes, namely the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt of 152670.7 hectares (66.61% of municipality) and Savanna of 76272.4 hectares (33.28% of municipality) and has 10 vegetation types, namely:

 Eastern Valley Bushveld (22542ha - 9.84% of municipality)  KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt (148366.3ha - 64.73% of municipality)  KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld (6897.8ha - 3.01% of municipality)  KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld (15670.4ha - 6.84% of municipality)  Mangrove Forest (61.9ha - 0.03% of municipality)  Ngongoni Veld (31986.7ha - 13.96% of municipality)  Northern Coastal Forest (937.6ha - 0.41% of municipality)  Scarp Forest (1017.9ha - 0.44% of municipality)  Subtropical Coastal Lagoons (1094.6ha - 0.48% of municipality)  Subtropical Seashore Vegetation (367.7ha - 0.16% of municipality)

6 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems

Critically Endangered (CR)  Durban Metropole North Coast Grassland - KZN 2 - 12763.3ha (5.57% of municipality)  Interior North Coast Grasslands - KZN 6 - 10816.4ha (4.72% of municipality)  Interior South Coast Grasslands - KZN 7 - 9782.9ha (4.27% of municipality)  uMlazi Gorge - KZN 11 - 2805.7ha (1.22% of municipality)  New Hanover Plateau - KZN 12 - 3582.3ha (1.56% of municipality)  Northern Coastal Grasslands - KZN 16 - 5127.5ha (2.24% of municipality)  Southern Coastal Grasslands - KZN 18 - 2396.9ha (1.05% of municipality)

Endangered (EN)  KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Forest - FOz 7_1 - 2.8ha  KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld - SVs 5 - 5529.3ha (2.41% of municipality)

Vulnerable (VU)  Eastern Scarp Forest - FOz 5_1 - 775.8ha (0.34% of municipality)  KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt - CB 3 - 16557ha (7.22% of municipality)  Ngongoni Veld - SVs 4 - 16881ha (7.37% of municipality)

Wetlands There are 1239 wetlands covering 4025.1 hectares (1.8% of eThekwini Municipality), none of which falls within the study area.

Land use: Much of the area in which the proposed activity will take place is secondary grassland (fallow cane fields) with some areas still under commercial agriculture. A few natural areas still exist, but these have been substantially impacted by alien plant invasion and by cattle grazing and fire. Through part of its route, the pipeline passes through areas of low density formal housing.

7 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Figure 2.2-4 Land use

8 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

3. DESKTOP FINDINGS

Vegetation types and wetlands

According to the National Classification of Mucina and Rutherford (2006) and Scott-Shaw and Escott (2011) the predominant vegetation site through which the pipeline will pass is KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld (KZN 41 = CB 6). The area in which the proposed water treatment works and gravity main to the Quarry Reservoir is sited, is KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Grassland (KZN 29 = CB 3). Two small areas of Coastal Forest, namely Southern Mesic Coastal Lowland Forest (KZN 62_5 = FOz 7) and Southern Moist Coastal Lowland Forest (KZN 62_6 = FOz 7) are found in the general area of the proposed pipeline, but will remain un-impacted by the actual development as indicated below.

Figure 3-1 Proposed development area in relation to vegetation types

9 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

3.1 Vegetation types According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006) the following applies:

Box 1. FOz 7 Northern Coastal Forest

FOz 7 Northern Coastal Forest

Distribution: KwaZulu-Natal and (to a very small extent) Eastern Cape Province: Especially along the seaboards of the Indian Ocean of KwaZulu-Natal Province and particularly well-developed in Maputaland. Few patches of the dune forest also occur on the Wild Coast of Transkei (Eastern Cape Province). Beyond South Africa these forests occur throughout the Mozambican seaboard as far as southern Tanzania. At low altitudes, from about 10 to 150m.

Vegetation & Landscape Features: Species-rich, tall/medium-height subtropical coastal forests occur on coastal (rolling) plains and stabilised coastal dunes. Forests of the coastal plains are dominated by Drypetes natalensis, Englerophytum natalense, Albizia adianthifolia, Diospyros inhacaensis. The low- tree and shrubby under-storeys are species-rich and comprise many taxa of (sub)tropical provenence. On dunes, these forests have well-developed tree, shrub and herb layers. Mimusops caffra, Sideroxylon inerme, Dovyalis longispina, Acacia kosiensis and Psydrax obovata subsp. obovata are the most common constituents of the tree layer. Brachylaena discolor var. discolor, Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata, Carissa bispinosa subsp. bispinosa, Euclea natalensis, E. racemosa, Eugenia capensis, Gymnosporia nemorosa, Kraussia floribunda, Peddiea africana, Strelitzia nicolai and Dracaena aletriformis are frequent in the understorey. The herb layer usually contains Asystasia gangetica, Isoglossa woodii, Microsorum scolopendria, Zamioculcas zamiifolia and Oplismenus hirtellus. Herbaceous vines and woody climbers (Acacia kraussiana, Artabotrys monteiroae, Dalbergia armata, Landolphia kirkii, Monanthotaxis caffra, Rhoicissus tomentosa, Rhus nebulosa, Scutia myrtina, Uvaria caffra and Gloriosa superba) are important structural determinants in these forests.

Geology & Soils: Well-developed sandy-loamy soils on sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup and Jurassic intrusive dolerites (in places) as well as on Holocene marine sediments. Forming stabilised sandy dune systems, mostly younger than 10 000 years and still in the process of sedimentation.

Important Taxa: Tall Trees: Albizia adianthifolia, Drypetes reticulata, Mimusops caffra, Psydrax obovata subsp. obovata, Sideroxylon inerme, Trichilia emetica, Vepris lanceolata. Small Trees: Brachylaena discolor subsp. discolor, Buxus natalensis, Cavacoa aurea, Englerophytum natalense, Erythroxylum emarginatum, Eugenia capensis, Gymnosporia nemorosa, Kraussia floribunda, Peddiea africana, Rhus nebulosa, Strychnos henningsii, Acokanthera oblongifolia, Callichilia orientalis, Deinbollia oblongifolia, Dovyalis rhamnoides, Euclea natalensis, E. racemosa, Scutia myrtina, Strychnos decussata, Tapura fischeri, Teclea gerrardii, Turraea floribunda, Xylotheca kraussiana. Woody Climbers: Acacia kraussiana, Rhoicissus tomentosa, Dalbergia armata, Monanthotaxis caffra, Uvaria caffra. Herbaceous Climber: Gloriosa superba. Tall Shrubs: Carissa bispinosa subsp. bispinosa, Hyperacanthus amoenus, Putterlickia verrucosa. Low Shrub: Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata. Soft Shrub: Isoglossa woodii. Megaherbs: Dracaena aletriformis, Strelitzia nicolai. Herbs: Achyranthes aspera, Asystasia gangetica, Laportea peduncularis. Geophytic Herb: Microsorum scolopendria. Graminoids: Cyperus albostriatus, Oplismenus hirtellus. 10 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Biogeographically Important Taxa : (MMaputaland endemic, SSouthern distribution limit) Tall Trees: Celtis gomphophyllaS (d), Chrysophyllum viridifoliumS (d), Diospyros inhacaensisS (d), Drypetes natalensisS (d), Cola natalensisS, Inhambanella henriquesiiS, Manilkara concolorS. Small Trees: Coffea racemosaS (d), Dovyalis longispinaS (d), Artabotrys monteiroaeS, Encephalartos feroxM, Erythrococca berberideaS, Pancovia golungensisS. Tall Shrubs: Haplocoelum foliolosum subsp. mombasenseS, Landolphia kirkiiS.

Endemic Taxon: Small Tree: Acacia kosiensis.

Conservation Status: LEAST THREATENED in general, but still under threat on coastal dunes of KwaZulu-Natal (due to mining) where it is considered CRITICALLY ENDANGERED. The original extent of these forests has been diminished by agriculture (mainly sugar cane and fruit gardens), timber plantations, urban sprawl and tourism-oriented development on the KwaZulu-Natal coast. The current threats include (besides the ongoing coastal development pressures) illegal clearing of the forest and turning it into lots for small-scale farming. These subtropical forests are sensitive to alien plant invasion, and invaders such as Chromolaena odorata, species of Pereskia and Acacia are posing serious threats.

11 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Box 2. CB 3 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt

CB 3 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt

Distribution KwaZulu-Natal Province: Long and in places broad coastal strip along the KwaZulu-Natal coast, from near Mtunzini in the north, via Durban to Margate and just short of Port Edward in the south. Altitude ranges from about 20 to 450m.

Vegetation & Landscape Features Highly dissected undulating coastal plains which presumably used to be covered to a great extent with various types of subtropical coastal forest (the remnants of one of which are described as Northern Coastal Forest). Some primary grassland dominated by Themeda triandra still occurs in hilly, high-rainfall areas where pressure from natural fire and grazing regimes prevailed. At present the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt is affected by an intricate mosaic of very extensive sugarcane fields, timber plantations and coastal holiday resorts, with interspersed secondary Aristida grasslands, thickets and patches of coastal thornveld.

Geology & Soils Ordovician Natal Group sandstone, Dwyka tillite, Ecca shale and Mapumulo gneiss (Mokolian) dominate the landscapes of the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt. Weathering of old dunes has produced the red sand, called the Berea Red Sand, in places. The soils supported by the above- mentioned rocks are shallow over hard sandstones and deeper over younger, softer rocks.

Climate Summer rainfall, but with some rainfall also in winter. High air humidity. No incidence of frost. Mean maximum and minimum monthly temperatures for Durban (airport) are 32.6°C and 5.8C and for Port Shepstone 30.6°C and 8.8°C (both for January and July, respectively).

Important Taxa Graminoids: Aristida junciformis subsp. galpinii, Digitaria eriantha, Panicum maximum, Themeda triandra, Alloteropsis semialata subsp. eckloniana, Cymbopogon caesius, C. nardus, Eragrostis curvula, Eulalia villosa, Hyparrhenia filipendula, Melinis repens. Herbs: Berkheya speciosa subsp. speciosa, Cyanotis speciosa, Senecio glaberrimus, Alepidea longifolia, Centella glabrata, Cephalaria oblongifolia, Chamaecrista mimosoides, Conostomium natalense, Crotalaria lanceolata, Dissotis canescens, Eriosema squarrosum, Gerbera ambigua, Hebenstretia comosa, Helichrysum cymosum subsp. cymosum, H. pallidum, Hibiscus pedunculatus, Hybanthus capensis, Indigofera hilaris, Pentanisia prunelloides subsp. latifolia, Senecio albanensis, S. bupleuroides, S. coronatus, S. rhyncholaenus, Sisyranthus imberbis, Stachys aethiopica, S. nigricans, Vernonia galpinii, V. oligocephala. Geophytic Herbs: Bulbine asphodeloides, Disa polygonoides, Hypoxis filiformis, Ledebouria floribunda, Pachycarpus asperifolius, Schizocarphus nervosus, Tritonia disticha. Low Shrubs: Clutia pulchella, Gnidia kraussiana, Phyllanthus glaucophyllus, Tephrosia polystachya. Woody Climbers: Abrus laevigatus, Asparagus racemosus, Smilax anceps. Small Trees & Tall Shrubs: Bridelia micrantha, Phoenix reclinata, Syzygium cordatum, Acacia natalitia, Albizia adianthifolia, Antidesma venosum.

Biogeographically Important Taxa (CCoastal belt element, SSouthern distribution limit) Graminoids: Cyperus natalensisC, Eragrostis lappulaS. Herbs: Helichrysum longifoliumC, Selago tarachodesC, Senecio dregeanusC, Sphenostylis angustifoliaS. Geophytic Herbs: Kniphofia gracilisC, K. littoralisC, K. rooperiC, Pachystigma venosumS, Zeuxine africanaS. Low Shrubs: Helichrysum kraussiiS (d), Agathisanthemum bojeriS, Desmodium dregeanumC. Megaherb: Strelitzia nicolaiC (d). Geoxylic Suffrutices: Ancylobotrys petersianaS, Eugenia albanensisC, Salacia kraussiiS. Small Trees & Tall Shrubs: Anastrabe integerrimaC (d), Acacia nilotica subsp. kraussianaS.

12 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Endemic Taxa Herb: Vernonia africana (extinct). Geophytic Herb: Kniphofia pauciflora. Low Shrub: Barleria natalensis (extinct).

Conservation: ENDANGERED in general, but CRITICALLY ENDANGERED in KZN. About 50% transformed for cultivation, by urban sprawl and for road-building. Aliens include Chromolaena odorata, Lantana camara, Melia azedarach and Solanum mauritianum. Erosion is low and moderate.

CB 6 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt Thornveld Distribution: KwaZulu-Natal Province: From near Mandini in the north to Oribi Gorge in the south. Altitude 30 to 500m.

Vegetation & Landscape Features: Steep valley sides and hilly landscape mainly associated with drier, larger river valleys in the rain shadow of the rain bearing frontal weather systems from the east coast. Bushed grassland, bushland and bushland thicket, and open woodland.

Climate: Summer rainfall with some rain in winter. Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) about 740 to 940mm. Summers are hot and humid and winters mild. Frost does not occur.

Conservation Status: VULNERABLE. This vegetation unit grades into the SVs 6 Eastern Valley Bushveld and SVs 3 KwaZulu-Natal Hinterland Thornveld in the larger river valleys.

The proposed activity will take place in habitats designated as Vulnerable (yellow) and Endangered (red) as indicated below.

Figure 3.1-1 KZN vegetation type conservation status

13 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

The proposed activity is closely associated with the uMkomazi River, but has no other impacts on NFEBA wetlands as indicated below. There is a stream associated with the southern boundary of the proposed water treatment works site designated as WTW2. Drainage lines are a feature within both sites.

Figure 3.1-2Rivers and wetlands associated with the site

14 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

3.2 Spatial Planning Tools: EKZN Wildlife C-plan and D’MOSS impacts of proposed development

C-plan impacts: Terrestrial

The proposed development activity will take place within an area designated as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) type 3. This rating is due to the potential presence of a number of invertebrates such as mollusks and millipedes and the presence of South Coast Grassland and South Coast Bushland.

Figure 3.2-1 Development site in relation to eKZNw terrestrial C-Plan

15 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

C-plan impacts: Freshwater

The majority of the area through which the pipeline passes, and in which its associated infrastructure will be sited, is designated as “Earmarked” for future inclusion in the Freshwater Conservation Plan as seen below.

Figure 3.2-2 Development site in relation to eKZNw freshwater C-Plan

16 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report eKZN Wildlife dispersal corridors

The Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division of eKZN Wildlife has identified a series of altitudinal and biogeographic corridors in KZN which create a linked landscape for the conservation of species in a fragmented landscape and to facilitate evolutionary, ecological and climate change processes (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife 2010). This system of corridors for the general area of the study is indicated below. The gravity main from the reservoir nearest the river feeding to the water treatment works 1 (WTW1) passes for its entire length through a designated corridor. Given the fact that this is a buried pipeline and that rehabilitation of the servitude is possible post-construction, this is not seen as a fatal flaw to the proposed development. It does mean, however, that particular care must be given to the rehabilitation and to minimise the ongoing disturbance of maintaining the servitude. The eKZNw corridor is around 2km wide whilst the pipeline servitude is 50m wide.

Figure 3.2-3. Development site in relation to eKZNw dispersal corridors

17 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

D’MOSS impacts

The proposed rising main from the barrage and the gravity main from the reservoir to the proposed water treatment works (WTW) passes through areas designated as part of the D’MOSS for nearly its entire length. Given that this is a buried pipeline, it should still be possible to proceed with this project, but the applicants will have to engage with eThekwini Municipality regarding this impact. The impact of the proposed WTW2 and its gravity main to the Craigieburn reservoir would be best avoided if the option of using the site proposed for WTW1 exists, since there are reduced impacts on the D’MOSS for WTW1 as seen below. Despite not being included within the D’MOSS, the site WTW1 is a sensitive habitat in the broader ecological context of the area and alternatives should be sought before resorting to this option.

Figure 3.2-4 Development site in relation to the D’MOSS

18 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

4. STUDY FINDINGS: VEGETATION

The major habitats traversed or impacted by the proposed development are KZN Coastal Belt Thornveld (green, above) and KZN Coastal Belt Grassland (pink, above). Neither of these is pristine and both are heavily impacted by human activities ranging from agricultural practices to housing, and invaded by numerous alien species. Occasionally along the route, habitats which contain a more natural and diverse assemblage of species are encountered as indicated in red below, and these contain Specially Protected and Red Listed species.

Figure 4-1. Sensitive habitats with species of conservation significance

The two proposed water treatment works sites (WTW1 and WTW2) indicated below warrant attention as they represent unique and sensitive habitats. Both contain Red Listed species in the form of Hypoxis hemerocallidea in substantial numbers and both contain the Specially Protected Kniphofia sp. whilst WTW1 also contains the Specially Protected Freesia laxa. These sites contain hygrophilous grassland and both obligate and facultative hydrophytes with watercourses and water bodies present on both. They either contain, or are in proximity to, habitat suitable for amphibians – either as breeding or as transit/dispersal sites. Whilst WTW2 falls within the D’MOSS, the site WTW1 does not, although it provides the same environmental goods and services. Ideally, neither site should be considered for development, but the demarcation of WTW2 as part of the D’MOSS should automatically preclude the site. Presumably the wetland study will make further recommendations regarding these two sites. 19 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Figure 4-2 Water treatment works 1 and 2

20 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Infrastructure associated with the development includes the construction of a pump station and reservoir as indicated below. Both the sites for these proposed structures fall within cultivated or previously cultivated land which is 100% transformed and, therefore, their impact is negligible.

Figure 4-3 Site of proposed pump station and reservoir

21 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

4.1 Indigenous and Protected species found in the study area Although a fair number of indigenous species were recorded from the site, the list includes a number of earlier pioneer species and ruderal/”weedy” species which thrive in disturbed areas such as sites which have been cleared of vegetation due to agricultural activities and the overgrazing associated with domestic livestock.

Table 4.1-1. List of plant species associated with the site, including specially protected species expected to occur in the area.

Abutilon sonneratianum Dombeya cymosa Acacia seedlings Ehretia rigida Acacia nilotica Ekebergia capensis Acacia robusta Erianthemum dregei Acalypha glabrata Eriosema saligna Albizia adianthifolia Erythrina lysistemon Aloe maculata - Specially Protected Euclea natalensis Aneilema aequinoctiale Euphorbia tiru-calli Antidemsa venosa Ficus sur Aristida junciformis Freesia laxa - Specially Protected Asparagus racemosus Gerbera ambigua Asparagus setaceus Gerbera piloselloides Asparagus virgatus Gnidia sp. Asystasia gangetica Gymnosporia glaucophylla Barleria obtusa Helichrysum spp. Berkheya bipinnatifida Helichrysum nudifolium Berkheya speciosa Hewittia malabarica Bridelia micrantha Hibiscus cannabinus Celtis africana Hibiscus meyeri Chamaecrista mimosoides Hilliardiellaoligocephala Clerodendrum glabrum Hippobromus pauciflorus Combretum kraussii Hypoestes forskaolii Combretum molle Hypoxis argentea Commelina africana Hypoxis filifolia Commelina erecta Hypoxis hemerocallidea – Declining Commiphora harveyi Imperata cylindrica Crotalaria sp. Indigofera frutescens Croton sylvaticus Ipomoea cairica Cymbopogon nardus Kalanchoe rotundifolia Cyperus dives Kniphofia sp. - Specially Protected Dalbergia obovata Lagenaria sphaerica Digitaria spp. Lantana rugosa Dioscorea cotinifolia - Specially Protected Ledebouria ovatifolia - Specially Protected Diospyros lycioides Leonotis spp. Distephanus angulifolius Lippia javanica 22 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Lotus discolor Ludwigia octovalvis Melinis repens Millettia grandis – Specially Protected Nidorella auriculata Ocimum gratissimum Panicum maximum Pavetta lanceolata Persicaria decipiens Phoenix reclinata Pittosporum viridiflorum – Protected Tree Polygala hottentotta Priva cordifolia Protorhus longifolia Pseudarthria hookeri Pupalia lappacea Rhoicissus tridentata Rhynchosia caribaea Rorippa sp. Sansevieria hyacinthoides Sclerocarya caffra – Protected Tree Searsia chirindensis Searsia pentheri Secamone gerrardii Senecio brachypodus Senecio deltoideus Senecio madagascariensis Senecio polyanthemoides Setaria megaphylla Sida cordifolia Sida dregei Sida rhombifolia Sorghum bicolor Sporobolus spp. Tecomaria capensis Tephrosia polystachya Tetradenia riparia Trema orientalis Trimeria grandifolia Triumfetta rhomboidea Typha capensis Vangueria infausta Vepris lanceolata

23 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

4.2 Species of conservation significance Recorded from the site

4.2.1 Plants protected provincially

The following Specially Protected species will be affected by the proposed development: Aloe maculata (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at and around 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E, Freesia laxa (Iridaceae) found at WTW1, Kniphofia sp. (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at both WTW1 and WTW2. These will require a permit from eKZNw to translocate.

Specially Protected species in the general area such as Millettia grandis, Dioscorea cotinifolia (Dioscoreaceae) and Ledebouria ovatifolia (Liliaceae/Hyacinthaceae) will require the developers to apply to the relevant competent authority for permits to move or destroy such species (as appropriate) should they be encountered during construction. Although these species were not encountered in the proposed footprint of the areas sampled for this survey, this was not an exhaustive survey and the potential exists that they may be present.

4.2.2 Plants protected by the National Forests Act

Pittosporum viridiflorum and Sclerocarya caffra were encountered in the general area during this survey and may be encountered once the final pipeline route is selected.

4.2.3 Red Listed and Endemic species

The Red-Listed species Hypoxis hemerocallidea (DECLINING) is encountered in large numbers at the sites designated as WTW1 and WTW2.

Figure 4.2.3-1. Hypoxis hemerocallidea (Red-Listed as DECLINING) are abundant

24 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Table 4.2.3-1. Indigenous Plant Species encountered on site, GPS Location , Threat Status and Identification

Species GPS Coordinates Biodiversity Status Status Reasoning (SANBI) Identification (Density) (Site Observation)

Freesia laxa 30.755306, - SANBI Redlist: VU A population reduction of 40% (scattered) 30.193120 is likely to be met within the (Development poses next 10 years based on an a high threat to ongoing rate of 26% loss over species) the past 13 years (generation length 10 years). This taxon has a narrow distribution within South Africa (EOO 2395 km²) and is known from fewer than 10 remaining locations, and is threatened by expanding settlements, forestry plantations, crop cultivation and overgrazing.

25 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Hypoxis 30.750697, - SANBI Redlist: LC This taxon was not selected in acuminate 30.197236 any one of four screening (low) (Development poses processes for highlighting a medium threat to potential taxa of conservation species) concern for detailed assessment and was hence given an automated status of Least Concern. The Threatened Species Programme is currently systematically completing full assessments for all taxa with an automated status.

Kniphofia 30.750504, - SANBI Redlist: LC This taxon was not selected in Moench 30.197742 any one of four screening (low) (Development poses processes for highlighting a low threat to potential taxa of conservation species) concern for detailed assessment and was hence given an automated status of Least Concern. The Threatened Species Programme is currently systematically completing full assessments for all taxa with an automated status.

26 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Ledebouria 30.7624377, - SANBI Redlist: LC A widespread species that is asperifolia 30.1902833 not in danger of extinction. (high) (Development poses a very low threat to species)

27 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Millettia 30.745267, - SANBI Redlist: LC This taxon was not selected in grandis 30.185378 any one of four screening (low) (Development poses processes for highlighting a low threat to potential taxa of conservation species) concern for detailed assessment and was hence given an automated status of Least Concern. The Threatened Species Programme is currently systematically completing full assessments for all taxa with an automated status.

Pittosporum 30.719710, - SANBI Redlist: LC This taxon was not selected in viridiflorum 30.183901 any one of four screening (medium) (Development poses processes for highlighting a low threat to potential taxa of conservation species) concern for detailed assessment and was hence given an automated status of Least Concern. The Threatened Species Programme is currently systematically completing full 28 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

assessments for all taxa with an automated status

Sclerocarya 30.7199365, - SANBI Redlist: LC A widespread species that is birrea (low) 30.1834706 not in danger of extinction. (Development poses a low threat to species)

29 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Recommendation Should it be approved, risk to the project through delays would be best managed by applications to the competent permit authorities (eKZNw for Provincially Protected plants and DAFF for Nationally Protected species) immediately upon receipt of an environmental authorization so that after a ‘walk- through’ of the site, plants can be removed or more preferably relocated where appropriate.

4.2.4 Local sensitivities

Should approval for the proposed development be forthcoming, the presence of Specially Protected species in the general area such as Millettia grandis, Dioscorea cotinifolia (Dioscoreaceae) and Ledebouria ovatifolia (Liliaceae/Hyacinthaceae) and nationally Protected Trees species such as Pittosporum viridiflorum and Sclerocarya caffra will require the developers to apply to the relevant competent authority for permits to move or destroy such species (as appropriate) should they be encountered during construction. Although these species were not encountered in the proposed footprint of the areas sampled for this survey, this was not an exhaustive survey and the potential exists that they may be present.

Species encountered within the proposed development footprint include Aloe maculata (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae), Hypoxis hemerocallidea (DECLINING), Kniphofia sp. (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) and Freesia laxa (Iridaceae). These will require a permit from eKZNw to relocate.

From a conservation planning perspective the sensitivities are:  the siting of the proposed development in certain areas designated as part of the D’MOSS  the siting of the proposed WTW1 and WTW2 in wetlands  the siting of the proposed development in a Vulnerable habitat type (KZN Coastal Belt)  the siting of the proposed development in an area where certain of the slopes would be characterised as moderate to steep which will affect runoff and result in a potential erosion risk and contamination of downslope (aquatic) habitats.

4.3 Alien and invasive species encountered in the study area As can be seen below, the site has a rather high preponderance of alien and invasive species. Furthermore, the most commonly encountered species have been characterized below.

Table 4.3-1. List of invasive alien plant species occurring in the area

Acacia mearnsii Amaranthus hybridus Achyranthes aspera Ambrosia artemisiifolia Agave sp. Arundo donax Agave sisalana Bauhinia variegata Ageratum spp. Bidens pilosa 30 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Boerhavia diffusa Mimosa pudica Caesalpinia decapetala Musa hybrid Callisia repens Nicandra physaloides Canna indica Oxalis corniculata Cardiospermum grandiflorum Oxalis rosea Cassia spp. Passiflora edulis Centella asiatica Passiflora subpeltata Chromolaena odorata Pennisetum purpureum Citrus limon Persea americana Coix lacryma-jobi Plantago lanceolata Conyza spp. Plectranthus comosus Costus sp. Psidium guajava Cynodon dactylon Richardia brasiliensis Dactyloctenium australe Ricinus communis Desmodium incanum Rumex acetosella Emex spinosa Senna didymobotrya Eucalyptus spp. Sesbania bispinosa Euphorbia cyathophora Solanum mauritianum Euphorbia hirta Solanum nigrum Galinsoga parviflora Sphagneticola trilobata Ipomoea purpurea Stachytarpheta urticifolia Jatropha integerrima Syzygium cumini Lagerstroemia indica Tagetes minuta Lantana camara Tecoma stans Litsea glutenosa Thevetia peruviana Malvastrum coromandelianum Tithonia diversifolia Mangifera indica Verbena brasiliensis Melia azedarach Xanthium strumarium Melilotis albus

31 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

27 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Table 4.3-2. Characterization of some of most commonly encountered species in the area

Scientific Name Common Name Characteristics Mechanism of Spread Ecosystem Control Strategy Identification Photo Characteristics

Chromolaena Chromolaena Shrub with small, Seeds dispersed by Invades forest Fell and apply odorata light seeds. wind. margins, herbicide. Some (Asteraceae) watercourses, road promising bio- verges and control agents plantations. have been identified.

Lantana camara Lantana Shrub with thorny Birds eat fruit, Invades forest Fell and apply (Verbenaceae) stem and serrated thereby spreading the margins, herbicide. leaf structure. seeds in their watercourses, road droppings. verges and plantations.

28 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Acacia mernsii Black Wattle Sprouting tree with Seeds spread down Invades Fell and treat (Fabaceae) hard-coated, soil- water courses and shrublands, stumps with stored seeds. through the transport grasslands and herbicide. of soil. savannahs, Follow-up especially along removal of water courses. seedlings essential; hand pulling or foliar spray may be used. Bio-control to reduce seed output.

Litsea glutinosa Indian Laurel Sprouting tree with Seeds spread down Invades Fell and treat (Lauraceae) lemon-like smelling water courses and shrublands, stumps with leaves. Seedlings are through the transport grasslands and herbicide. extremely difficult to of soil. savannahs, Follow-up pull out. especially along removal of water courses. seedlings essential; hand pulling or foliar spray may be used.

29 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

4.4 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL METHODS

Best practice measures

1. Cut plants as low to ground as possible. 2. All alien plants must be removed carefully and exposed soil should be covered with cut vegetation or leaf litter that is free of weed seeds to ensure that regrowth will not occur. 3. Press any loosened soil down carefully and firmly and mulch with plant material where possible. 4. All alien seeds, fruit bulbs, tubers and stems must be collected and placed in a sealable container/plastic bag for disposal at a landfill site. 5. The roots system of mature trees including alien invasive play an important role in stabilising soil and therefore the up-rooting of large mature specimen of trees is not advocated. It is better to fell the trees and paint the stump with the relevant herbicides.

4.4.1 Manual Control Methods Table 4.4.1-1. Manual methods for invasive alien plant control

Method Description

Hand Pull  Hand pulling is most effective with small (30cm), immature or shallow rooted plants.

 Shake the excess sandy material from the plant, this makes the plant easier to stockpile and lighter to transport.

 However, make sure there is no seed on the plant first to eliminate the spread of seed while shaking.

Chopping/cutting/slashing  This method is most effective for plants in the immature stage, or for plants that have relatively woody stems/ trunks.

 This is an effective method for non-re-sprouters or in the case of re-sprouts (coppicing) it must be done in conjunction with chemical treatment of the cut stumps.

Note

 Cut/slash the stem of the plant as near as possible to ground level.

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

 Paint re-sprouting plants (i.e. Black Wattle, Lantana) with an appropriate herbicide immediately after they have been cut.

 Stockpile removed material into piles as prescribed.

Felling  De-branch trees and where possible remove all material.

 Where possible large trees that are to be felled such that they fall uphill.

 Cut the tree down as low as possible to the ground.

 Apply herbicide immediately (no later than 30mins) to the cambium layer.

 Ensure all the cuts in the cambium layer are treated.

Ring Barking  Remove bark in a 30-40cm centimetre band and leave the tree to die

 Can be used with or without chemicals but is more successful when herbicide is used

4.4.2 Chemical Control

Table 4.4.2-1. Chemical methods for invasive alien plant control

Method Description

Cut and Spray  Slashing the stem to ankle height or lower and applying herbicide on the remaining exposed part of the plant.

Note

 Cut/slash the stem of the plant as near as 31 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

possible to ground level.

 Stockpile removed material into piles as prescribed.

Foliar Spaying  Using approved equipment/sprayers this method can be very useful for seedlings and low shrub vegetation.

Note

 One needs to be very careful when applying this method as there is a high risk of drift and adverse impacts on human and environmental health.

Stem Injection  This method involves using approved equipment to inject herbicide into the stem of the plant and allow the herbicide to travel within the plant to kill it.

4.4.3 Biological Control

Biological Control involves the release of a biological control agent in the form of a pest that will feed or utilize the target species and thus reducing its spread.

To obtain biocontrol agents, provincial representatives of the Working for Water Programme or the Directorate: Land Use and Soil Management (LUSM), Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) can be contacted.

32 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

5. STUDY FINDINGS: FAUNA

The site visits allowed an understanding of the remaining habitats on the site. In addition, literature surveys were undertaken of mammals, avifauna, herpetofauna and invertebrates occurring and likely to occur in the area. The findings from these studies have been used to identify the number of species likely to occur in the general area and species of conservation concern that are likely to be found on the site.

5.1 Mammals According to the Mammal Atlas Project of the Animal Demography Unit at the University of Cape Town, a single, exotic species (Rattus norvegicus) was recorded for QDGS 3030BA, while 31 species (from 167 returns) were recorded from 3030BB with the following of potential concern.

Table 5.1-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings( Mammal Atlas Project)

Species Common name Red Listing Records (167) Philantomba monticola Blue Duiker Vulnerable 5 Otomops martiensseni Large-eared Giant Mastiff Bat Vulnerable 11 Grammomys dolichurus Common Grammomys Data Deficient 1 Lemniscomys rosalia Single-Striped Lemniscomys Data Deficient 1 Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta's Pipistrelle Near Threatened 4 Kerivoula argentata Damara Woolly Bat Endangered 2 Miniopterus fraterculus Lesser Long-fingered Bat Near Threatened 3 Miniopterus schreibersii Schreibers's Long-fingered Bat Near Threatened 2 Myotis welwitschii Welwitsch's Myotis Near Threatened 3

5.1.1 Threatened species Six of the nine species of significance are bats which are very unlikely to be impacted upon by the proposed activity provided that potential roosts are not removed during construction. The two rodent species are listed as Data Deficient. These species may be displaced during construction, but could return thereafter. Blue duiker tend to inhabit forested areas which will be unaffected by the proposed activity.

5.2 Birds There are no IBA, CWAC or CAR impacts for the proposed development.

33 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

The South African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP1) lists a total of 230 bird species for QDGS 3030BA, 12 of which have been recorded as breeding in the area. A low card return rate of 28 was reported for the QDGS.

For the QDGS 3030BB, 316 species with 124 breeding in the area were recorded from 521 card returns making the area much better sampled than the previous QDGS. However, many of the species reported from the QDGS at large are very unlikely to occur in the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Table 5.2-1. IUCN Red Listed birds recorded in 3030BA (SABAP1)

Species Red Listing Records (28 cards) Secretarybird NT 1 Martial Eagle VU 1 African Crowned (Crowned) Eagle NT 2 Lanner Falcon NT 7 Grey Crowned- (Crowned) Crane VU 12 Southern Ground-Hornbill VU 1 Spotted (Natal) Ground-Thrush EN 2 Broad-tailed Warbler NT 2

Table 5.2-2. IUCN Red Listed birds recorded in 3030BB (SABAP1)

Species Red Listing Records (521 cards) Black-browed Albatross EN 1 Great White Pelican NT 10 Pink-backed Pelican VU 23 Cape Gannet VU 17 Cape Cormorant NT 18 Black Stork NT 1 Yellow-billed Stork NT 15 Greater Flamingo NT 2 Lesser Flamingo NT 1 Secretarybird NT 1 Martial Eagle VU 1 African Marsh-Harrier VU 2 Lanner Falcon NT 38 Grey Crowned- (Crowned) Crane VU 6 Greater Painted-snipe NT 1 Caspian Tern NT 8 Half-collared Kingfisher NT 10 Mangrove Kingfisher VU 1 Southern Ground-Hornbill VU 1 African Broadbill NT 1 Spotted (Natal) Ground-Thrush EN 6 Black-throated Wattle-eye NT 1 Magpie (Pied) Mannikin NT 1

34 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

5.2.1 Threatened species The possibility exists that certain Red Listed birds may be encountered in the area of the proposed development, but the majority of these have been reported from a single sighting, making this unlikely. Those and others that have a high likelihood of occurring, such as the Lanner Falcon, Grey Crowned Crane and Yellow-billed Stork, would presumably avoid the area due to disturbance during construction, but return post-construction.

5.3 Reptiles Generating a fully inclusive list of reptiles requires intensive surveys over several years as a result of the secretive and cryptic nature of many of these organisms. The majority of reptiles are sensitive to severe habitat alteration and fragmentation. However, the relatively disturbed nature of much of the habitat in the study area might indicate a poor possibility of a diverse reptilian population. The rocky areas indicated below have the highest likelihood of reptiles, especially Lacertian reptiles and extra care should be taken with construction activities in these areas (circled in red, below).

Figure 17: Sensitive areas for reptiles

The Animal Demography Unit at the University of Cape Town Reptile Atlas Project lists 8 terrestrial reptiles for the QDGS 3030BA. Of these, two are Atlas Region Endemics, namely the South African Slug-eater (Least Concern) and Dusky-bellied Water Snake (Least Concern). A single Red Listed species, Dendroaspis angusticeps (Green Mamba), was reported.

The QDGS 3030BB returned the following:  Forty-three species from 162 reports including 10 Atlas Region Endemics and the following Red Listed species.

35 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Table 5.3-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings( Reptile Atlas Project)

Species Common name Red Listing Records (162) Chamaesaura macrolepis Large-scaled Grass Lizard Near Threatened 1 Dendroaspis angusticeps Green Mamba Vulnerable 3 Macrelaps microlepidotus Natal Black Snake Near Threatened 1 Scelotes inornatus Durban Dwarf Burrowing Skink Critically Endangered 24

5.3.1 Threatened species The Large-scaled Grass Lizard is reportedly found in grassland, especially rocky, grassy hillsides and in dry, open, sandy grasslands near the coast. Recorded from a single record in 162 returns from the greater QDGS, this species is unlikely to occur in the study area. Nevertheless, since suitable habitat exists, care must be taken, especially when digging trenches for the pipeline, to ensure that the species is not injured or does not fall into the trenches and becomes trapped.

The green Mamba is predominantly an arboreal species and is, therefore, unlikely to affected by the proposed activity due to an absence of suitable habitat.

The Natal Black Snake is a semi-fossorial species with an affinity for forests, where it tends to frequent moist leaf litter and humic soil. In coastal bush, it is associated with damp localities near water. It is considered that no suitable habitat occurs for this species in the vicinity of the proposed development.

The Durban Dwarf Burrowing Skink is reportedly found in Berea Red Sand associated with coastal forest below 70m and within 4km of the ocean. The area of the proposed activity is outside of this species’ known distribution.

5.4 Amphibians The Animal Demography Unit’s Frog Atlas has records of six species listed for the QDGS 3030BA and all species are Listed as of Least Concern

The QDGS 3030BB has records for 19 species of which three are Red Listed as indicated below.

Table 5.4-1. Expected Mammal Species for the project area, sensitivity and number of recordings(Amphibian Atlas Project)

Species Common name Red Listing Records (59) Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Leaf-folding Frog Vulnerable 3 Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill's Reed Frog Endangered 3 Natalobatrachus bonebergi Kloof Frog Endangered 1

36 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

5.4.1 Threatened species The Natal Leaf-folding Frog inhabits Coastal Bushveld-Grassland and Moist Upland Grassland and breeds in standing water (including dams and ponds), sedge beds and grassy wetlands.

Pickersgill’s Reed Frog is a habitat specialist occurring primarily in Indian Ocean Coastal Belt Vegetation where it requires perennial wetlands comprised of very dense reed beds at low altitudes.

The Kloof Frog lives in coastal forests and gallery forests, where it is usually found along streams, and does not survive in open areas.

It is considered that no suitable habitat is likely to occur for the Kloof Frog within the footprint of the proposed development. However, suitable habitat exists for the remaining two species either on site or close by and the areas indicated as WTW1 and WTW2 would presumably provide suitable habitat in transit between breeding sites if they do not contain breeding sites themselves. For this reason they are considered sensitive habitats in the context of the proposed activity.

5.5 Invertebrates The Animal Demography Unit’s invertebrate Atlases return the following for QDGS 3030BA:  No Red Listed Neuroptera, Megaloptera, scorpions and spiders.  Odonata: 12 species from 20 records, no listings.  Lepidoptera: 86 species from 223 records, nine of which are Atlas Region Endemics, but none Red Listed.

For the QDGS 3030BB, the Atlases return the following:  No Red Listed Neuroptera, Megaloptera, scorpions or spiders.  Odonata: 55 species from 1020 records, no listings.  Lepidoptera: 273 species from 5276 records, 26 of which are Atlas Region Endemics, with a single Red Listed species, Durbania amakosa flavida (Amakoza Rocksitter).

5.5.1 Threatened species The Amakoza Rocksitter is Red Listed as Endangered. It is considered that no suitable habitat occurs for the above-mentioned Red Listed species in the vicinity of the proposed development.

37 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY

6.1 Direct mortality of faunal species during construction phase

6.1.1 Description of impact

Animal species may be impacted upon directly through mortality of individuals during site preparation and site clearing for the proposed pipeline and related infrastructure.

6.1.2 Assessment of impact

Birds, large snakes and medium-sized mammals would be able to flee at the start of construction. However, small mammals (eg. rodents and insectivores) and much of the herpetofauna may hide in leaf litter, under rocks or underground and might be directly impacted by site clearing and excavations. Although construction activities may lead to direct mortality of individuals that cannot safely flee the construction site, with the exception of the WTW sites, no species of Conservation Significance are expected to be impacted by the construction activities and there would thus, not be a permanent impact on any population/species as a whole. It is, therefore, concluded that the impact of direct mortality on faunal species would be of local importance, of short duration and of low intensity. The impact is, therefore, rated to be of overall low significance. The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that the potential impact remains of very low significance.

6.1.3 Mitigation objectives and measures

To avoid and minimise direct mortality of species during the construction phase, every effort should be made to save and relocate any animal encountered during site preparation that cannot flee of its own accord. These animals should be relocated to a suitable area immediately outside the proposed footprint, but under no circumstance to an area further away. No formal searches would be required before site preparation starts as these would in all likelihood prove ineffective. The contractor must ensure that no faunal species are disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed during the construction phase. Conservation-orientated clauses should be built into contracts for construction personnel, complete with penalty clauses for non-compliance. Trenches should only be opened as needed to prevent excessive open trench ahead of the pipe laying process. All trenches must have at least one sloping side to allow animals to escape and must be checked on a daily basis for animals

38 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report which may have fallen in. Rehabilitation of areas where vegetation was disturbed during the construction phase should be undertaken to ensure that habitats for animals are restored.

6.2 Loss and alteration of habitats (Vegetation Disturbance)

6.2.1 Description of impact Faunal habitats will be lost through the clearing of vegetation as well as alteration of habitat.

6.2.2 Assessment of impact As part of the construction phase, vegetation within the footprint would be severely disturbed and habitat options for faunal species would be destroyed within the immediate area of the development. In the area of the pipeline, this habitat can be restored significantly during rehabilitation. However, a portion of the site where the pump station, reservoir and water treatment works are proposed would be permanently altered without the potential for significant rehabilitation. The biodiversity of the faunal component of those habitats would be significantly diminished. The impact of habitat loss would be of significant local extent, long term and of high intensity.

6.2.3 Mitigation objectives and measures The objective would be to minimise the loss of habitat as far as possible and to contain construction- related activities. Restricting the construction activities to the smallest practical/functional footprint would be the only possible mitigation in this case.

6.3 Local faunal sensitivities

6.3.1 Description of impact

The areas designated as WTW1 and WTW2 constitute sensitive areas in the context of the proposed development, especially from an amphibian perspective.

6.3.2 Assessment of impact

The site designated as WTW1 is an extensive hygrophilous grassland with a stream running through it. Low-lying areas may well be inundated at times and the area indicated in red (below) provides a valuable link to an off-site amphibian breeding area (a number of species were heard calling). That

39 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report area is indicated in yellow (below). Although the WTW1 site does not fall within the D’MOSS, its loss would impact on the remaining D’MOSS habitat and its use for siting the proposed water treatment works is questionable.

6.3.3 Mitigation objectives and measures

It would be prudent to re-route the gravity main indicated in green (below) so as to avoid impacting on the amphibian breeding habitat.

Figure 18: Sensitive amphibian habitat at site WTW1

WTW2 has a number of small water courses associated with it and hygrophilous grassland which may well be inundated in years of high rainfall. The area falls within the D’MOSS and should be avoided.

Rocky areas as indicated in red (below) provide valuable habitat for herpetofauna and care should be exercised during construction within these areas to minimize disturbance and habitat loss.

40 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Figure 19: Sensitive habitat along the proposed pipeline routes

Impacts of the environment on the proposed activity

Figure 20: Contours associated with the proposed development site

41 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

As can be seen from the above, the area of the proposed development is hilly and this will result in the potential for soil erosion during and as a result of construction if preventative and corrective measures are not taken. Care should be taken to keep soils stabilized when removing vegetation during construction and as part of alien plant eradication. Also, care should be taken to prevent the contamination of soil (and ultimately ground water) from accidental fuel and oil spills from earth- moving and construction equipment and vehicles.

Furthermore, below is an assessment of the significance of impacts associated with the development and the receiving environment. The risk assessment for the activity is done using a significance scoring matrix that considers; extent, aspects, impacts, irreversibility and the severity and probability of the risks related to the activity in accordance with the guideline. The significance scores can be understood by the use of Table 6.3.3-1. While Table 6.3.3-2 to 6.3.3-7 below explain the criteria used to determine Project the various aspects of the impacts.

Table 6.3.3-1. Significance scores related to negative environmental impacts

Score Significance scoring of negative impact / effect

Very High- The impact is total / consuming / eliminating - In the case of adverse impacts, there is no possible mitigation that could offset the impact, or mitigation is difficult, expensive, time-consuming or some combination of these. Mitigation may not be possible >35 / practical. Critically important natural asset lost.

High- The impact is profound - In the case of adverse impacts, there are few opportunities for mitigation that could offset the impact, or mitigation has a limited effect on the impact. Social, cultural and economic activities of communities are disrupted to 26 - such an extent that their operation is severely impeded. Mitigation may not be possible / 34 practical. Threatened natural asset lost.

Medium to high- The impact is considerable / substantial - The impact is of great importance. Failure to mitigate with the objective of reducing the impact to acceptable 21 – levels could render the entire project option or entire project proposal unacceptable. 25 Mitigation is therefore essential. At-risk natural asset lost.

Medium- The impact is material / important to investigate - The impact is of importance and is therefore considered to have a substantial impact. Mitigation is required to reduce 8 – 20 the negative impacts and such impacts need to be evaluated carefully.

Medium to low- The impact is marginal / slight / minor - The impact is of little importance, but may require limited mitigation; or it may be rendered acceptable in light 5 – 7 of proposed mitigation.

Low- The impact is unimportant / inconsequential / indiscernible; or it may be rendered 0 – 4 acceptable in light of proposed mitigation.

42 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Table 6.3.3-2. Spatial Extent of impact

Spatial extent

7 International - The impacted area extends beyond national boundaries

6 National - The impacted area extends beyond provincial boundaries

Ecosystem - The impact could affect areas essentially linked to the property in terms 5 of significantly impacting ecosystem functioning

Regional - The impact could affect a subset of the ecosystem, extending over more 4 than one landscape

Landscape - The impact could affect all areas generally visible to the naked eye, as well as those areas essentially linked to the property in terms of ecosystem 3 functioning

Site related - The impacted area extends further than the actual physical disturbance footprint; the impact could affect the whole, or a measurable portion of a number of properties, forming part of the development area or within close 2 proximity of the development property

Local - The impacted area extends only as far as the activity e.g. a footprint; the loss is considered inconsequential in terms of the spatial context of the relevant 1 environmental aspect

Table 6.3.3-3. Severity, Intensity and Magnitude of impact

Severity / Intensity / Magnitude

Total / consuming / eliminating - Function or process of the affected environment is altered to the extent that it is permanently changed in character / intrinsic value. 7 Certainty of presence of conservation-important flora.

Profound / considerable / substantial - Function or process of the affected environment 6 is altered to the extent where it is permanently modified to a sub-optimal state.

Material / important - Function or process of the affected environment is altered to the extent where some components of a natural system are permanently modified to a sub- 5 optimal state.

4 Discernible / noticeable - The affected environment is altered, but overall function and process continue, albeit in a modified way. Uncertainty of presence of conservation-

43 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

important flora.

Marginal / slight / minor - The affected environment is altered, but natural function and 3 process continue.

Unimportant / inconsequential / indiscernible - The impact alters the affected environment in such a way that the natural processes or functions are negligibly 2 affected.

1 No effect. Certainty that conservation-important flora are not present.

Table 6.3.3-4. Duration of impact

Duration

Long-term – Permanent. Beyond decommissioning and cannot be negated on 7 decommissioning. More than 15 years.

3 Medium term – Lifespan of the project. Reversible over time. 5 to 15 years.

Short-term – Quickly reversible. Less than the project lifespan. The impact will either disappear with mitigation or will be mitigated through natural process in a span shorter 1 than any of the phases. 0 to 5 years.

Table 6.3.3-5. Irreplaceability of lost resource as a result of impact

Irreplaceable loss of resources

Long-term – The loss of a non-renewable / threatened resource which cannot be renewed / recovered with or through natural process, in a time span of over 15 years, or 7 by artificial means.

Long-term – The loss of a non-renewable / threatened resource which cannot be renewed / recovered with or through natural process, in a time span of over 15 years, 5 but can be mitigated by other means.

Loss of an ‘at risk’ resource - one that is not deemed critical for biodiversity targets, planning goals, community welfare, agricultural production, or other criteria, but 4 cumulative effects may render such loss as significant.

Medium term – The resource can be recovered within the lifespan of the project. The resource can be renewed / recovered with mitigation or will be mitigated through 3 natural process in a span between 5 and 15 years.

44 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Loss of an ‘expendable’ resource - one that is not deemed critical for biodiversity 2 targets, planning goals, community welfare, agricultural production, or other criteria.

Short-term – Quickly recoverable. Less than the project lifespan. The resource can be renewed / recovered with mitigation or will be mitigated through natural process in a 1 span shorter than any of the phases, or in a time span of 0 to 5 years.

Table 6.3.3-6. Reversibility of impact

Reversibility / potential for rehabilitation

7 Long-term – The impact / effect will never be returned to its benchmark state.

Medium term – The impact / effect will be returned to its benchmark state through mitigation or natural processes in a span shorter than the lifetime of the project, or in 3 a time span between 5 and 15 years.

Short-term – The impact / effect will be returned to its benchmark state through mitigation or natural processes in a span shorter than any of the phases of the project, 1 or in a time span of 0 to 5 years.

Table 6.3.3-7. Probability that an impact will occur

Probability

1 Absolute certainty

0,9 Near certainty / very high probability

0.7 – 0.8 High probability – to be expected

0.4 - 0.6 Likelihood / normal anticipation – to be anticipated

0,3 Seriously anticipated possibility

0,2 Possibility

0.0 - 0.1 Remote possibility

45 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Table 6.3.3-8. Impact Significance Scoring

Severity / intensity SIGNIFICANCE Spatial extent / magnitude Duration Resource loss Reversibility Probability SCORE

Mitigation Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Impacts Habitat Disturbance (Amphibian Breeding) 3 3 3 2 3 3 5 4 7 7 0,8 0,3 16,8 5,7 Habitat Disturbance (General Terrestrial) 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 0,8 0,5 8,8 4 Biodiversity importance (protected flora) 3 2 4 2 3 1 5 2 3 1 0,8 0,5 14,4 4 Biodiversity importance (protected fauna) 3 2 5 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 0,8 0,3 13,6 2,1 Spread of IAPs 3 1 4 2 3 1 6 3 3 1 1 0,5 19 4 Inadequate Rehabilitation 5 2 7 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 1 0,5 31 12

Medium Medium to low

Overall Impact/Risk 14,08 3,975 46 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

7. Management & Monitoring Table 7-1. Management and Monitoring Plan

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

Sensitive Amphibian Breeding Areas

Locate and verify breeding site GPS Coordinates, Confirmation of site Prior to project commencement Project Manager, Environmental Officer from Specialist

Demarcate and avoid working within 15m of Demarcated area, Education Plan including Prior to project commencement Engineer, Project Manager, Environmental site boundary Amphibian sensitivity Officer

Assess site integrity Confirmation of breeding site integrity Prior to project commencement and Project Manager, Environmental Officer from Specialist annually thereafter.

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

General Terrestrial

Work within a defined servitude (40m or less) No work or disturbance beyond working Throughout project life cycle Engineer, Project Manager, Environmental servitude Officer

Ensure that pollution is avoided No pollution from the construction and Throughout project life cycle Environmental Officer operation of proposed development

47 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Have demarcated areas for workers during Clearly demarcated workers areas Throughout project life cycle Environmental Officer breaks, ablution and equipment storage and repair

Maintain low noise levels Noise levels at acceptable levels, vehicles Throughout project life cycle Environmental Officer fitted with silencing technology

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

Biodiversity importance (protected flora)

Locate and verify GPS Coordinates, Confirmation of site Prior to project commencement and Project Manager, Environmental Officer from Specialist biannually thereafter

Demarcate and avoid boundary Demarcated area, Education Plan including Throughout project life cycle Environmental Officer plant sensitivity

Relocate Plants Permission to demarcate from relevant Prior to project commencement Environmental Officer authority (EKZNW)

48 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

Biodiversity importance (protected fauna)

Locate and verify areas of possible GPS Coordinates, Confirmation of site Prior to project commencement and Project Manager, Environmental Officer occurrence and breeding from Specialist biannually thereafter

Demarcate and avoid boundary Clear demarcations of breeding areas and Throughout project life cycle Environmental Officer high potential areas of occurrence

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

Spread of IAPs

Document alien species found on site List of Invasive alien plants Prior to project commencement and Project Manager, Environmental Officer monthly thereafter.

Alien plant distribution and densities Distribution Maps, Density estimates, GPS Monthly Project Manager coordinates

Document and record alien control measures Record of Clearing Activities Quarterly Project Manager implemented

Review alien control success rate Decline in the abundance of alien plant Annually Project Manager species over time

49 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Document rehabilitation measures Decline in vulnerable bare areas over time Annually Project Manager, Environmental Officer implemented and success achieved in problem areas

Monitor re-vegetated area and the success of Alien plant surveys Biannually. Project Manager, Environmental Officer indigenous species re-establishment and distribution

map. Records of control measures and their success rate.

Mitigation Indicator Timeframe Person Responsible

Rehabilitation

Avoid exposing the area to soil erosion Ensure correct rehabilitation takes place Throughout project life cycle Engineer, Project Manager, Environmental during construction phase (phased Officer rehabilitation planning)

50 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

8. Conclusions Should approval for the proposed development be forthcoming, the presence of Specially Protected species in the general area such as Millettia grandis, Dioscorea cotinifolia (Dioscoreaceae) and Ledebouria ovatifolia (Liliaceae/Hyacinthaceae), and nationally Protected Trees species such as Pittosporum viridiflorum and Sclerocarya caffra will require the developers to apply to the relevant competent authority for permits to move or destroy such species (as appropriate) should they be encountered during construction.

Species encountered within the proposed development footprint include Aloe maculata (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae), Hypoxis hemerocallidea (DECLINING), Kniphofia sp. (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) and Freesia laxa (Iridaceae). These will require a permit from eKZNw to relocate.

For the most part, the proposed development can be executed within acceptable limits of impact on the environment, many of which can be mitigated. The proposed pipeline, pump station and reservoir will be sited in highly transformed habitat and/or secondary habitat and can be supported.

The proposed WTW sites are problematic. WTW1 is a hygrophilous grassland and is a sensitive habitat on the broader environmental context of the area. Any activity in this area would require a WULA and should take into account the possibility that the site may provide breeding and transit opportunities for amphibians of conservation significance. The same can be said of the WTW2 site with the additional restriction of the site being designated as part of the D’MOSS.

Floral and faunal diversity is likely to be highest in the region of 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E and 30°11'18.84"S/30°44'56.82"E as these areas are most natural and undisturbed and contain rock habitats suitable for reptiles in particular.

It is my opinion that there should be no opposition to the proposed development provided that the WTW2 option is not entertained and that an alternative siting for WTW1 is investigated.

51 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

9. References and resources

Acocks, J.P.H. (1988). Veld Types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa, No.57: 1-146. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria.

Barnes, K.N. (ed.) (2000). The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Boon, R. (2010). Pooley’s Trees of Eastern South Africa: A complete guide. Flora and Fauna Publications Trust.

Branch, W.R. (1988). Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Bromilow, C. (2001). Problem Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria South Africa.

Du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. (2009). A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

EKZNW (2010) Terrestrial Systematic Conservation Plan: Minimum Selection Surface (MINSET). Unpublished GIS Coverage [tscp_minset_dist_2010_wll.zip], Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P. O. Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202

Friedmann, Y. and Daly, B. (eds). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: a conservation assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. and Ryan, P.G. (2006). Roberts’ Birds of Southern Africa (viith ed). John Voelcker Bird Book Fund.

Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (1998). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. D.E.A.T., Pretoria.

Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braak, H.H, Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Mucina, L and Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. SANBI, Pretoria.

Passmore, N.I. and Carruthers, V.C. (1995). Frogs of South Africa. A Complete Guide. Wits University Press, Witwatersrand.

52 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017

Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Specialist Ecological Report

Pooley, E. 1998. A field guide to Wild Flowers, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Region. Natal Flora Publications Trust, Durban.

Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi, D.A. and Manyama, P.A. 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Scott-Shaw, C.R and Escott, B.J. (Eds) (2011) KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Pre-Transformation Vegetation Type Map – 2011. Unpublished GIS Coverage [kznveg05v2_1_11_wll.zip], Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P. O. Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202.

Skinner, J.D., and Chimimba, C.T. (2005). The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press

South African National Biodiversity Institute SANBI (2009) Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.

Taylor, P.J. 2007. Impacts of the proposed La Mercy airport and Dube Trade Port on mammals. Durban Natural Science Museum (Unpublished report).

Van Wyk, B.-E. and Smith, G. 2003. Guide to the Aloes of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

53 McDonald & Mboyi, 2017