PROPOSED LAGUNA BAY RESORT AND VISITORS CENTRE JEFFREYS BAY, EASTERN CAPE

SPECIALIST REPORT - ECOLOGICAL

Prepared for:

Berkowitz & Associates 100 William Road Norwood 2192

Prepared by:

Coastal & Environmental Services GRAHAMSTOWN P.O. Box 934 Grahamstown, 6140 046 622 2364 Also in East London www.cesnet.co.za

DECEMBER 2010

This Report should be sited as follows: Coastal & Environmental Services, December 2010: Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre, Jeffrey’s Bay, Eastern Cape, Ecological Assessment, CES, Grahamstown.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This document contains intellectual property and propriety information that is protected by copyright in favour of Coastal & Environmental Services and the specialist consultants. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of Coastal & Environmental Services. This document is prepared exclusively for submission to Berkowitz & Associates, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

THE PROJECT TEAM

Prof Roy Lubke, Botanical Specialist, been involved in the study and research of coastal dune systems in South Africa, specialising in the rehabilitation of dune systems. These studies include availability of plant pathogens and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza in dune systems and on dune plants; plant succession and dynamics of dune systems; the effects of potentially invasive species on dune systems and the restoration of dune systems. Professor Lubke has held CSIR and FRD national programme funded projects in South Africa, and has managed European Union-funded projects on marram grass and the use of indigenous species for dune rehabilitation, in association with colleagues from the Netherlands, the United Kingom and Botswana. He has travelled widely in Europe and North America and visited and consulted on similar projects in the USA and the Netherlands. Roy has published in excess of 50 scientific publications, many of which are in the field of restoration ecology.

Mr Nic Davenport, Environmental consultant, holds a BSc (Env Sci and Zoology), BSc (Hons) and MSc (with distinction) in Environmental Science from Rhodes University. His MSc dealt with valuing the tangible contributions of natural resources to urban households’ livelihoods from the surrounding municipal commonage of three different towns in South Africa. Nic’s experience in the consulting field relates to ecological studies, but also incorporates facilitating sustainable development, public participation and budget management. He also has GIS and mapping experience with the ArcView 3 programme. His interests include natural resource management, ecological studies dealing with indigenous fauna (including avifauna) and flora, as well as environmental economics (valuation) and livelihood studies.

Mr Colin Fordham, Environmental Consultant\Botanical Specialist, completed his BSc in Botany and Biochemistry, as well as a BSc Botany Honours degree, specializing in Environmental Management at NMMU. He conducts vegetation sensitivity assessments, which in turn aid to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts sensitive vegetation. Besides his botanical expertise, Colin has extensive GIS mapping skills. These skills allow for the projection and remote analysis of data, which when coupled with vegetation sensitivity assessment, aids decision making, with regard to any proposed development.

Ms Christelle de Klerk environmental consultant, holds a BSc (Zoology, with distinction), BSc (Hons) and MSc (with distinction) from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Her interest and experience lies in the field of ecology, and she has assisted on various environmental impact assessment studies.

Ms Leigh-Ann de Wet, Environmental Consultant\Botanical Specialist. Leigh-Ann holds a BSc (Botany and Entomology) as well as a BSc (Hons) and MSc in Botany from Rhodes University. She conducts vegetation sensitivity assessments, in turn aid to guide developments and thereby minimising their impacts sensitive vegetation.

Ms Samantha Bodill, Environmental Consultant, holds a BSc in Zoology and Ichthyology as well as a BSc (Hons) in Zoology. She is currently employed as an Environmental Consultant at Coastal and Environmental Services, working and assisting on various environmental projects, of which seven are wind energy projects. Sam also provides general assistance with regard to administration, co-ordination, budget control, public participation, proposal writing, report production and field work.

Coastal & Environmental Services iii Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed project entails the development of a Resort and Visitors Centre. Public amenities within the development will include bird-watching hides; a trail consisting of wooden boardwalks along the estuary; a visitor’s centre with tourist information and displays; a restaurant, pub and a swimming pool. For residential visitors, the proposed resort will include accommodation in the form of hotel rooms and apartments, private and secluded chalets and cabins at various scenic sites, spa and gym and private swimming pools. The description of the features is given in detail below.

The impacts of the proposed development will result in four impacts of HIGH significance, and seven impacts of MODERATE significance. All impacts, with mitigation, are reduced to either moderate negative or low negative, (Table 1). The impact of the introduction of alien plant species is a LOW positive with mitigation.

Table 1: A summary of the impacts of the proposed development.

Impacts Without mitigation With mitigation Construction Operation No-Go Construction Operation No-Go phase phase phase phase Flora and Vegetation 1: Loss of Coastal thicket HIGH - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A 2: Loss of salt marsh HIGH - N/A LOW - LOW - N/A N/A vegetation 3: Loss of Renosterveld HIGH - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A vegetation 4: Loss of Coastal MODERATE - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A Grassland vegetation 5: Loss of Bushclump MODERATE - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A vegetation 6: Loss of habitat through HIGH - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A removal of vegetation 7: Loss of plant species of MODERATE - N/A LOW - LOW - N/A N/A special concern 8: Introduction of alien plant MODERATE - HIGH - MODERATE – LOW LOW - MODERATE + species + Fauna 4: Loss of faunal biodiversity MODERATE - N/A MODERATE - MODERATE - N/A N/A 5: Loss of species of special MODERATE - N/A LOW - LOW - N/A N/A concern Disturbance of fauna caused MODERATE - N/A LOW - MODERATE - N/A N/A by removal of vegetation

Overall, this report found that the proposed development of the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitor Centre should not pose any significant threat to the surrounding ecological environment if all the mitigation measures and recommendations are undertaken. On the contrary, if the development goes ahead with mitigatory measures put in place, there should be some moderate positive impacts on the surrounding biological environment. These would include the protection of the indigenous vegetation, particularly the thicket and the saltmarsh, protection of animal habitats and linkages with surrounding ecological corridors.

Coastal & Environmental Services iv Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Limitations and assumptions ...... 2 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 2.1. Holiday resort of 200 units ...... 3 2.2. Reception and Visitor’s Centre Building ...... 3 2.3. Paved Parking and Manoeuvring Area ...... 3 2.4. Spatial form ...... 3 2.5. Style & Building Materials ...... 4 3. METHODOLOGY USED FOR ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS ...... 7 3.1. Limitations of this Methodology ...... 7 3.1.1. Value Judgements ...... 7 3.1.2. Cumulative Impacts ...... 7 3.1.3. Seasonality ...... 8 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 10 4.1. The project site ...... 10 4.2. The natural environment ...... 11 4.3. Physical description of the site ...... 11 4.4. Climate ...... 12 4.5. Geology and geomorphology ...... 12 4.6. Soils ...... 12 4.7. Hydrogeology ...... 13 5. FLORA & VEGETATION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 14 5.1. Introduction ...... 14 5.2. An Historical Account of Vegetation Studies of the Site ...... 14 5.2.1. Early Accounts and more recent studies ...... 14 5.2.2. The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystems Project (STEP) ...... 15 5.3. Methodology ...... 15 5.4. Classification and description of the vegetation ...... 18 5.4.1. Saltmarsh ...... 20 5.4.2. Grassland ...... 20 5.4.3. Thicket ...... 21 5.4.4. Renosterveld ...... 22 5.4.5. Bushclumps ...... 22 5.5. Flora ...... 23 5.6. Species of Special Concern ...... 23 5.6.1. Indigenous plants ...... 23 5.6.2. Alien invasive plant species ...... 23 5.7. Sensitivity analysis ...... 23 5.7.1. Methodology ...... 23 5.7.2. Results ...... 26 6. FAUNA OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 30 6.1. Introduction ...... 30 6.2. Method Statement ...... 30 6.3. Fauna ...... 30 6.3.1. Terrestrial invertebrates ...... 31 6.3.2. Aquatic macro-invertebrates ...... 31 6.3.3. Fish ...... 31 6.3.4. Amphibians ...... 32 6.3.5. Reptiles ...... 33 6.3.6. Birds ...... 34 6.3.7. Mammals ...... 36 7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 37

Coastal & Environmental Services v Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

7.1. Construction Phase Impacts ...... 37 7.1.1. Flora and Vegetation ...... 37 7.2. Operational Phase Impacts...... 47 7.2.1. Flora and Vegetation ...... 47 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 48 8.1. General Conclusions ...... 48 8.2. Conclusions applying to the construction phase ...... 48 8.3. Conclusions applying to the operational phase ...... 48 8.4. Recommendations ...... 48 9. REFERENCES ...... 50 10. APPENDICES ...... 52 APPENDIX 1: Plant species present on the site ...... 52 APPENDIX 2: List of fish species in the adjacent estuary ...... 59 APPENDIX 3: Reptile species which may be present on site ...... 60 APPENDIX 4: Bird species which may be present on site ...... 62 APPENDIX 5: Mammal species which may be present on site ...... 72

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Plan of the Visitor’s Centre for the proposed Laguna Bay Resort ...... 4 Figure 2-2: Spatial plan of the development on the Remainder of Portion 6 of the farm Kabeljouws River No. 328, Jeffreys Bay...... 5 Figure 2-3: Model of the proposed development. a. Oblique view from the south showing the position of the Visitor’s Centre, the extent of the Holiday Resort and the Bird Watching Hides along the estuarine shore. b. Vertical view of the model showing the positioning of the units amongst the natural vegetation...... 6 Figure 4-1: The proposed location for the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre ...... 10 Figure 4-2: The approximate location of the proposed site to the East of the Kabeljouws River Estuary. Also indicated are the high tide water mark (approximately 500m from the site) and the sand bar...... 11 Figure 5-1: Map of the study site, showing the natural features of the study area and indicating sampling sites, numbered 1 to 30...... 17 Figure 5-2: Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) scatter diagram of the 20 relevés and the TWINSPAN classification of the plant communities superimposed upon it...... 19 Figure 5-3: Extensive Saltmarsh with the estuary in the background. A. Extensive area of Sarcocornia spp., low growing succulent herbs and grasses in the northern areas. B. Narrow band of saltmarsh with tall Juncus krausii and also submerged aquatics and algae in the southern parts of the site...... 20 Figure 5-4 : A & B. Mixed grassland on the higher sites. C. Almost a pure stand of Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum). D. Saltmarsh leading into Coastal Buffalo Grassland (Stenotapharum secundatum) and scattered Bushclumps...... 21 Figure 5-5 : A. Dense Thicket along the margin of the estuary, with conspicuous tall succulent Euphorbia triangularis as dominant with a diversity of shrubs in the left. B. Thicket in a gulley on the left and in the distance with Renosterveld in the foreground and on left...... 22 Figure 5-6: A. Renosterveld with bushclumps and invasive rooikrans (Acacia cyclops) in the background. B. Grassveld invaded by thicket forming the Bushclump vegetation type...... 22 Figure 5-7: Ecological Sensitivity map of the study site...... 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Ranking of Evaluation Criteria ...... 8 Table 3-2: Ranking matrix to provide an Environmental Significance ...... 9 Table 5-1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the study area ...... 25 Table 5-2: Summary of sensitivity ratings for the plant communities identified on the site...... 26 Table 6-1: List of amphibians of which are likely to occur within the proposed development area (Bickerton and Pierce, 1988). SSC are differentiated with a * ...... 32 Table 6-2: List of bird SSC which may utilise the proposed development area (Roberts 2007)...... 35 Table 6-3: List of mammal SSC which may be found within the proposed development area ...... 36

Coastal & Environmental Services vi Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

Berkowitz and Associates intend to develop the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre on a remainder of Portion 6 of the Farm Kabeljouws River No. 328 in Jeffreys Bay, Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

Due to the history of opposition to the proposed project a pre-feasibility report was prepared by CES, upon the request of the proponent, to determine the opportunities and constraints presented by the biophysical and social environments, and to assist the proponent in selecting the most suitable development within the study area.

The following Terms of Reference (TOR) were drawn up in the Scoping Report, which will be addressed in this report:

The overall aim of the Ecological and Rehabilitation Assessment is to assess the key ecological aspects (flora, vegetation and fauna) and issues raised with respect to the proposed development site. The specific Terms of Reference for this study includes the following tasks:

1. This study must review the Feasibility Report and determine the key biophysical and ecological issues that will need to be addressed in the study. 2. The study must review current literature on biodiversity with reference to the study area. Existing data from various qualitative and quantitative sources, such as STEP, should be collected. This data should be used to provide baseline information on the following: a. Vegetation that would have been found in the area prior to “farming“ b. Existing vegetation in the study area c. The conservation importance of the various vegetation types d. Rehabilitation strategies to be adopted 3. The study must provide a broad vegetation map of the study area that details the likely historical vegetation distribution i.e. before the disturbance due to “agriculture” and using the site as a dumping ground. 4. The study must undertake field surveys to determine the extent and nature of vegetation in the study area. This will include data collection of the following: a. Location b. Extent (area) of natural vegetation c. Vegetation/Plant Community type d. Specific species found e. Species of Special Concern or those species that require conservation 5. The study must provide an accurate and detailed vegetation map based on the surveys. 6. The study must define areas or vegetation communities that are sensitive and require conservation. These will be defined as No-Go areas. Buffer zones between the development and these areas must be proposed. 7. The study must use site observations or other evidence such as tracks, scats, etc to determine the use of the site by all invertebrate and vertebrate fana. 8. The study will review available animal species lists and determine Species of Special Concern. The study will also need to determine the following: a. The presence of animal species in the study area b. The conservation importance of animal species c. Barriers to migration due to the transformed nature of the site. 9. The study must determine areas of high sensitivity with regard to animals and animal habitats in the study area. Attention must be paid to the inter-relationships between the estuarine and terrestrial habitats as utilised by the various animal species. The high sensitive areas and paths use by animals, etc will be defined as No-Go areas. Buffer zones between the development and these areas must be proposed.

Coastal & Environmental Services 1 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

10. The study must review the proposed layout of the development and compare it to the sensitivity maps. Any conflicts or areas that may be impacted will need to be noted and assessed. Suggestions on the realignment of the units, hides and pathways should be made and a liaison should be made with the Visitor Centre Specialist in this regard. Any predictions will need to include the confidence in the impacts occurring, and the significance of these impacts occurring on the local flora and fauna. 11. The significance of the potential impacts and benefits must be assessed using the methodology prescribed by CES. 12. The study must provide recommendations and mitigation measures that will reduce negative impacts on the local ecology and to optimise conservation benefits. In addition to the above, the Ecological and Rehabilitation assessment must produce a practical vegetation rehabilitation programme that the development would need to implement should it receive environmental authorisation. In this regard, the study must ensure the following:

13. The study must review literature on vegetation rehabilitation strategies that may be adopted for this site. 14. The study must define conservation targets for each vegetation community found in the study area. 15. The study will need to review the results of the above tasks and define areas that require: a. Protection and conservation (No-Go areas) along with buffer zones between the development and the conservation area b. Full restoration to indigenous vegetation c. Partial rehabilitation to indigenous vegetation d. Landscaping to blend into the local environment. e. Recreation and education features, such as visitor centres, trails, picnic sites, etc. 16. These areas must be defined on an accurate and detailed map that may be overlaid with the vegetation maps and the development layout. 17. The study must provide a rehabilitation implementation plan, landscaping plan and eco- recreation plan for optimal use of the region.

1.1. Limitations and assumptions

In a study such as this it is not possible to carry out sampling of an extended period of time. In order to obtain a full floristic or faunal record it would be better to sample the area frequently throughout the year to record plants as they come into flower and animals during seasons of activity. However, this limitation may be partially offset by using data from other workers who used both herbarium (or museum) records and sampling at different times of the year.

Coastal & Environmental Services 2 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project entails the development of a Resort and Visitors Centre. Public amenities within the development will include bird-watching hides; a trail consisting of wooden boardwalks along the estuary; a visitor’s centre with tourist information and displays; a restaurant, pub and a swimming pool. For residential visitors, the proposed resort will include accommodation in the form of hotel rooms and apartments, private and secluded chalets and cabins at various scenic sites, spa and gym and private swimming pools. The description of the features is given in detail below.

2.1. Holiday resort of 200 units

200x family units each 100 sqm in size and comprising 2x bedrooms, 2x bathrooms, kitchen/ dining area, living room, open air roofed terrace/patio.

The Units are grouped into 20x separate buildings -Residences of 1 and 2 storeys.

The Residences, like large stately houses, are grouped around recreation facilities/ landscaped and planted with indigenous trees and shrubs/ paved areas around 7x pools. The biggest pool has a spa/ gym facility adjacent.

2.2. Reception and Visitor’s Centre Building

Conveniently located at the entrance to the site is the visitor’s centre which is a welcoming centre to all visitors to Jeffrey’s bay or the region who have need of the information that will be contained in the centre. The building is described briefly as follows: • ground floor level: reception/ restaurant/kitchen; • first floor level: visitors centre of displays, etc/seminar room/pub; • basement level: stores in a triple storey building (but basement is below ground, with site levels allowing delivery vehicle access into stores/delivery area). Entrance is from MR389, and from this view-point it is effectively a two storey building.

2.3. Paved Parking and Manoeuvring Area

250 x parking bays are provided. 1x bay per unit and 50x visitors bays. The paved parking areas are kept close to MR389 (Da Gama Drive) and some of the parking bays are placed within 8.0m building line.

2.4. Spatial form

Site constraints were a large determinant of the siting and placement of the various buildings: flood lines, existing thicket vegetation, stream courses, adjoining suburb (Kabeljous-on–Sea) and two roads (R102, MR 389). The main useable body of the site slopes gently down towards the east and coincides with views over estuary, bay and distant mountains. An earlier proposal for a long curved building with walkways/ entrances on Da Gama Drive side and terraces on the east, facing the view, led to a building that was visually too dominant and completely different to existing building strategies in the vicinity.

The units were now assembled into buildings resembling large houses (Residences) and these were distributed in a carefully controlled pattern, in which the interplay of units, recreational facilities and vegetation was balanced.

Coastal & Environmental Services 3 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

The overall effect of the developed part of the site closely resembles a beautiful and extensively planted suburban residential area.

The areas between the Residences were carefully considered, because not all units’ terraces have views out. Some face into the areas between the buildings. Therefore these areas have been designed as visually appealing areas of recreation, nature and pools with extensive planting of indigenous trees, shrubs and grasses between pools, natural water features, walkways and other recreation facilities such as a gym and spa.

2.5. Style & Building Materials

A conservative traditional building style has been chosen (Figure 2-1). The buildings have elements of Settler architectural elements, which is appropriate to the Eastern Cape. Roofs will be natural slate tiles, which have been extensively used in older areas of Port Elizabeth. These tiles have the interesting property of growing a layer of moss on their surface, with age. Where possible natural materials will be used, such as; stone for plinths, retaining walls; wood for pergolas and screens.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Plan of the Visitor’s Centre for the proposed Laguna Bay Resort

Coastal & Environmental Services 4 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

Coastal & Environmental Services 5 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Spatial plan of the development on the Remainder of Portion 6 of the farm Kabeljouws River No. 328, Jeffreys Bay.

Coastal & Environmental Services 6 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Holiday Resort

of 200 units

Visitor’s Bird watching Centre Hides

a b

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-3: Model of the proposed development. a. Oblique view from the south showing the position of the Visitor’s Centre, the extent of the Holiday Resort and the Bird Watching Hides along the estuarine shore. b. Vertical view of the model showing the positioning of the units amongst the natural vegetation.

Coastal & Environmental Services 7 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

3. METHODOLOGY USED FOR ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS

To ensure a balanced and fair means of assessing the significance of potential impact as standardised rating scale will be adopted in the EIA phase. This rating scale will also be used to allow the direct comparison of specialist studies.

This rating scale adopts four key factors that are generally recommended as best practice around the world that include:

1. Temporal Scale: This scale defines the duration of any given impact over time. This may extend from the short-term (less than 5 years or the construction phase) to permanent. Generally the longer the impact occurs the more significance it is.

2. Spatial Scale: This scale defines the spatial extent of any given impact. This may extend from the local area to an impact that crosses international boundaries. The wider the impact extends the more significant it is considered.

3. Severity/Benefits Scale: This scale defines how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be. This negative/positive scale is critical in determining the overall significance of any impacts.

The Severity/Benefits Scale is used to assess the potential significance of impacts prior to and after mitigation in order to determine the overall effectiveness of any mitigations measures.

4. Likelihood Scale: This scale defines the risk or chance of any given 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.

These four scales are ranked and assigned a score, as presented in Table 3-1 to determine the overall impact significance. The total score is combined and considered against Table 3- 2 to determine the overall impact significance.

3.1. Limitations of this Methodology

The following limitations are inherent in the rating methodology:

3.1.1. Value Judgements

This scale attempts to provide a balance and rigor to assessing the significance of impacts. However, the evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.

3.1.2. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts 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 and the EIA. For this reason it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature.

Coastal & Environmental Services 8 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

3.1.3. 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 and, with management measures being imposed accordingly (i.e. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Ranking of Evaluation Criteria

Temporal scale Score Short term Less than 5 years 1 Medium Between 5 and 20 years 2 term Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human 3 perspective almost permanent. Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that 4 will always be there Spatial Scale Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent 1 Study area The proposed site and its immediate environs 2 Regional District and Provincial level 3 National Country 3 International Internationally 4 * Severity Benefit Slight / Slight Slight impacts on the affected Slightly beneficial to the affected 1 Beneficial system(s) or party(ies). system(s) or party(ies). Moderate / Moderate impacts on the affected An impact of real benefit to the 2 Moderate system(s) or party (ies). affected system(s) or party(ies). Beneficial Severe / Severe impacts on the affected A substantial benefit to the 4 Beneficial system(s) or party(ies). affected system(s) or party(ies). Very Severe Very severe change to the affected A very substantial benefit to the 8 / Very system(s) or party (ies). affected system(s) or party(ies). Beneficial Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight 1

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible 2

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable 3

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur 4

* 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

Coastal & Environmental Services 9 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Ranking matrix to provide an Environmental Significance

Environmental Significance Positive Negative LOW An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable 4-7 4-7 but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent development.

These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment MODERATE An important impact which requires mitigation. The 8-11 8-11 impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which, in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation.

These impacts will usually result in either positive or negative medium to long term effect on the social and/or natural environment. HIGH A serious impact which, if not mitigated, may prevent 12-15 12-15 the implementation of the project.

These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually long term change to the natural and/or social environment and result in severe negative or beneficial effects. VERY HIGH A very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself 16-20 16-20 to prevent the implementation of the project.

The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.

Coastal & Environmental Services 10 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Specialist Ecological Report – December 2010

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This report provides a description of the natural environment which would potentially be impacted by the proposed project. This only includes the biophysical (fauna and flora) conditions of the study area and surrounds.

4.1. The project site

The proposed Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre are to be constructed on a remainder of Portion 6 of the Farm Kabeljouws River No. 328 in Jeffreys Bay, Eastern Cape Province of South Africa (Figure 4-1).

The site lies to the north of the existing residential area of Kabeljouws on sea and is approximately 18.08ha in extent. It is bordered on the north by the R102 trunk road from Humansdorp to Gamtoos, on the west by a main access tar road (MR389) which connects the R102 to the town of Jeffreys Bay, and on the east by the Kabeljouws River Estuary (Figure 4-2). The town of Jeffreys Bay is approximately 5km to the South.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-4: The proposed location for the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre

Coastal & Environmental Services 11 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

R102

Kabeljous Estuary

Portion 6 of the Farm Kabeljouws River No. 328 High tide mark

MR 389 Sand bar

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-5: The approximate location of the proposed site to the East of the Kabeljouws River Estuary. Also indicated are the high tide water mark (approximately 500m from the site) and the sand bar.

4.2. The natural environment

The ecology of the Laguna Bay site has been preliminarily studied as part of the Feasibility Report and the likely location of species of special concern was documented. However, as part of the EIA for the proposed facility it is necessary to look more specifically at the potential impacts to ecological function on the site. This study will involve both a desktop review and a site visit. Appropriate mitigation measures will be developed to minimise any potential negative impacts resulting from either the construction or operation of the resort development.

4.3. Physical description of the site

According to Ford and Bronkhorst (2007), the physical characteristics of the site consist of:

 The Kabeljouws River in the east;  The gentle sloping platform of the floodplain;  A steep and densely vegetated intermittent embankment running in a north-south direction along the edge of the floodplain; and  A raised coastal platform that slopes towards the sea in a west-east direction.

The contours of the site are between 2-20m above mean sea level (amsl) and two valleys cut through the site towards the estuary.

Coastal & Environmental Services 12 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010 4.4. Climate

The climate of the Kouga region is classified as Cfbl, i.e. subtropical (Lubke, 1988) on the Koppen system of climate classification. The climatic regime is dominated by an alternating succession of east-moving cyclones, and high pressure anti-cyclones which ridge in behind the lows.

The climate of the study area is conducive to a range of outdoor activities throughout the year. This is one of the reasons why the Kouga coast is so popular as a holiday destination.

The Eastern Cape (and especially the coastal region) is one of the windiest parts of southern Africa. The wind rose from Cape St Francis lighthouse indicates that the winter winds are predominantly from the west and south-west, with an increase in east or south-east winds in summer. Hot dry ’berg winds’ from the interior occur towards the end of winter.

Rainfall patterns vary both seasonally, annually and spatially. Rainfall occurs generally throughout the year, associated with frontal systems, with maxima in autumn and spring. There is a reduction in the rainfall in a north-easterly direction from Oyster Bay to the Gamtoos valley, and from the mountains to the coast. The months of lowest rainfall are generally January and February.

The study area experiences a warm climate. Frost is uncommon; while hot spells are correlated with persistent berg winds (usually in spring) and with warm summer anticyclones.

4.5. Geology and geomorphology

According to Reddering and Esterhuysen (1984), the geographical structure of the Kabeljouws River catchment consists of an incline with Table Mountain Group quartzite at the core and Bokkeveld Group slate on the flanks, collectively known as the Cape Supergroup.

Table Mountain Group quartzites and sandstones (TMG) are highly folded and jointed, and resistant to weathering. The TMG formation also underlies much of the coastal plain, which is relatively flat and has been incised by a number of river systems.

The Bokkeveld Group consists mostly of shales, and occurs on the undulating coastal plain between the TMG quartzites, and the lowland areas around Humansdorp.

Recent and Quaternary deposits occur as alluvium in the Kromme River valley, and as dune sands along the coast respectively. The remnants of extensive dune-fields occur between Oyster Bay and Cape St Francis, and between Kabeljous River Mouth and the Gamtoos River Mouth. The transverse dunes are aligned at right angles to the prevailing south-west wind direction. Calcrete deposits occur immediately behind the dunes along the Jeffreys Bay coast.

The study area is tectonically quiet, with no active geological hazards (Rust, 1988).

4.6. Soils

The diversity of parent rock material and the complex climate of the study area have combined to produce complex soil patterns. An important aspect of soil distribution lies in the vegetation it can support and its inherent agricultural potential.

The soils derived from the sandstones and quartzites of the Table Mountain Group in the Kouga region are generally more fertile than those of the Western Cape (Cowling, 1984). In addition, the TMG soils on the coastal forelands differ from the mountain soils in that they are mostly colluvial, deeper and somewhat more fertile.

Coastal & Environmental Services 13 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Soils derived from the Bokkeveld shales can be grouped into two classes. The first class comprises the shallow duplex soils of the level interfluves (i.e. between rivers). These soils are relatively youthful and sandier, and are colluvial in origin. They support grasslands, but in regions of steeper relief and where overgrazing has occurred, renosterveld is the predominant vegetation (Cowling, 1984). The second class comprises deeper, well-drained soils of the slopes and bottoms of the river valleys. These soils are fairly fertile, and support thicket vegetation.

Coastal substrates have soil horizons in the order of 0.5m in depth. This has to be taken into account during the planning and implementation of any development project in order to ensure that the integrity of the top soil is maintained so as to facilitate post construction landscaping, as well as to reduce the proliferation of alien vegetation through the colonisation of disturbed areas.

4.7. Hydrogeology

Approximately one-third of the proposed site is below the 3m contour and can be defined as forming part of the Kabeljouws River Estuary – a recognised important and sensitive environmental area as described in detail in “Estuaries of the Cape Part II” (CSIR, 1998).

The Kabeljous quaternary catchment (K90G) lies on the southern coastal platform within the Agulhas bioregion. The Kabeljous River is 33 km in length, and has a catchment area of 238 km² (Jezewski and Roberts, 1986), with the Diep and Gheisriviers being the major tributaries. The NSBA considers the ecological state of the Kabeljous to be “largely natural” (Class B), with a conservation status of “Critically Endangered”.

Bickerton and Pierce (1988) describe the Kabeljous Estuary as a wide, shallow (±0.5 m deep) coastal lagoon. An old cause-way approximately 2.25 km upstream of the sea marks the tidal limit.

The 34 ha lagoon is separated from the sea by a sandbar, which stretches 800 m across the mouth area and is 100 to 200 m wide. The sandbar blocks the river discharge and tidal exchange effectively for most of the year, only being breached during floods.

There are numerous areas of wetland adjacent to the sub-region's rivers and on the coastal platform between Oyster Bay and Papiesfontein. These wetlands are extremely sensitive to disturbances such as agricultural activities and development. Because of their high species diversity, natural water purification and flood retention roles, these systems need to be urgently preserved.

Ground water forms a component of the domestic water supply for the towns of Humansdorp, Jeffreys Bay, St Francis Bay and Cape St Francis. Aquifers are also utilised in the agricultural sector for irrigation of pastures. It is imperative that the carrying capacity of the region's aquifers is better understood, so that they can be used on a sustainable basis.

Coastal & Environmental Services 14 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

5. FLORA & VEGETATION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

5.1. Introduction

The overall aim of the vegetation assessment is to identify opportunities and constraints for development within the study site with respect to flora and vegetation. In addition, the study provides recommendations for protecting the vegetation and sensitive animal habitats in the siting of the proposed development. The vegetation assessment also provides a survey to identify potential and/or significant issues associated with the proposed development.

5.2. An Historical Account of Vegetation Studies of the Site

5.2.1. Early Accounts and more recent studies

Acocks (1953) described this coastal region as Coastal Macchia and South Coast Renosterbosveld with Valley Bushveld along the rivers. As pointed out by Cowling (1982,1984) and others this classification of Acocks is based on agro-ecological units and does not form a sound hierarcial classification of the vegetation. However, the value of Acocks’ work is the amount information he recorded in his site records.

Cowling (1980,1984) carried out a detailed study of the vegetation of the Humansdorp Region into which this site falls. He provided detailed descriptions and analyses of the vegetation. The South Coast Renosterveld of this region is described as Elytopappus rhinocerotis – Metalasia muricata. The shrub that often dominates in this area Odera (Relhania) genistaefolia is listed as one of the additional diagnostic shrub species. He also shows the relationship between the grassland and the Renosterveld pointing out the Sparrman in 1775 noted the demise of the grassland and the invasion of shrubs. Thus much of this region may have an increased invasion of the renosterveld by shrubs due to the early over grazing of the veld two or more centuries ago. Cowling (1980) was one of the first to rightly describe the tropical affinities of the thicket as Subtropical Transitional Thicket, unlike Acocks(1953) who hadrecognised it as a karoo vegetation type. He describes the Succulent Thicket at the mouth of the Kabeljous River with its great diversity of growth forms. The special vegetation that he recognises in this region is the thicket vegetation and to some extent the renosterveld although thios has been modified by shrub invasion through over grazing. The inter-relationships between grassland and renosterveld is explained in his thesis, a factor of note for this study.

Low and Rebelo (1996) mapped and described all vegetation types very simply but in a logical hierarchical form. The thicket was simply regarded as Valley Thicket and the renosterveld as South Coast Renosterveld. Within the latter they discuss the understory of grasses and herbs much of which would be regarded as the characteristic species of the grassland on this site.

Klages (2005) carried out an ecological study of the site in which he looked at the flora and vegetation and also examined the sensitivity of the site to development. He recognised the following vegetation types: Floodplain saltmarsh, Solid Thicket and Euphorbia Forest, Thicket-shrubland mosaic, Renosterveld and Secondary Grassland. He also gives a list of species as we have indicated in our Appendix 1. He recognises the Saltmarsh and Thicket as very sensitive and regions where no development should occur. He also considers the Renosterveld and the Thicket-shubland mosaic (which we called Bushclumps) as areas that are sensitive. However, the Renosterveld is not in pristine condition as we have discussed below and he is not aware of the invasive nature of the invasion of the woody species of Thicket and Renosterveld into grasslands which is the modern view of ecologists and currently the subject of greater investigation (William Bond, pers. comm., Bond et al., 2011).

Coastal & Environmental Services 15 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) distinguished this vegetation as being part of the Albany Thicket Biome along this coastal strip, namely the Albany Coastal Belt. The Albany Coastal Belt is within 15 km of the Indian Ocean coastline from Kei Mouth to the Kromme River. They also distinguish Gamtoos Thicket along the gamtoos and other smaller rivers in this area and provide a list of common species of these thickets. The renosterveld encroaching from the plains into the study area along the Kabeljous River they describe as Humansdorp Shale Renosterveld. Their list of species is of the renosterveld in a pristine condition which is somewhat unlike the small remaining renosterveld of this study site.

5.2.2. The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystems Project (STEP)

The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystems Project (STEP) classed the vegetation of the site as Gamtoos Thicket with no spekboom. The Gamtoos Thicket is easily recognised by the canopy emergence of Cussonia spicata and Euphorbia triangularis and the general absence of Cussonia gamtoosensis, Euphorbia grandidens and other succulent species. Woody trees and shrubs, such as Hippobromus pauciflorus, Olea europaea, Phyllanthus verrucosus, Plumbago auriculata, Rhus lucida, Schotia latifolia and Scutia myrtina are dominant in this unit. This vegetation type is classified as vulnerable according to STEP (Pierce & Mader 2006). The unit is floristically and structurally very similar to the Sundays Thicket, but differs in lacking some of the species typical of the Sundays Thicket, such as Aloe ciliaris. This unit is largely restricted to fairly shallow clayey soils derived from the Gamtoos group of formations (Kaan and Klein River Formations), but the main determining factor is probably the more predictable and higher rainfall zone in which this unit occurs. Here woody species (e.g. Olea europaea) may gain dominance over the woody species typical of the Valley Thicket unit, mostly due to the lack of regular water stress, (Vlok and Euston-Brown 2004). When this thicket unit forms a mosaic with renosterveld it is known as Kabeljous Renoster Thicket (Pierce & Mader 2006).

Kabeljous Renoster Thicket is best developed on loamy soils on open flats, mostly derived from sandstone and shale of the Baviaanskloof Formation but also those of the Ceres subgroup of formations. Characteristic is the abundance of Renosterbos (Elytropappus rhinocerotis), often with the grass component (Themeda triandra) well developed soon after a fire. Soon after a fire Aspalathus nivea also tends to be common here, along with other Fynbos elements (e.g. Erica glandulosa), but they are never dominant. Some species (e.g. Cyrtanthus wellandii, Delosperma patersoniae, and Gasteria nitida var. armstrongii) are endemic to this unit. Some parts of this may be of recent (< 300 years) origin as landowners seem to use fire to remove the Thicket vegetation to favour the palatable grass component. The subsequent frequent burning and heavy grazing of the grass component probably enabled Renosterbos to increase in density, to become the present dominant species in most of the areas. Aloe africana is often abundant in this unit, even in the matrix Renosterveld where it may act as a precursor for Thicket clumps, or alternatively be a remnant of the Thicket clumps (Vlok and Euston-Brown 2004).

Kabeljous Renoster Thicket is also listed as vulnerable according to STEP (Pierce & Mader 2006). Vulnerable vegetation types are those which still cover much of their original extent, but whose health and functioning could be harmed by further disturbance or destruction. Generally, only limited disturbance should be permitted in these areas, with development ideally taking place on previously disturbed sites which have been impacted upon. Additionally, it is recommended that only biodiversity-friendly activities be implemented on these areas (Pierce & Mader 2006).

5.3. Methodology

The Laguna site on the Kabeljous estuary was visited on a number of occasions in August 2008 and in July 2010 and the vegetation sampled in relevés (sample plots) as landscape units (Figure 5-1). These included samples in the Coastal Thicket, Renosterveld, Coastal

Coastal & Environmental Services 16 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Grasslands and Salt Marsh. The species sampled have been listed in the Appendix 1.

In order to study the vegetation in more detail, the relevé data (30 samples and 189 species) collected in the field were analysed by TWINSPAN and Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) to detect plant community clusters and relationships between the sample sites. This was the start of a process which would allow for:  Identifying, describing and classifying natural plant communities  Mapping of the vegetation of the study site.  Identifying ecological sensitive sites in natural vegetation.

In addition to the above mapping of the vegetation also involved the use of aerial photographs in order to identify the extent of the natural plant communities. Identification of sensitive sites was important so as to confine the proposed development to areas which were less sensitive.

Coastal & Environmental Services 17 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Coastal & Environmental Services 18 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Map of the study site, showing the natural features of the study area and indicating sampling sites, numbered 1 to 30.

Coastal & Environmental Services 19 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Thus, using the vegetation and sensitivity maps one could then:  Superimpose the proposed development in suitable areas of the study site i.e. Identify areas on the site where development can occur.  Formulate concepts for the use of the area most appropriately where one could establish education and recreation features, such as trails information boards and hides, so as to enhance the use of the area for bird watching and nature activities.

5.4. Classification and description of the vegetation

Based on the TWINSPAN and DCA results, the 30 relevés could be divided into a number of different plant communities (Figure 5-2) using the 189 species recorded in the surveys. A major division separates the relevés into woody communities (thicket and renosterveld) and grassland and salt marsh communities. The non-woody communities are clearly divided into the salt marsh wich is found along the margin of the estauary and the grassland on the higher ground. The woody communities are further divided into thicket and renosterveld. An intermediate community with both species common to both thicket and grassland is the bushclump community which lies between and within the two communities from which it is derived. Bushclumps are, in fact, grassland that is invaded by thicket, and depending on the amount of invasion of woody species the bushclumps have a stonger affinity to either grassland (e.g. Releve 19) or thicket (e.g.Releve 18)(Figure 5-2). A description of the nature of the vegetation is provided below.

Coastal & Environmental Services 20 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) scatter diagram of the 20 relevés and the TWINSPAN classification of the plant communities superimposed upon it.

Coastal & Environmental Services 21 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

5.4.1. Saltmarsh

Numerous saline tolerant aquatic species such as Sarcocornia decumbens, Sarcocornia perennis and Juncus krausii as well as a few grass species, including Sporobolus africanus and Stenotaphrum secundatum occur within the saltmarsh and floodplain areas alongside the river. The saline tolerant species become less common higher up the rivers, where water salinity is likely to be lower. The larger expanse of saltmarh occurs in the north of the site where an expanse of silt has been deposited and the saltmarsh is drier with few submerged aquatics. Closer to the mouth and along the margin of the estauary the saltmarsh forms a narrow band of emerged aquatics. Juncus krausii is dominant here and the shallow water is an ideal site for wading birds which feed amongst the alga and sumerged aquatic plants.

A B

Figure 5-3: Extensive Saltmarsh with the estuary in the background. A. Extensive area of Sarcocornia spp., low growing succulent herbs and grasses in the northern areas. B. Narrow band of saltmarsh with tall Juncus krausii and also submerged aquatics and algae in the southern parts of the site.

5.4.2. Grassland

Grass species such as Themeda triandra (Red Grass), Digitaria eriantha (Common Finger Grass), Sporobolus africanus (Ratstail Dropseed), Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass), Eragrostis curvula (Weeping Love Grass) are dominant species of the mixed grassland on the higher ground where there has been little disturbance. On the extreme south of the site the grassland has been invaded by pasture grass, namely Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu) and it is an almost monospecific stand in some areas. Along the margin of the saltmarsh Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo Turf Grass) and some Sporobolus virginicus (Strand Kweek) tends to dominate these grasslands. Mixed grasslands are fairlt species rich but the grasslands dominanted by Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo Turf Grass) are species poor but not as depauperate in species as those dominated by kikuyu.

Coastal & Environmental Services 22 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

B A

C D

Figure 5-4 : A & B. Mixed grassland on the higher sites. C. Almost a pure stand of Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum). D. Saltmarsh leading into Coastal Buffalo Grassland (Stenotapharum secundatum) and scattered Bushclumps.

5.4.3. Thicket

The thicket vegetation appears to be uniform thicket of tall succulent Euphorbia trees but there are a variety of dominant species many of them non-succulent. Gymnosporia heterophylla, Sideroxylon inerme, Euphorbia triangularis, Brachylaena illicifolia and Tarchonanthus camphoratus are the most commonly occurring species (Figure 5-6). Commonly occurring shrubs within Thicket are Scutia myrtina, Diospyros dichrophylla and a woody herb (Justicia capensis) and occasional grasses of Panicum deustum. Thicket varies from closely spaced trees forming dense pockets to a more diverse thicket with emergent trees with an open canopy with dense (often spiny) undergrowth. There is a great diversity of species in the thicket.

Coastal & Environmental Services 23 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

A B

Figure 5-5 : A. Dense Thicket along the margin of the estuary, with conspicuous tall succulent Euphorbia triangularis as dominant with a diversity of shrubs in the left. B. Thicket in a gulley on the left and in the distance with Renosterveld in the foreground and on left.

5.4.4. Renosterveld

This Renosterveld would be expected to be Kabeljous Renoster Thicket mosaic (Pierce & Mader 2006) but it has none of the characteristics of this vegetation type (Figures 5.5B and 5.6A). Aloe africana is abundant in this Renosterveld (Figures 5.6B) where it may act as a precursor for Thicket clumps(Vlok and Euston-Brown 2004). The thicket woody species are disperse by fructivorous birds and the Aloes act as perch sites and thicket shrubs and trees will grow up from the seeds that the birds deposit around the aloes. The Renosterveld is invaded by many species and the dominant species which appears to be increasing is a 1- 2m tall yellow flowering shrub (Helichrysum sp.). With the large number of shrub species there are few small herbs or succulents in the Renosterveld.

A B

Figure 5-6: A. Renosterveld with bushclumps and invasive rooikrans (Acacia cyclops) in the background. B. Grassveld invaded by thicket forming the Bushclump vegetation type.

5.4.5. Bushclumps

There is a great diversity of species (mainly woody) in the bushclumps (see Appendix 1). The grassland consists of a diversity of grasses found in the mixed grassland (see above) and thicket dominated by woody shrubs and small trees, such as Rhus spp., Brachylaena discolor, Diospyros dichrophylla, Cussonia spicata, Sideroxylon inerme, Aloe africana, Zygophyllum morgansana, Asparagagus spp. etc (Figure 5-7B).

Coastal & Environmental Services 24 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

5.5. Flora

One would have expected that there would have been well over 200 species of plants in this site of a variety of vegetation types but only some 190 species were recorded. A full list is provided in the appendix (Appendix 1).

5.6. Species of Special Concern

5.6.1. Indigenous plants

Very few species were identified having protected status under the various legislations, including the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1974, the National Forests Act (Act 84 of 1998) and the International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN) Red Data classification (Victor and Dold, 2003). Endemic species that are listed to occur in the Kabeljous Renosterveld, viz. Cyrtanthus wellandii, Delosperma patersoniae, and Gasteria nitida var. armstrongii (Vlok and Euston-Brown 2004) were not found in the area. A common tree species found in the thicket and bushclumps is the white milkwood (Sideroxylon inerme).

5.6.2. Alien invasive plant species

Alien Invasive Plants of concern are Opuntia ficus-indica and Acacia cyclops, which are both category 1 weeds according to the Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of 1983) and require appropriate removal and control as stipulated by the Act. They occur mostly in low densities (single individuals), predominantly found in open and degraded areas and on the edges of the salt marsh. The pepper tree (Schinus molle L.) is growing along the roadsides and it is also invasive on some sites. This species is a proposed declared invader. It is recommended that all these alien species are cleared from the sites using applicable clearing methods and future control practices be implemented, since they are likely to invade disturbed sites after construction. A number of non-invasive exotic species, including some pasture grasses and weeds were identified on the site.

5.7. Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis of the site was conducted to determine potential ‘no-go’ or ‘go’ areas as the site as a whole is defined as ecologically sensitive. This analysis was based on ecological criteria and follows a method devised by CES (2002) and has recently been elaborated in a similar way by Vromans et al (20120).

5.7.1. Methodology

This section of the report explains the approach to determining the ecological sensitivity of the study area on a broad scale. The approach identifies zones of very high, high, moderate and low sensitivity according to a system developed by CES and used in numerous proposed development studies (CES 2002). It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological (primarily vegetation) characteristics and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on 10 criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity, and have been used in past studies (e.g. CES 2002 – N2 Toll Road Study). The method predominantly involves identifying sensitive vegetation or habitat types, topography and land transformation (Table 5-1).

 An attempt to provide a more objective or formalised approach to evaluating the sensitivity of the site was developed using the ten criteria important in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity (Table 5-1).

Coastal & Environmental Services 25 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

 Vegetation types were used as the basis for analysing sensitivity, as they are more clearly defined on the ground and from aerial photographs.  Once the study area had been zoned, the sensitivity criteria described in Table 5-1 were applied to each zone and for each criterion, low sensitivity was scored 0 to 3, moderate sensitivity 4 to 7 (median of 5) and high sensitivity 8 to 10. In this way an overall sensitivity index could be calculated as a percentage, and the vegetation types rated accordingly.  Although numeric values have been used, it is important to point out that this is not a quantitative evaluation but simply a formalised approach to sensitivity analysis.  Mean Sensitivity Indices were calculated as percentages for the vegetation and between . 0 to 50%: LOW ecological sensitivity. . 51 to 65%: MODERATE ecological sensitivity. . 66 to 80%: HIGH ecological sensitivity. . 81 to 100%: VERY HIGH ecological sensitivity.  Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity.  However, it must be acknowledged that the use of these criteria does not negate the need to apply a value judgement, and that the basis of defining sensitive areas is vegetation, which some might argue is not sufficiently objective. Some level of objectivity is provided with the use of the STEP data by using vegetation status and extent within the regional context.

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

Coastal & Environmental Services 26 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-3: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the study area

CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY MODERATE HIGH SENSITIVITY 1 SENSITIVITY 10 5 1 Topography Level, or even Undulating; fairly steep Complex and uneven slopes with steep slopes 2 Vegetation - Extent Extensive Restricted to a particular Restricted to a or habitat type in the region/zone specific locality / site region 3 Conservation status Well conserved Not well conserved, Not conserved - has of fauna/ flora or independent of moderate conservation a high conservation habitats conservation value value value 4 Species of special None, although No endangered or One or more concern - Presence occasional regional vulnerable species, some endangered and and number endemics indeterminate or rare vulnerable species, endemics or more than 2 endemics or rare species 5 Habitat Extensive areas of Reasonably extensive Limited areas of this fragmentation preferred habitat areas of preferred habitat habitat, susceptible leading to loss of present elsewhere in elsewhere and habitat to fragmentation viable populations region not susceptible to susceptible to fragmentation fragmentation 6 Biodiversity Low diversity, or Moderate diversity, and High species contribution species richness moderately high species diversity, complex richness plant and animal communities 7 Visibility of the site Site is hidden or Site is visible from some Site is visible from or landscape from barely visible from or a few vantage points many or all angles or other vantage points any vantage points but is not obtrusive or vantage points. with the exception in very conspicuous. some cases from the sea. 8 Erosion potential or Very stable and an Some possibility of Large possibility of instability of the area not subjected to erosion or change due to erosion, change to region erosion. episodic events. the site or destruction due to climatic or other factors. 9 Rehabilitation Site is easily There is some degree of Site is difficult to potential of the area rehabilitated. difficulty in rehabilitation rehabilitate due to or region of the site. the terrain, type of habitat or species required to reintroduce. 10 Disturbance due to Site is very disturbed There is some degree of The site is hardly or human habitation or or degraded. disturbance of the site. very slightly impacted other influences upon by human (Alien invasives) disturbance.

This approach is similar to that suggested by Vromans et al (2010), namely the SANParks Criteria for Sensitivity Analysis. They state that an Ecological Sensitivity Map should be produced indicating the relative ecological sensitivity and vulnerability of the site. As was done in the planning stage of this project (CES 2008) a sensitivity analysis was conducted to guide the project design in terms of layouts and to determine the most appropriate development. The process was taken through a number of iterations before the final design was formulated.

Coastal & Environmental Services 27 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Vromans et al (2010) continue that the sensitivity analysis is based on ecological criteria and results in a sensitivity map that delineates: (a) vegetation type(s) on site of varying sensitivity; (b) disturbance of the vegetation type(s) and levels of disturbance on site; (c) potential for rehabilitation/restoration; (d) presence of or likelihood of presence of species of special concern and/or special habitats; and (e) ecological process areas which delineates either the presence landscape corridors or the potential for small scale corridors on site e.g. along a stream or wetlands.

Although there are some differences in approach essentially the results that we have produced in this report are essentially the same.

Compared with the feasibility study (CES 2008) the results of this study are similar throughout, but added information is added from the additional releves that were sampled (see section).

5.7.2. Results

Four plant communities were identified on site, namely the Coastal Thicket, Salt Marsh, Grassland, Bushclumps in the Grassland and Renosterveld. Some areas of the site have been invaded by alien species, particularly Acacia cyclops but this does not form an extensive alien community. The results for all the relevés are presented in Table 5-2.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Summary of sensitivity ratings for the plant communities identified on the site.

Bushclum Coastal ps in Renostervel Coastal Thicket Salt Marsh Grasslan d Grassland

d Relevé 7,9,10,23,2 18,19,20,3 1,6,8,27,28 4,11,13,14,2 2,3,5,12,15,16,17, Numbers 4, 0 1,25 22,29 26 Criteria 1.Topograph 5,5,5,8,8 3,3,3,1 1,1,1,,1,2 3,1,6,5,1,6 1,2,1,1,6,1,3,4,4 y 2.Extent of vegetation 5,5,5,7,5,8 5,4,6,5 10,8,10,6,6 5,4,5,5,6,6 3,7,5,8,8,5,4,7,5 type 3.Conservati on 10,10,10,8, 6,6,6,3 10,10,10,10 5,3,5,8,,6,7 2,5,3,1,8,3,5,6,5 Priority 6,9 ,10 4.Species of special 6,10,10,7,5 6,6,6,6 5,5,3,5,6 5,3,10,4,5,6 3,6,2,1,8,4,3,6,6 concern ,7 5.Habitat 5,6,6,6,7,7 5,5,5,4 8,8,9,8,8 7,4,5,5,8,7 3,7,5,1,10,4,4,8,8 fragmentatio n 6.Biodiversit 9,10,10,8,5 8,8,8,7 8,8,9,9,9 5,5,10,4,5,6 5,6,8,1,10,7,1,5,5 y ,8 7.Visibility 8,10,10,4,6 3,3,3,3 10,9,10,9,9 2,9,9,10,8,5 3,2,10,9,8,9,3,6,8 ,8

Coastal & Environmental Services 28 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

8.Erosion 6,10,10,6,8 3,3,3,2 8,9,10,7,7 7,6,8,7,4,6 1,5,1,9,5,4,3,2,5 potential ,7 9.Rehabilitat 10,10,10,8, 9,9,9,7 8,9,10,8,8 7,8,8,8,4,4 1,2,1,1,3,2,2,3,2 ion potential 7,8 10.Disturanc 7,5,5,7,3,6 8,8,8,4 5,5,10,8,8 2,2,5,9,4,4 5,5,3,1,9,2,6,7,5 e to the site Range of Sensitivity 71 to 81 42 to 51 72 to 76 45 to 72 27 to 73 Index High to Very Low to High to Moderate to Low to High High Moderate Very High High Mean Percentage Sensitivity 71.0 47.0 72.8 57.7 44.4 Index General Sensitivity High Low High Moderate Low

Based on the results in Table 5-2:

 Salt Marsh should not be developed or interfered with in anyway as it has a HIGH sensitivity. It is not rich in plant species but the site is extensively used by a variety of water birds and other animals. It is a major feature of the site that should be conserved and used as an educational area with hides and trails.  Coastal Thicket is also rated as a HIGH sensitivity; it is confined to a narrow strip above the estuary but is fairly widespread along the coast. Development must occur in the terrestrial environment maintaining the thicket vegetation in its present form.  Renosterveld occurs in patches and is very variable in its sensitivity rating, ranging from 45 to 72 (Table 8-2). The diversity and species of special concern in this vegetation type is lower than it probably is in other sites in this region. On average it only scores as a MODERATE sensitivity. It is quite abundant in this region and in other sites, where it is conserved in some areas. It is recommended that removal of alien species and rehabilitation of disturbed areas be conducted within the Renosterveld. With better management and the removal of some species that occur in over abundance, such as the shrub, Oedera genistifolia, the Renosterveld of the site could be improved to achieve a more acceptable condition.  Grasslands with Bushclumps are rated as LOW and development could proceed in this region adjacent to the Grasslands and along above the Coastal Thicket at the edge of the estuary. Bushclumps are a mixture of grassland where woody plant species have invaded into the grassland. Although their plant species richness is high this is because they are a mixture of Grassland and Thicket vegetation types. Their dispersion between grasslands and thicket is clearly shown in the scatter diagram of the dispersal of the vegetation types (Figure 5-23).  Grasslands are generally rated as LOW, as much of the grassland area is disturbed with the invasion of introduced grasses such as kikuyu. A singular exception of a natural grassland patch surrounded by Thicket and Renosterveld. The sensitivity of this grassland was recorded as 58% and 73% in two separate surveys, because of the isolation of this small grassland habitat, presence of many species of plants and there was also evidence of the site being used by a variety of small mammals, including otters, as an otter midden was recorded on this site.

Coastal & Environmental Services 29 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

A sensitivity map (Figure 5-7) was compiled from this classification of the various sites, which graphically describes the sensitivity of the site and where development could occur. In spite of the division of the whole site into areas of various sensitivity, as a whole this site must be regarded as a HIGH sensitivity area, and moreover as the site is an ‘Endangered Area’ this dictates a high conservation status (see STEP criteria – section 5-2-1). Conclusions and recommendations

On the basis of the vegetation and sensitivity analysis it is concluded and recommended that:

• Salt Marsh (rated HIGH) should not be developed or interfered with, except for the establishment of boardwalks and hides in less sensitive areas. • The Coastal Thicket is rated as HIGH sensitivity and the narrow strip above the estuary should not be disturbed, except in cleared areas where pathways or boardwalks may be established. • The Renosterveld is very variable but the diversity and species of special concern in this vegetation type is low and it scores as a MODERATE sensitivity. Development could proceed here with caution. • The Grasslands with Bushclumps are rated as LOW and development could proceed with caution in this region adjacent to the Grasslands and along above the Coastal Thicket. Precautions in avoidance of conservation-worthy plants, such as milkwoods should be followed and in general only plants that must necessarily be removed for the construction should be disturbed. It would be desirable to locate the units and leave all existing trees where possible. • The Coastal Grasslands are rated as LOW and development would be favoured in this region of the site in the lower southern corner. An exception is the small isolated grassland in amongst the Thicket and Renosterveld, as discussed above. • On the sensitivity map (Figure 5-7) a distinction is made where development can occur and which areas of the site should remain as conservation. A line runs diagonally across the site dividing the development zone from the conservation zone. In addition to following this recommendation, the saltmarsh and the whole estuary environment should not be disturbed, except for carefully sited trails, boardwalks and hides.

Coastal & Environmental Services 30 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-7: Ecological Sensitivity map of the study site.

Coastal & Environmental Services 31 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

6. FAUNA OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

6.1. Introduction

This chapter describes the biological environment of the project area, in terms of the fauna. The chapter identifies any rare or endangered animal species that require consideration, and presents the results of a rapid survey to assess the diversity of aquatic macro invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species in the area.

6.2. Method Statement

Species of special concern (SSC) in terms of the project area are defined as:  Threatened species: o species listed in the Endangered or Vulnerable categories in the revised South African Red Data Books (SA RDB – amphibians, Branch and Harrison 2004, Minter et al. 2004; reptiles, Branch 1988; birds, Barnes, 2000; terrestrial mammals, Fieldmann and Daly, 2004); and/or o species included in other international lists (e.g., 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals). o Definitions include: . Critically Endangered (CR) - A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. . Endangered (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. . Vulnerable (VU) - A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.  Sensitive species. Species not falling in the categories above but listed in: o Appendix 1 or 2 of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).  Endemic species. Species having 75% of their range occurring in South Africa.

Broad-scale regional compilations of the various faunal groups can be found in:  Amphibians. Bickerton and Pierce, 1988  Reptiles. Bickerton and Pierce, 1988  Birds. SA Birding, 2008  Mammals. Bickerton and Pierce, 1988 and Apps, 2000

6.3. Fauna

The Eastern and Southern Cape have a diverse herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibian). Few of these are endangered, and most have been recorded in local nature reserves. Approximately 100 species inhabit the Eastern and Southern Cape coastal belt. Most are generalists that are tolerant of many habitats. Coastal birds comprise 400 species of which 32 are recorded in the Red Data Book (Craig, 1998). Coastal thicket may shelter forest-loving species such as the bar-throated apalis and the Cape batis. In the Eastern and Southern Cape the number of mammalian species and their abundance increases from the littoral shoreline to the coastal forests or grasslands. This pattern is associated with vegetation changes, including species richness and foliage height. Relatively pristine vegetation is seen as critical in terms of providing faunal habitats and as an indicator of the ‘health’ of the ecosystem. Vegetation loss will result in faunal habitat loss, which will in turn affect the ‘health’ of the ecosystem. If the development is authorised however, appropriate development within this scenario is essential

The varied landscape and subsequent vegetation diversity of the Kouga region supports a rich variety of terrestrial mammals, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. These species are

Coastal & Environmental Services 32 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010 intrinsically important; while some of them have important economic potential.

6.3.1. Terrestrial invertebrates

The distribution of the terrestrial invertebrates found along the coast depends to a large degree upon the extent and composition of the natural vegetation. One grasshopper species (Acrotylos hirtus) is endemic to the dunefields, but does not form part of the study site. Of nearly 650 butterfly species recorded within the borders of South Africa, 102 are considered of conservation concern and are listed in the South African Red Data Book for Butterflies. Two have become extinct, whilst three rare butterflies are known from a number of scattered localities in the Coega region.

The small blue lycaenid butterfly Lepidochrysops bacchus is known from four localities in the Eastern Cape. One of these is reported to occur in the “general area” of the Coega IDZ, which borders the study area. Another rare small copper lycaenid, Poecilimitis pyroeis, has a similar distribution to Lepidochrysops bacchus, extending from the southwestern Cape to Little Namaqualand. An isolated eastern race, P. p. hersaleki, was described from Witteklip Mountain (Lady’s Slipper) to the west of Port Elizabeth. It has also been recorded from St Albans and from the Baviaanskloof Mountains. There is currently no evidence that this rare butterfly occurs in the Coega area, or that a suitable habitat for the eastern race exists in the study area (CES 1997).

6.3.2. Aquatic macro-invertebrates

The coastal zone of the region is rich in marine invertebrates, which have varying levels of economic importance - inhabiting a wide range of habitats. Brown mussels, redbait, crabs, abalone and oysters form an important bait and food supply. Where angling is an important recreational activity, bait collecting is significant (and includes polychaete worms, giant chiton, limpets, periwinkles and octopus) and is controlled by bag and/or size limits. A number of the region's sandy beaches support white sand mussels, which are commonly collected for bait by anglers, subject to a bag limit of 50 per person per day. No commercial exploitation is allowed (Pollock, 1988). The sandy substrate also supports a variety of molluscs and crustaceans which are an important source of food for fish in the surf zone.

The sand prawn, mud prawn, bivalves, crabs and bloodworm are common aquatic macro-invertebrates within the estuary systems. A variety of these organisms are exploited for bait - especially during the holiday season.

In the Kabeljous River estuary the sand prawn, Callianassa kraussi is the dominant macro-invertebrate seaward of the causeway, whilst the mud prawn, Upogebia africana, is more confined to the muddy substrates near the causeway (Bickerton & Pierce, 1988). The sand prawn also occurs in much larger numbers than the mud prawn. In addition to these two species, the bivalve Solen corneus is also present (Bickerton & Peirce, 1988).

Three decapod and one amphipod species have been recorded to occur in the Kabeljous River estuary. They are the sand shrimp (Palaemon pacificus), crown crab (Hymenosoma orbiculare), Cleistostoma edwardsii (crab sp.), and Melita zeylanica (amphipod). These species mainly inhabit dense beds of Ruppia spiralis within the estuary.

Within the pelagic zone, squid is of greatest importance, forming the base of the economically significant chokka industry.

6.3.3. Fish

Research on the ichthyofuana of the Kabeljous is limited. The ECRU (Estuarine and Coastal Research Unit, CSIR, Stellenbosch) survey undertaken in November 1984 recorded 14 marine or estuarine fish species and 3 freshwater fish species in the Kabeljouws River (Appendix 2). A total of 68 fish comprising 11 species were captured, with the most abundant species being the southern mullet (Liza richarsonii), comprising 27 adults of the 68 fish caught. The second most abundant species recorded was the piggy (Pomadasys olivaceum), comprising 21 juveniles.

Coastal & Environmental Services 33 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

It is important to note that since the Kabeljouws Estuary is generally closed off from the sea by a sand-bar, the natural recruitment of marine fish species is limited to taking place after floods or artificially induced breaches when the estuary is open to the sea. This usually occurs in late winter.

6.3.4. Amphibians

Data concerning amphibians is not comprehensive. However, no red listed amphibians have yet been reported to use the area around the proposed development (Hoare Consulting, 2008). A checklist of amphibian species for the areas covered by the 1:50 000 Topographical sheets 3424BB Humansdorp and 3324DD Hankey has been compiled from various sources (Bickerton and Pierce, 1988). In that checklist (Table 6-1), 13 frog species were recorded or were likely to occur in the region.

The following species may be included as SSC, and thus need mentioning:

A specimen of the Sand toad (Bufo cf angusticeps) has been collected from dunes in the St. Francis Bay area. The taxonomic status of this specimen remains confusing, but it may possibly be an undescribed species. If not, then it represents a major range extension of the typical sand toad. Another two specimens of apparently the same species were also collected west of Kareedouw. It is difficult to speculate about whether or not this species will also occur on the development site or surroundings.

The Knysna leaf-folding frog (Afrixalus knysnae) which is considered to be Endangered (IUCN 2009), has a peculiar disjunct distribution. It has never been recorded from 3324DC or adjacent quarter degree blocks, but these areas fall within the gap of its distribution as is currently known. If this species does occur at the development site it would constitute an important population and effort should be made to protect its habitat. Typical habitat is small pans in grassland.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-4: List of amphibians of which are likely to occur within the proposed development area (Bickerton and Pierce, 1988). SSC are differentiated with a *

Scientific name English name Bufo cf angusticeps Sand toad* Bufo pardalis Leopard toad Bufo rangeri Raucous toad Hyperolius marmoratus verrucosus Painted reed frog Hyperolius semidiscus Yellow-striped reed frog Afrixalus knysnae Knysna leaf-folding frog* Kassina senegalensis Bubbling kassina Semnodactylus wealii Rattling frog Breviceps adspersus pentheri Bushveld rain frog Xenopus laevis laevis Common platanna Cacosternum boettgeri Common caco Cacosternum nanum nanum Bronze caco Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant bullfrog Rana angolensis Common river frog Rana fuscigula Cape river frog Strongylopus fasciatus fasciatus Striped stream frog Strongylopus grayii grayii Clicking stream frog Tomopterna delalandii Cape sand frog

Coastal & Environmental Services 34 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

6.3.5. Reptiles

The Eastern Cape is home to 133 reptile species including 21 snakes, 27 lizards and eight chelonians (tortoises and turtles). More than half of the Eastern Cape’s endemic reptile species occur in the Algoa Bay area, giving the region a high conservation value (Branch 1988). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats.

The list of reptiles of special concern is very significant since it includes five endemic species (two of which are endangered), eight CITES-listed species banned from International Trade in Endangered Species, one rare species and four species at the periphery of their range (Table 6-2). More than a third of the species are described as relatively tolerant of disturbed environments, provided migration corridors of suitable habitat are maintained to link pristine habitats.

Data concerning reptiles of the area is not comprehensive. A checklist of reptile species for the areas covered by the 1:50 000 Topographical sheets 3424BB Humansdorp and 3324DD Hankey has been compiled from various sources (Bickerton and Pierce, 1988). In that checklist (Appendix 3), four tortoise species, 14 lizard species and 26 snake species have been recorded or are likely to occur in the region.

No red listed reptiles have yet been reported to use the area around the proposed development (Hoare Consulting, 2008). The following species are considered to be SSC:

The yellow-bellied house snake (Lamprophis fuscus) is listed as Rare in the Red Data Book (RDB) for South African reptiles and amphibians (Branch 1988). It is known from scattered localities over quite a wide range in South Africa and Swaziland.

Although the African long-tailed seps (Tetradactylus africanus fitzsimonsi) is not listed in the RDB, it appears to be quite a rare lizard. It may in fact be a distinct species (as opposed to a subspecies of T. africanus), and thus it certainly would be a candidate for inclusion in the RDB. Very few museum specimens are available.

The only other Red Data Book species which may possibly occur on the development site is Smith’s dwarf chameleon (Bradypodion taeniabronchum). It is listed as Endangered, because at the time of publishing the RDB it was only known from an area of approximately 20 km² at Van Stadensberg. Historic records, e.g. Schoenmakerskop, suggest that this species was previously more widespread (Branch 1988c). A population of this species was subsequently also discovered in the Formosa Conservation Area about 105 km west of the Lady Slipper (Van Stadensberg). It was later also discovered at the Kareedouw Pass. Even though the conservation status of B. taeniabronchum could possibly change, based on the new locality records, it is still a rare species with a limited distribution range and any known populations need to receive a measure of protection.

An undescribed species of dwarf chameleon (Bradypodion) is known to occur in mountain fynbos habitat west and north-west of Port Elizabeth and it may possibly occur on the development site. It seems to be relatively well protected with populations present in the Baviaanskloof Wilderness Area and Groendal Wilderness Area.

A reptilian habitat specialist of the coastal salt marshes and fynbos, which has a restricted distribution range, in the area of the development site includes the Peringuey’s Coast Leaf-Toed Gecko (Cryptactites peringueyi) (C.A.P.E. 2000). According to the IUCN (2006) the status of this species of Gecko is “data deficient”, nevertheless it is an endemic coastal salt marsh species with a small distribution range extending from Chelsea point near Port Elizabeth to Kromme estuary, Eastern Cape (Branch 1998). This makes it a sensitive reptilian species of conservation concern in the area of the proposed development. Whether it actually occurs on the development site is not known. The typical habitat of this species is flood plain vegetation or transitional salt- marsh vegetation (e.g. Juncus krausii, Sarcocornia perennis, Chenolea diffusa and Sporobolus virginicus), but it has also been recorded from dune habitat near Chelsea Point. Any development that could impact on nearby salt marshes should be guarded against.

Coastal & Environmental Services 35 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

6.3.6. Birds

The major factor determining current bird distribution is man’s modification of the habitat - specifically monocultures of exotic vegetation which support few species compared to natural vegetation. The Eastern Cape has a rich avifauna; Craig (1988) suggests that about 500 species have been recorded since 1970. Large birds of prey are often shot indiscriminately, or poisoned as a result of vermin control; road kills account for a disproportionate number of species such as owls; and off-road vehicles pose a threat to coastal ground-nesting birds such as the black oystercatcher (Craig, 1988). The major species found along the coast are the black- backed gull, the black oystercatcher, the white fronted plover and the sanderling. There is currently evidence of vehicles using tracks onto the site and particularly onto the salt flats where many birds are to be seen.

The Seekoei River Nature Reserve (approximately 9.5 km from the proposed development) was established in 1969 primarily as a waterfowl sanctuary. Heyl (In: Bickerton and Pierce, 1988) suggests that the decrease in the numbers of birds since the proclamation of the reserve is the result of a progressive deterioration in environmental conditions for waterbirds in the estuary. This has been brought about by developments such as the construction of the causeway which isolates the upper estuary from tidal influence.

Bickerton and Pierce (1988) point out that the area surrounding the Kabeljous River is relatively undisturbed. This makes it an attractive water bird habitat, especially during the dry months when the Estuary is closed. Underhill et al. (1980) state that the wetland areas and associated channels immediately to the north-east of the lower reaches of the lagoon constitute an important area for waders.

Apart from birds of the Thicket in the area, the estuary plays host to a great number of sea birds and waders. An average 3 hour count can easily pass the 50 species mark out of a total of 130 regular occurring species. These include: Great Egret, Greater Flamingo, Lesser Flamingo, Goliath Heron, Osprey, African Fish-Eagle, Southern Pochard, White-faced Duck, Eurasian Curlew, Caspian Tern, Swift Tern, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern, Little Tern, Knysna Woodpecker, Green Wood-Hoopoe, Black Harrier, Olive Bush-Shrike and Grey-headed Bush- Shrike, Common Whimbrel and more recently Chestnut-banded Plover (SA Birding 2008).

Over one third of the birds in the area are largely dependent on freshwater dams and vleis or estuaries. Along the Kabeljous, the wader density has been recorded as 35.1 / kilometre and is the highest for any sandy beach along the eastern and southern Cape coastline. According to Underhill et al (1980) the Gamtoos Estuary can be considered among the most important estuaries for waders in the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces. McLachlan et al. (1979) note that the high density of birds along the estuary is directly related to the rich macrofauna of the area.

The cape cormorant (Phalacrocorax capensis) prefers the estuary and river sections of the Seekoei system (CWAC 2008). This species is considered Near Threatened and is sensitive to human disturbance, overhead power lines and extreme changes to water levels, i.e. reduced food availability. This species could therefore be affected by the proposed development in portion 4A, because of its proximity to the Seekoei estuary.

A number of other birds of conservation importance have been reported as using the area adjacent to the proposed development. These include one “Critically Endangered”, one “Endangered”, 16 “Near Threatened”, and 14 “Vulnerbale” species (IUCN 2009). These are listed in Table 6-2 below.

Coastal & Environmental Services 36 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-5: List of bird SSC which may utilise the proposed development area (Roberts 2007).

Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) IUCN RDS* Occ.**

Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher NT R Anthropoides paradisea Blue Crane VU R Botaurus stellaris Eurasian Bittern CR R Campethera notata Knysna Woodpecker NT R Charadrius pallidus Chestnut-banded Plover NT R Ciconia nigra Black Stork NT R Circus maurus Black Harrier VU E-R Circus ranivorus African Marsh-Harrier VU R Eudyptes chrysocome Rockhopper Penguin VU Rare Eupodotis barrowii Barrow's Korhaan VU E-R Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon NT R Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel VU NBM Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon NT R Gorsachius leuconotus White-backed Night-Heron VU R Haematopus moquini African Black Oystercatcher NT E-R Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel VU NBM Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel NT NBM Morus capensis Cape Gannet VU Er -R Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork NT NBM Neotis denhami Denham's Bustard VU R Neotis ludwigii Ludwig's Bustard VU Er -R Phalacrocorax capensis Cape Cormorant NT Er -R Phoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo NT R Phoenicopterus ruber Greater Flamingo NT R Podica senegalensis African Finfoot VU R Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle VU R Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-snipe NT R Rynchops flavirostris African Skimmer NT Rare Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird NT R Spheniscus demersus African Penguin VU Er -R Sterna caspia Caspian Tern NT R Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern EN R

*IUCN RDS refers to the IUCN red data status of species. CR Critically Endangered VU Vulnerable EN Endangered NT Near Threatened

**Occ. refers to the occurrence status of species BM Breeding migrant Er Range Endemic NBM Non-Breeding Migrant R Resident E Endemic Ra Rare

Coastal & Environmental Services 37 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

6.3.7. Mammals

Large game makes up less than 15% of the mammal species in South Africa and a much smaller percentage in numbers and biomass. In developed areas, this percentage is greatly reduced, with the vast majority of mammals present being small or medium-sized. None of the mammal species known or expected to occur in the area are considered to be endemic to the coastal region. The rivers of the region act as important zoogeographic corridors for small (and possibly large) mammals, facilitating colonisation and faunal exchange, and should therefore be protected from inappropriate disturbance and destruction.

Bickerton and Pierce (1988) listed 58 mammals as either being recorded for the subregion or likely to occur in the subregion. The literature review revealed that a possible 75 mammal species may occur in the region of the proposed development. It is worth noting that in the past, leopards, which are listed as “Near Threatened” by the IUCN (2009), have been spotted in between Oyster Bay and St Francis Bay (Our Times, 15 August 1997), however it is highly unlikely that any individuals would utilise the proposed development area.

Of the 75 species which may occur on the site (see Table 6-3):  Five species are listed as being "rare", and four as being “vulnerable” in the South African Red Data Book - Terrestrial Mammals (Smithers, 1986, In: Bickerton and Pierce, 1988).  One species is listed as “endangered” and two as “Near Threatened” by the IUCN (2009).  Nine are endemic  One is introduced

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-6: List of mammal SSC which may be found within the proposed development area

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME SA RDB IUCN RDS Occ. Crocidura flavescens Greater red musk shrew E Dendromus mesomelas Brants's climbing mouse R Eidolon helvum Straw-coloured fruit bat NT Felis lybica African wild cat V Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled dormouse R LC E Mellivora capensis Honey badger V Mus domesticus House mouse I Myosorex varius Forest shrew E Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse V EN E Orycteropus afer Aardvark V Otomys unisulcatus Karoo bush rat E Panthera pardus Leopard R NT Pelea capreolus Grey rhebuck E Philantomba monticola Blue duiker R Poecilogale albinucha Striped weasel R Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok E Rhinolophus capensis Cape horseshoe bat E Suncus infinitesimus Least dwarf shrew E

Coastal & Environmental Services 38 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

7. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The vegetation of the proposed development site is home to a range of animals including small to medium sized ungulates, tortoises, rodents, lizards, birds and snakes. Development disturbs these natural habitats creating a reduction in species present due to the loss of vegetation and, as a result, faunal habitat.

 Loss of natural coastal thicket, renosterveld (fynbos), grasslands and estuarine ecosystems.  The potential exist that wildlife habitat and the coastal and estuarine ecosystem can be disturbed.  Potential disturbance, reduction and over-use of coastal and estuarine ecosystems by the increased population due to the exploitation of resources.  Potential reduction in productivity of coastal and estuarine ecosystems

This chapter will assess the significance of impacts as a result of the proposed development on the surrounding environment. The significance of each impact was identified and evaluated using the CES impacts rating scale described in Appendix 1.

7.1. Construction Phase Impacts

7.1.1. Flora and Vegetation

Issue 1: Clearing land

Impact 1: Loss of Coastal Thicket vegetation

Cause and Comment The construction of the proposed resort, as it is currently designed, will result in the removal and loss of coastal thicket vegetation within the study site, which in turn has cumulative impacts on the immediate and surrounding area. Based on CES’s rating scale, the thicket has been rated as being of HIGH ecological sensitivity due to its conservation priority, species of special concern, biodiversity and high erosion and low rehabilitation potential. Loss of this vegetation type should thus be avoided.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a moderate negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development so as to leave as much soil open for rehabilitation and as much natural vegetation intact.  The project layout should be designed such that the thicket areas are avoided, or where unavoidable, impact is minimized.  Where construction proceeds, any species of special concern or of conservation value must be removed to gardens if they can be rescued prior to vegetation clearance.  The remaining patches must be identified as no-go areas for development and must be fenced off so as to prevent people having access to them.  Rehabilitation and revegation of disturbed areas must be conducted using only indigenous trees and plants.  Any vegetation which is rescued must be kept for subsequent landscaping and rehabilitation.  Except to the extent necessary for the carrying out of the works, plants must not be removed, damaged or disturbed nor must any alien plants be planted.  No herbicides, pesticides and other poisonous substances must be used.

Coastal & Environmental Services 39 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of thicket vegetation on the construction site would definitely have severe permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of HIGH negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

The impact of loss of thicket vegetation on the construction site would probably have moderate impacts in the medium term. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanenet 4 Local 1 Severe 4 Definite 4 13 HIGH -ve mitigation With Medium term 2 Local 1 Moderate 2 Probably 3 8 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 Definite 4 9 MODERATE - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 2: Loss of Salt Marsh vegetation

Cause and Comment Although the proposed site layout for the resort development will not result in construction on the salt marsh vegetation, some vegetation may be cleared for landscaping and the construction walkways and bird hides. Based on CES’s rating scale, the salt marsh vegetation has been rated as being of HIGH ecological sensitivity due to its restricted distribution, high conservation priority, high erosion potential and low rehabilitation potential. Any loss of this vegetation type must be avoided.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a moderate negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development and avoid any construction related activities in the sensitive salt marsh vegetation.  Salt marshes should be identified as no-go areas and fenced off so as to prevent people having access to them.  The construction of walkways along the estuary should be undertaken in an manner which will not endanger the underlying salt marsh vegetation and should be limited to areas of lower ecological sensitivity.

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of salt marsh vegetation on the construction site would probably have severe permanent negative impacts. This would affect the study area and would be of HIGH negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

The impact of loss of salt marsh vegetation on the construction site would possibly have slight impacts in the short term. This would affect the local area and would be of LOW negative significance.

Coastal & Environmental Services 40 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanent 4 Study Area 2 Severe 4 Probable 3 13 HIGH -ve mitigation With Short-term 1 Local 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 5 LOW -ve mitigation No-Go Without MODERATE - Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 Definite 4 9 mitigation ve With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 3: Loss of Renosterveld vegetation

Cause and Comment The construction of the proposed resort will result in the removal and loss of renosterveld within the study site. Renosterveld has been rated as being of MODERATE ecological sensitivity due to its restricted distribution. STEP has also classified the Kabeljous Renoster Thicket (mosaic) as vulnerable, and as such development in this vegetation should be limited. Even though this renosterveld is not in a pristine condition with rare and endangered species loss of this vegetation type should be minimized.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a moderate negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development so as to leave the maximum area as natural or for rehabilitation.  Where possible, the project layout should be designed to ensure minimum impact on the renosterveld vegetation.  Any succulent or other plants that can be rescued should be held in a nursery for use in rehabilitation and landscaping.  Any species of special concern or conservation value must be removed prior to vegetation clearance.  Except to the extent necessary for the carrying out of the works, plants must not be removed, damaged or disturbed nor must any alien plants be introduced.  No herbicides, pesticides and other poisonous substances must be used.

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of renosterveld vegetation on the construction site would definitely have severe permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of HIGH negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

The impact of loss of renosterveld vegetation on the construction site would probably have moderate permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Coastal & Environmental Services 41 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanent 4 Local 1 Severe 4 Definite 4 13 HIGH -ve mitigation With Permanent 4 Local 1 Moderate 2 Probable 3 10 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without MODERATE - Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 Definite 4 9 mitigation ve With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 4: Loss of Coastal Grassland vegetation

Cause and Comment The construction of the proposed development will result in the removal and loss of coastal grassland vegetation within the study site. According to CES’s rating, the grassland on site is of LOW ecological sensitivity due to fairly large disturbance to the grassland, and good rehabilitation potential.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a moderate negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development so as to leave as much soil open for rehabilitation.  Disturbed areas should be rehabilitated and revegetated post construction, using only indigenous plants.  Any species of special concern or conservation value must be rescued prior to vegetation clearance.  Except to the extent necessary for the carrying out of the works, plants must not be removed, damaged or disturbed nor must any alien plants be introduced.No herbicides, pesticides and other poisonous substances must be used.

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of grassland on the construction site will probably have slight permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

The impact of loss of vegetation on the construction site may have slight permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanent 4 Local 1 Slight 1 Probable 3 9 MODERATE -ve mitigation With Permanent 4 Local 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 8 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without MODERATE - Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 Definite 4 9 mitigation ve With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Coastal & Environmental Services 42 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Impact 5: Loss of Bushclump vegetation

Cause and Comment The construction of the proposed resort will result in the removal and loss of almost all bushclump vegetation within the study site. The vegetation type was rated as being of MODERATE ecological sensitivity based on CES’s rating due to its moderate extent, moderate conservation priority, high biodiversity and low rehabilitation potential.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a moderate negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development to mimize loss of vegetation and increase rehabilitation potential.  Rescue those species which can be easily cultivated for the rehabilitation and revegetation of impacted areas post-construction.  Any species of special concern or of conservation value must be removed prior to vegetation clearance.  Except to the extent necessary for the carrying out of the works, plants must not be removed, damaged or disturbed nor must any alien plants be introduced.  No herbicides, pesticides and other poisonous substances must be used.

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of vegetation on the construction site would definitely have moderate permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

The impact of loss of vegetation on the construction site would probably have moderate permanent negative impacts. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanent 4 Local 1 Modeate 2 Definite 4 11 MODERATE -ve mitigation With Permanent 4 Local 1 Moderate 2 Probable 3 10 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without MODERATE - Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 Definite 4 9 mitigation ve With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 6: Loss of habitat through removal of vegetation

Cause and Comment The construction of the resort will result in the removal and loss of vegetation within the study site, which has cumulative impacts on the immediate and surrounding area which include, but are not limited to, the loss of habitat. Habitats support all forms of animal life, which will be destroyed as a consequence of the development during the construction phase and extending into the operational phase. Although approximately only 57 animal species of special concern are likely to occur in the area, evidence of numerous other animals have been recorded on site, and are likely to use the variety of habitats of the study site. Additionally, due to the limited extent and high ecological value of some of the vegetation types found on site, the removal of these vegetation

Coastal & Environmental Services 43 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010 types is likely to have an even greater impact on faunal habitat loss.

The site is currently being used as a through-way for locals who use who walk along the sensitve estuarine environment. Evidence of quadbike riding on site is also present and extensive dumping of rubbish has been recorded. The development will result in the area being fenced-off, and as such will prevent these activities and their related impacts from occurring.

If nothing were built on the site, the overall significance would be a low negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of loss of habitat:  All alien plants must be removed.  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development so as to leave as much soil open for rehabilitation  Development should not occur in sensitive vegetation types, and the necessary steps taken to ensure they are protected during construction activities.  After construction the site must be rehabilitated and revegetated with indigenous plants.  Except to the extent necessary for the carrying out of the works, plants must not be removed, damaged or disturbed nor must any alien plants be introduced.  No herbicides, pesticides and other poisonous substances must be used.

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of loss of habitat on the construction site would definitely have severe permanent negative impacts. This would affect the study area and would be of HIGH negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

This impact will probably result in moderate negative impacts in the long term. This would affect the study area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Permanent 4 Study Area 2 Severe 4 Definite 4 14 HIGH -ve mitigation With Long term 3 Study area 2 Moderate 2 Probable 3 10 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 7: Loss of plant species of special concern

Cause and Comment There are few species of special concern on site; many of these could have been missed during the field survey

If nothing was built on the site the overall impact would be a low negative, assuming that the site would continue to be used as a grazing area.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the loss of plant species of special concern:

Coastal & Environmental Services 44 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

 Identify areas of species of special concern, and take the necessary measures to prevent/reduce impacts of construction in these areas  Where avoidance is not possible, species of special concern should be removed (rescued) prior to construction for replantating after construction has been completed

Significance statement without mitigation

The loss of plant species of special concern would probably have a moderate negative impact in the medium term. This would affect the study area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

This impact may have moderate impacts in the short term and would affect the local area. This impact is of LOW negative significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Severity of Total Score Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Impact Construction phase Without Medium term 2 Study Area 2 Moderate 2 Probable 3 9 MODERATE-ve mitigation With Short term 1 Localised 1 Moderate 2 Probable 3 7 LOW-ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Issue 2: Alien vegetation

Impact 8: Introduction of alien plant species

Cause and Comment As with all building operations, the introduction of alien and invader species is inevitable; with disturbance comes the influx of aliens. The invasion of alien annual plant species is inevitable but they have little lasting affect. More important are the perennial woody alien species such as rooikrans, Acacia Cyclops. The invasion of indigenous habitats by exotic species decreases the conservation value and biodiversity of the habitats. The study area has a low percentage of alien plant and animal invasion. Various construction actions may increase the introduction of alien species in the region.

If the development does not take place, these trees will not be removed and may continue to spread seed, thus contributing to alien plant increase. Alien invasion may occur if no development takes place and mitigation measures for the No-Go option will reduce temporal scale, severity and likelihood as well, giving an overall significance of moderate positive.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimize the introduction of alien species:  Continual monitoring and eradication of any identified alien species.  Lanscaping should be done only with indigenous plants.  Rehabilitation should be conducted as soon as possible after construction to prevent alien species from being established.

Significance statement without mitigation

Coastal & Environmental Services 45 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

The impact would probably have moderate negative impacts in the long term. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

This impact may have slight impacts in the short term and would affect the local area. This impact is of LOW positive significance.

Effect Risk or Total Overall Impact Severity of Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Score Significance Impact Construction phase Without MODERATE - Long term 3 Local 1 Moderate 2 Probable 3 9 mitigation ve With Short term 1 Local 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 5 LOW +ve mitigation No-Go Without Permanent 4 Study area 2 Moderate 2 Definite 4 12 HIGH -ve mitigation With Moderately May MODERATE Medium-term 2 Study area 2 2 2 8 mitigation beneficial Occur +ve

Issue 3: Loss of fauna

Impact 9: Loss of faunal biodiversity

Cause and Comment Loss of animal diversity will occur mainly as a result of habitat destruction and resultant restriction in animal movement will reduce the fauna on the site. Although the potential presence of species of special concern is limited to 57 species, the site currently supports a large number of birds, as well as several small to medium mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

If nothing was built on the site the overall impact would be a low negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the loss of faunal biodiversity:  Water quality along the site should be protected  The rehabilitated and revegetated areas should be designed such that it creates a linked corridor for animal movement  Encroachment by alien faunal species should be prevented.  Excessive disturbance should be controlled  Chemical pollution should be prevented  All work should temporarily cease and a zoologist alerted should any species of special concern be found

Significance statement without mitigation

The loss of faunal biodiversity, caused by the removal of vegetation, on the construction site will probably occur, resulting in moderately severe long term negative impacts. This would affect the study area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

This impact will probably result in slight negative impacts in the long term. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Coastal & Environmental Services 46 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Effect Risk or Total Overall Impact Severity of Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Likelihood Score Significance Impact Construction phase Without Moderately- MODERATE – Long term 3 Study Area 2 3 Probable 3 11 mitigation Severe ve With Long term 3 Local 1 Slight 1 Porbable 3 8 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 10: Loss of faunal species of special concern

Cause and Comment There are a number of species of special concern which occur within the vicinity of the study area. Although most species are not restricted to the site, many may rely on the site for suitable breeding and/or feeding areas, and as such, the development of the site could impact on their survival as a whole. The area supports an especially large number of rare and endemic birds, including numerous water birds. The construction of the development site may also result in degradation of the estuarine environment and disturbance of these species, with subsequent impacts on their survival.

If nothing was built on the site the overall impact would be a low negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the loss of species of special concern caused by removal of vegetation:  Limited construction activities to the development footprint, and take the necessary steps to ensure as much faunal habitat is conserved and undisturbed  Ensure migration corridors are maintainted to link suitable habitats  Encroachment by alien faunal species should be prevented.  All work should temporarily cease and a zoologist alerted should any species of special concern be found. I

Significance statement without mitigation

The loss of faunal species of special concern, caused by the removal of vegetation on the construction site may occur, resulting in moderate long term negative impacts. This would affect the study area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation

This impact may result in slight negative impacts in the long term. This would affect the local area and would be of LOW negative significance.

Coastal & Environmental Services 47 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Effect Risk or Total Overall Impact Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact Likelihood Score Significance Construction phase Without MODERATE – Long term 3 Study Area 2 Moderate 2 May occur 2 9 mitigation ve With May occur 2 Long term 3 Local 1 Slight 1 5 LOW -ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Impact 11: Disturbance of fauna caused by removal of vegetation

Cause and Comment During the removal of vegetation for construction all faunal species occurring within or in close proximity to the site will be disturbed. In addition, other faunal species that use the area to pass into other adjacent areas will also be disturbed. In areas where vegetation is removed the disturbance will be permanent, with disturbance of faunal species extending beyond the footprint of the development due to the noise and activity related to vegetation clearance. This disturbance will be of greater impact on species which are not highly mobile, or who have restricted ranges. (e.g Bufo cf angusticeps (Sand toad), Afrixalus knysnae (Knysna leaf-folding frog), and Acrotylos hirtus (grasshopper species).

If nothing was built on the site the overall impact would be low negative.

Mitigation and Management The following mitigation measures can be used to minimise the effects of faunal disturbance caused by removal of vegetation:  Limit the construction area to the footprint of the development, and ensure adequate measures are taken to minimize disturbance to areas adjacent to the development footprint  Search for and relocate all faunal species within the development footprint to a suitable environment before commencing construction activities. This must be conducted by a specialist.  Rehabilitate and revegetate disturbed areas after construction is completed

Significance statement without mitigation

The impact of faunal disturbance, caused by the removal of vegetation, on the construction site will definitely occur, resulting in moderate long term negative impacts. This would affect the study area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Significance statement with mitigation This impact will probably result in slight negative impacts in the long term. This would affect the local area and would be of MODERATE negative significance.

Effect Risk or Total Overall Impact Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact Likelihood Score Significance Construction phase Without MODERATE – Long term 3 Study Area 2 Moderate 2 Definite 4 11 mitigation ve With Long term 3 Local 1 Slight 1 Probable 3 8 MODERATE -ve mitigation No-Go Without Long term 3 Localised 1 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW - mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Coastal & Environmental Services 48 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

7.2. Operational Phase Impacts

7.2.1. Flora and Vegetation

Issue 1: Alien Vegetation

Impact 12 : Introduction of alien plant species

Cause and Comment As with all building operations, the introduction of alien and invader species is inevitable; with disturbance comes the influx of aliens. Alien invader species need to be consistently managed over the entire operation phase of the project. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the introduction of alien invaders, as well as mitigation against alien invaders that have already been recorded on the site should be actively maintained throughout both the construction and operation phases. Removal of existed alien species should be consistently done. Also, rehabilitation of disturbed areas after the construction of the smelter should be done as soon as possible after construction is completed. Without mitigation: The impact will be permanent, restricted to the study area, definite and with a moderate severity. Overall significance would be a HIGH NEGATIVE. Should the proposed development not go ahead (the No-Go option), the impact would be permanent, definite and restricted to the study area with a severity of moderate and an overall significance of high negative. This impact was assessed with a high level of confidence. With mitigation: The impact is medium-term, severity of impact is slight and may occur, with an overall significance of LOW NEGATIVE. Alien invasion is just as likely to occur if no development takes place and mitigation measures for the No-Go option will reduce temporal scale, severity and likelihood as well, giving an overall significance of low negative.

Effect Risk or Total Overall Impact Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of Impact Likelihood Score Significance Operational phase Without Permanent 4 Study Area 2 Moderate 3 Definite 4 13 HIGH –ve mitigation With Medium term 2 Study Area 2 Slight 1 May occur 2 7 LOW -ve mitigation No-Go Without N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation With N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mitigation

Coastal & Environmental Services 49 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. General Conclusions

 The proposed site for the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitor Centre is “pristine “in some areas but is degraded in others.  There has been invasion of alien woody plant species in some areas of the site, especially into the Renosterveld and the grassland.  The site has been severely depleted of natural indigenous vegetation, because there has been no natural control of the the invasion of woody plants into the Renosterveld or the Grassland. Under natural conditions the browsing of ungulates and natural fires would have restricted this invasion of some of the woody species.  There are large numbers of indigenous animals on this site due to loss of habitat in the surrounding areas to development and the migration of animals into this site.  The study site has few areas of natural vegetation which is in a good condition and this needs added protection in the future.  Half the site consists of altered bush/scrub, and grassland that was probably cultivated in the past and is now invaded by kikuyu grass.with alien trees also invading into the renosterveld and along the margins of the thicket.  There are very fewsensitive or rare plant species of special concern on the site;; faunal species; and no species of special concern present.  If the development goes ahead there will be the potential to protect the vegetation and maintain the fauna in some unique habitats, and make this available to be viewed by the general public.

8.2. Conclusions applying to the construction phase

 The construction phase will result in three issues which are split up into 11 impacts.  If unmitigated, the loss of Coastal Thicket, Salt Marsh and Renosterveld Vegetation will result in impacts of HIGH significance. However, with mitigatory measures put in place these should be reduced to MODERATE, LOW AND MODERATE negative significance, respectively. The loss of habitat through the removal of vegetation is a HIGH negative if unmitigated, but reduced to MODERATE negative with mitigation measures in place.  The majority of impacts, if unmitigated, are MODERATE negative. These impacts include the loss of Coastal grassland vegetation, the loss of bushclump vegetation, the loss of species of special concern , the introduction of alien plant species, the loss of faunal biodiversity, the loss of faunal species of special concern, and the disturbance of fauna caused by removal of vegetation. All these impacts, remain MODERATE negative with mitigation, with the exception of the introduction of alien plant species which is a LOW positive with mitigation.

8.3. Conclusions applying to the operational phase

 The operational phase will result in one issue, namely the introduction of alien plant species  This impact unmitigated this will have a HIGH negative impact. However, after mitigation this will be classed as LOW negative significance.

8.4. Recommendations

Overall, this report found that the proposed development of the Laguna Bay Resort and Visitor Centre should not pose any significant threat to the surrounding ecological environment if all the mitigation measures and recommendations are undertaken. On the contrary, if the development goes ahead with mitigatory measures put in place, there should be some moderate positive impacts on the surrounding biological environment. These would include the protection of the indigenous vegetation, particularly the thicket and the saltmarsh, protection of animal habitats and linkages with surrounding ecological corridors. Some of the mitigation measures include:

Coastal & Environmental Services 50 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

 Limiting the construction area to the footprint of the development and leave at least half of the site so as to leave as much soil open for rehabilitation.  Rehabilitating and re-vegetating the open areas on site around the resort with indigenous vegetation.  Removing of all alien woody species from the site, particularly the rooikrans, Acacia cylops, the pepper trees (Shinus molle) and the prickly-pear, Opuntia ficus-indica, will allow the natural vegetation to flourish.  The vegetation must be well managed and invading woody species into the remaining grassland and renosterveld must be controlled either by fire or manual clearing of the woody plants. Of particular concern is the removal of some of the renosterbushes (rhinoceratis) and the yellow composite bush ( ) which is also a persistent invader.  The bird hides and the board walks should be carefully constructed and they will then provide an additional asset which will enhance the educational and conservation aspects of the site.  The Contractor must prevent discharge of any pollutants, such as cements, concrete, lime, chemicals and fuels into any water sources.

Coastal & Environmental Services 51 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

9. REFERENCES

Acocks, J.P.H. 1953. Veld types of South Africa. Mem.Bot.Surv. S. Afr. 28.

Bickerton, I.B. and Pierce, S.M. 1988. Estuaries of the Cape: Part II: Synopses of available information on individual systems. Rep. No. 33 Krom (CMS 45), Seekoei (CMS 46) and Kabeljous (CMS 47). Heydorn, A. and Morant, P. (eds.). Stellenbosch, CSIR Research Report 432.

BirdLife International (2008). BirdLife's online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation. Version 2.1. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available: http://www.birdlife.org (accessed 30/3/2009)

Bond, William J., Professor.Department of Botany, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.

Bond, W.J., Buitenwerf,R. and G.F.Midgley (2011). CO2 and Woody Thickening in South African savannas.South African Association of Botanists. 37th Annual Conference, Grahamstown. January 2011.

Coastal & Environmental Services, 2002, N2 Toll Road Study. CES, Grahamstown.

Coastal & Environmental Services, 2009: Feasibility Study Report: Proposed Development of Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre, Jeffreys Bay, Eastern Cape. CES, Grahamstown.

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). 1987. The Dynamics of the Estuaries of St Francis Bay (Kromme, Seekoei and Kabeljous). CSIR Report T/SEA 8707. July 1987.

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). 1988. Estuaries of the Cape, Part II, Synopses of Available Information on Individual Systems, Report No. 33: Krom (CMS 45), Seekoei (CMS 46) and Kabeljous (CMS 47). CSIR Research Report 432. April 198

Cowling,R.M.1982. Vegetation Studies in the Humansdorp Region of the Fynbos Biome. Ph.D Theis, University of Cape Town.

Cowling,R.M.1984. A Syntaxonomic and Synecological Study in the Humansdorp Region of the Fynbos Biome. Bothalia 15: 175-227

Cowling, R.M. and Hilton-Taylor, C.(1997). Phytogeographic flora and endemism in Vegetation of southern Africa, ed. R.M. Cowling, D.M. Richardson & S.M. Piers. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.IUCN (2009). Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge (http://www.iucnredlist.org/).

Klages, N.T.W. (2005). Ecological Assessment of Laguna Bay (Portion 6 of Farm 328, Kabeljouws River). Special Report Prepared for MPM Consultants, Institute for Environmental and Coastal Management, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. IECM Report No. C121.

Low, A.B. & Robelo, A.G. 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. (eds.). 2006. Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland. National Botanical Institute, Kirstenbosch.

Pierce, S.M. and Mader, A.D. 2006. The STEP Handbook. Integrating the natural environment into land use decisions at the municipal level: Towards sustainable development. Centre for African Conservation Ecology (ACE). Report Number 47 (Second Edition). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.

Vlok, J, H, J., Euston-Brown, D.I.W. 2002. The patterns within and the ecological processes that sustain, the subtropical thicket vegetation in the planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) project. TERU Report 40. University of Port Elizabeth.

Coastal & Environmental Services 52 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Vlok, J, H, J., Euston-Brown, D.I.W. 2002. The patterns within and the ecological processes that sustain, the subtropical thicket vegetation in the planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) project. TERU Report 40. University of Port Elizabeth.

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan for the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South African National Parks. Knysna.

Coastal & Environmental Services 53 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

10. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: PLANT SPECIES PRESENT ON THE SITE K = Also recorded by Klages (2005) K = Only recorded by Klages (2005)

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon MALVACEAE Shrub 4983000 Abutilon sonneratianum(Cav.) Sweet. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Shrub 3446000 Acacia cyclopsA.Cunn. Ex G.Don Dicotyledon RUTACEAE Shrub 4037000 Agathosmaovata(Thunb.) Pillans Dicotyledon RUTACEAE Shrub 4037000 Agathosmapuberula(Steud.) Fourcade Dicotyledon AIZOACEAE Succulent Herb 2401000 AizoonglinoidesL.f. Monocotyledon HYACINTHACEAE Geophyte 1079000 Albucasp. K Monocotyledon ASPHODELACEAE Succulent Shrub 1026000 Aloe africanaMill. K Monocotyledon ASPHODELACEAE Succulent 1026000 Aloe microcantha Haw. K Dicotyledon PRIMULACEAE Herb 6338000 AnagallisarvensisL. K Dicotyledon RUBIACEAEA Shrub 8438000 Anthospermumaethiopicum L. Dicotyledon APIACEAE Herb 6004000 ApiumgraveolensL. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9432020 Arctotisarctotoides(L.f.) O.Hoffm. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Creeper 3763000 ArgyrolobiumincanumE. & Z. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902620 AristidajunciformisTrin. &Rupr. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Herb 3662000 AspalathusniveaThunb. K Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Scrambler 1113000 Asparagus africanusLam. K Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Scrambler 1113000 Asparagus striatus(L.f.) Thunb. K Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Scrambler 1113000 Asparagus suaveolensBurch. K Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Scrambler 1113000 Asparagus densiflorus (Kinth) Jessop Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Scrambler 1113000 Asparagus sp. Dicotyledon CHENOPODIACEAE Shrub 2229000 AtriplexsemibaccataR.Br. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9326000 Athanasiadentata(L.)L. K Dicotyledon SALVADORACEAE Shrub 6444000 AzimatetracanthaLam. K Dicotyledon AIZOACEAE Herb 2401000 AizoonglinoidesL.f. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9438000 Berkheyasp. Dicotyledon ACANTHACEAE Herb 7980000 Blepharisprocumbens(l.f.) Pers. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Tree 8936000 Brachylaenailicifolia(Lam.) Phil. &Schweick.

Coastal & Environmental Services 54 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon CHENOPODIACEAE Succulent 2239010 Bassiadifusa(Thunb.) Kuntze K Dicotyledon AMARYLLIDACEAE Geophyte 1177000 BrunsvigialitoralisR.A.Dyer K Monocotyledon ASPHODELACEAE Geophyte 0985000 Bulbinesp. Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Sedge 0471010 Bulbostylishispidula(Vahl.) R.Haines Dicotyledon RUBIACEAEA Shrub 8352000 Canthiuminerme(L.f.) Kuntze CappparissepiariaL. var. citrifolia (Lam.) Dicotyledon CAPPARACEAE Shrub 3101000 Tolken Dicotyledon APOCYNACEAE Shrub 6559000 Carissa bispinosa(L.) Desf. ex Brenan K Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405021 Carpobrotusdimidiatus(Haw.) L.Bolus Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405020 Carpobrotussp. (pink flower) Dicotyledon CELESTRACEAE 4641000 CassineaethiopicaL. Dicotyledon APIACEAE Herb, Climber 5894000 Centellaasiatica(L.) Urb. Dicotyledon ACANTHACEAE Herb 7941000 Chaetacanthussetiger(Pers.) Lindl. Monocotyledon IRIDACEAE Herb 1306030 Chasmantheaethiopica(L.) N.E.Br. Dicotyledon GENTIANACEAE Herb 6503000 ChironiabacciferaL. K Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9903010 ChlorisvirgataSw. Chrysanthemoidesmonilifer(L.) T.Norl. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9341000 subsp. rotundifolia(DC.) T.Norl. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8930000 ChrysocomaciliataL. K Dicotyledon EUPHORIBIACEAE Shrub 4448000 ClutiadaphnoidesLam. Monocotyledon COMMELINACEAE Herb 0896000 Commelinasp. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 8926000 Conyzacanadensis(L.) Cronquist Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8926000 ConyzascabridaDC. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Succulent 9351000 CotulasericeaL.f. Dicotyledon CRASSULACEAE Succulent 3164000 Cotyledon orbiculataL. K Crassulaarborescens(Mill.) Willd. subsp. Dicotyledon CRASSULACEAE Succulent Shrub 3168000 undulatifoliaTolken CrassulaexpansaDryand subsp. Dicotyledon CRASSULACEAE Succulent Herb 3168000 filicaulis(Haw.) Tolken Dicotyledon CRASSULACEAE Succulent 3168000 Crassulasp. Dicotyledon APOCYNACEAE Climber 6834000 CynanchumnatalitiumSchltr. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902960 Cynodondactylon(L.) Pers. K Cyphostemmacirrhosum(Thunb.) Descoings K Dicotyledon VITACEAE Creeper 4918010 ex. Wild & Drum. Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405033 Delospermaecklonis(Salm-Dyck) Schwant.

Coastal & Environmental Services 55 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405033 Delospermalitorale(Kensit) L.Bolus Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Dwarf Shrub 9041020 Dicerothamnusrhinocerotis(L.f.) Koekemoer K Monocotyledon IRIDACEAE Geophyte 1265010 Dietesiridioides(L) Sweet ex Klatt Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9900890 DigitariaerianthaSteud. Dicotyledon EBENACEAE Shrub 6406000 Diospyrosdichrophylla(Gand.) De Winter K Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2450380 Disphymacrassifolium(L.) L. Bolus K Dovyalisrhamnoides(Burch. ex. DC.) Burch. Dicotyledon FLACOURTIACEAE Shrub 5328000 &Harv. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901600 EhrhartacalycinaSm. Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Tree 4640000 Elaeodendroncroceum(thunb.) DC. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902860 Eragrostiscapensis(Thunb.) Trin. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902860 Eragrostiscurvula(Schrad.) Nees Dicotyledon ERICACEAE Shrub 6237000 Ericasp. Dicotyledon EBENACEAE Shrub 6404000 EuclearacemosaMurray subsp. macrophylla Dicotyledon EBENACEAE Shrub 6404000 Eucleaschrimperi (A.DC.) Dandy K Dicotyledon EBENACEAE Shrub 6404000 EucleaundulataThunb. K Dicotyledon EUPHORIBIACEAE Succulent 4498000 Euphorbia mauritanicaL K Dicotyledon EUPHORIBIACEAE Succulent 4498000 Euphorbia sclerophyllaBoiss. Dicotyledon EUPHORIBIACEAE Tree Succulent 4498000 Euphorbia triangularisDesf. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9417000 EuryopsalgoënsisDC. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9417000 Euryopseurypoides.(DC.) B.Norl. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9417000 Euryopsismunitus(L.f.) B.Norl. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8919000 Felicia erigeroidesDC. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8919000 Felicia echinata(Thunb.) Nees Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 0465000 Ficiniabracteata Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 0465000 Ficiniabulbosa(L) Nees Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 0465000 Ficinialateralis(vahl) Kunth Ficinianodosa(Rottb.)Goetgh., Muasya& D.A. K Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 0465000 Simpson Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 4670000 Fuirenahirsuta(P.J.Bergius) P.L.Forbes Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405053 Glottiphyllumlongum(Haw.) N.E.Br. K Dicotyledon THYMELAEACEAE Shrub 5435000 GnidianodifloraMeisn. Dicotyledon TILIACEAE Shrub 4966000 GrewiaoccidentalisL.var. occidentalis K Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Shrub 4627000 GymnosporiaarenicolaM.Jordaan

Coastal & Environmental Services 56 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon AMARYLLIDACEAE Geophyte 1167000 HaemanthusalbiflosJacq. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9432030 Haplocarphasp. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Dwarf ShrubHerb 9006000 HelichrysumanomalumLess. Helichrysumcymosum (L.) D.Don Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9006000 subsp.cymosum Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Dwarf Shrub 9006000 Helichrysumordoratissimum(L) Sweet Helichrysumroseum(Berg.) Less. var. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9006000 areuatumHilliard Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Dwarf Shrub 9006000 Helichrysumteretifolium(L.) D.Don Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901970 Helictotrichonhirtulum(Steud.) Schweick. Dicotyledon STERCULIACEAE Woody herb 5055999 HermaniaalthaeoidesLink. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9900800 Heteropogoncontortis(L.) Roem. &Schult. Dicotyledon MALVACEAE Shrub 5013000 Hibiscus ludwigiiEckl. &Zeyhr. K Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 990730 Hyparrheniahirta(L.) Stapf Hypoestesaristata (Vahl) Sol. ex Roem. Dicotyledon ACANTHACEAE Shrub 8032000 &Schult. var. aristata Dicotyledon ACANTHACEAE Shrub 8032000 Hypoestesforskaoli Monocotyledon HyYPOXIDACEAE Geophyte 1230000 Hypoxissp. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Herb 3702000 IndigeroferaheterophyllaThunb. Dicotyledon CONVOLVULACEAE Creeper 7003000 Ipomoea pes-caprae (l.) r.Br. K Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 4682000 Isolepisprolifera(Rottb.) R.Br. Graminoid JuncusacutusL. subsp. leopoldii(Parl.) Monocotyledon JUNCACEAE 9360000 Snogerup Monocotyledon JUNCACEAE Graminoid 9360000 JuncuskrausiiHochst. subsp. krausii K Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405066 Lampranthussp. Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Shrub 4647000 Lauridiatetragona(L.f.) R.H.Archer Dicotyledon FABACEAE Shrub 3660000 Lebeckiasp. Dicotyledon HYACINTHACEAE Geophyte 1090010 Ledebouriafloribunda(Bak.) Jessop K Limoniumscabrum(Thunb.) Kuntze var. K Dicotyledon PLUMBAGINACEE Dwarf Shrub 6351010 scabrum Dicotyledon LOBELIACEAE Herb 8694000 Lobelia ancepsL.f. Dicotyledon SOLANACEAE Shrub 7379000 LyciumafrumL. Dicotyledon CAPPARACEAE Shrub 3112000 Maeruacafra(DC) Pax Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Shrub 4626000 Maytenusprocumbens(L.f.) Loes. K Dicotyledon FABACEAE Herb 3688000 MedicargopolymorphaL.

Coastal & Environmental Services 57 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901340 Melinisrepens(Wild.) Zizka subsp. repens Monocotyledon HYACINTHACEAE Geophyte 1093010 Merwillaplumbea(Lindl.) Speta Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902043 Merxmuellerastricta(Schrad.) Conert Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9043000 MetalasiaaureaD.Don Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9043000 Metalasiamuricata(L.) D.Don K Dicotyledon GERANIACEAE Shrub 3925000 Monsoniaemarginata(L.f.) Dicotyledon MONTINIACEAE Shrub 3238000 MontiniacaryophllaceaThunb. Dicotyledon POLYGALACEAE Shrub 4278000 MuraltiaericaefoliaDC. K Monocotyledon ASPARAGACEAE Creeper 1113020 Myrsiphyllumasparagoides(L) Willd. Mystroxylonaethiopicum(Thunb.) Loes. Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Shrub 4642000 subsp. aethiopicum Dicotyledon POLYGALACEAE Dwarf shrub 4279000 Nylandtiaspinosa(L.) Dumort. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Dwarf Shrub 9322000 Oederagenistifolia(L) Anderb. & Bremer K Dicotyledon OLEACEAE Shrub 6434000 OleaexasperataJacq. K Dicotyledon CACTACEAE Succulent Shrub 5417000 Opuntiaficus-indica(L.) Mill. Dicotyledon CACTACEAE Succulent Shrub 5417000 Opuntiahumifusa(Raf.) Raf. Monocotyledon ORCIDACEAE Geophyte Orchid sp. indet. Dicotyledon OXALIDACEAE Geophytic herb 3936000 Oxalis algrensisE. & Z. Dicotyledon OXALIDACEAE Geophytic herb 3936000 Oxalis smithianaEckl. &Zeyh. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901160 PanicumdeustumThunb.

Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901159 Panicum maximum Jacq.

Pappeacapensis Dicotyledon MALVACEAE Shrub 5002000 Pavoniapraemorsa(L.f.) Cav. Dicotyledon GERANIACEAE Shrub 3928000 Pelargonium capitatum(l.) l’Herit. Scrambling K Dicotyledon GERANIACEAE Shrub 3928000 Pelargonium peltatum(L.) L'Her. Pelargonium reniformeCurtis subsp. K Dicotyledon GERANIACEAE Shrub 3928000 velutinum Dicotyledon GERANIACEAE Shrub 3928000 Pelargonium ribifoliumJacq.sp. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901390 PennisetumcladestinumHochst. exchiov. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901391 Pennisetumsetaceum (Forssk.) Chiov Dicotyledon MOLLUGINACEAE Herb 2389000 PharnaceumincanumL. Dicotyledon RHAMNACEAE Shrub 4886000 PhylicaaxillarisLam. Dicotyledon EUPHORBIACEAE Shrub 4299000 PhyllanthusverrucosusThunb.

Coastal & Environmental Services 58 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon PLANTAGINACEAE Herb 8116000 PlantagolanceolataL. Dicotyledon LAMIACEAE Herb 7350000 Plectranthussp. Dicotyledon PLUMBAGINACEE Shrub 6343000 Plumbagoauriculata Lam. K Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Tree 4630000 Pterocelastrustricuspidatus(Lam.) Walp. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8862000 Pteroniaincana(Burm.) DC. Dicotyledon CELASTRACEAE Shrub 4628000 Putterlickiapyracantha(L.) Szyszyl. K MYRSINACEAE Shrub 6314000 Rapaneagilliana(Sond.) Mez. K Dicotyledon SANTALACEAE Shrub 2104010 Rhoiacarposcapensis(Harv.) A.DC. Dicotyledon VITACEAE Climber 4917000 Rhoicissusdigitata(L.f.) Gilg&M.Brandt Dicotyledon VITACEAE Climber 4917001 Rhoicissustridentata(L.f.) Willd& Drummond Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhuscrenataThunb. K Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhusglaucaThunb. K Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhusincisaL.f. var. incisa Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhuslongispinaEckl. &Zeyh. Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhuspallensEckl. &Zeyh. K Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4594000 RhusrefractaEckl. &Zeyh. Submerged Monocotyledon RUPPIACEAE aquatic 59000 Ruppiasp. Dicotyledon MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Succulent 2405105 Ruschiasp. Dicotyledon CHENOPODIACEAE Halophyte 2257000 SalicorniameyerianaMoss K Dicotyledon LAMIACEAE Shrub 7290000 Salvia africana-luctea L. K Dicotyledon THEOPHRASTACEAE Herb 6328000 Samolusporosus(L.f.) Thunb. Sarcocorniaperennis(Mill.) A.J. Scott var. K Dicotyledon CHENOPODIACEAE Halophyte 2255010 perennis Dicotyledon CHENOPODIACEAE Halophyte 2255010 Sarcocorniapillansii(Moss) A.J.Scott K Dicotyledon APOCYNACEAE Succulent Shrub 6849000 Sarcostemmaviminalesubsp. indet Dicotyledon ANACARDIACEAE Shrub 4582000 SchinusmolleL. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9903610 SchmidtiapappophoroidesSteud. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Shrub 3506000 Schotiaafra Dicotyledon FABACEAE Shrub 3506000 Schotialatifolia Monocotyledon CYPERACEAE Graminoid 0468050 Scirpoidesthunbergii(Schrad.) Sojata. Dicotyledon FLACOUTIACEAE Tree 5304000 Scolopiamundii(Eckl. &Zeyhr.) Warb. Dicotyledon RHAMNACEAE Shrub 4874000 Scutiamyrtina(Burm.f.) Kurz K Dicotyledon SCORPHULARIACEAE Dwarf Shrub 7568000 SelagocorymbosaL.

Coastal & Environmental Services 59 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Assemblage Family Form Number Species Name Records Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Succulent 9411000 Senecioaizoides(DC.) Sch. Bip. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9411000 SeneciofilifoliusHarv. K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9411000 SenecioglutinosusThunb. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9411000 SenecioilicifoliaL. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9411000 Senecioinaequidens DC. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 9417000 SeneciolinifoliusL. Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Herb 9411000 SeneciolittorosusFourc. Setariasphacelata(Schumach.) Moss var. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901280 sphacelata Dicotyledon SAPOTACEAE Tree 6368000 SideroxyloninermeL. subsp. inerme K Dicotyledon SOLANACEAE Creeper 7406999 SolanumamericanumMill. Dicotyledon SOLANACEAE Herb 7407000 SolanumhermanniiDun. K Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902830 Sporobolusvirginicus(L.) Kunth Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902830 SporobulusafricanusStapf Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9902830 Sporobulusfimbriatus (Trin.) Nees K Dicotyledon LAMIACEAE Herb 7281000 StachysaethiopicaL. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9901080 Stenotaphrumsecundatum(H.Walter) Kuntze K Dicotyledon SCROPHULARIACEAE Herb 7519000 Suteracampanulata(Benth.) Kuntze Dicotyledon FABACEAE Dwarf Shrub 3534000 Sutherlandiafrutescens(L.) R.Br K Dicotyledon ASTERACEAE Shrub 8937000 TarchonanthuscamphoratusL. K Dicotyledon FABACEAE Shrub 3718000 Tephrosiacapensis(Jacq.) Pers. Dicotyledon LAMIACEAE Herb 7212000 TeucriumafricanumThunb. Monocotyledon POACEAE Graminoid 9900830 ThemedatriandraForssk. Monocotyledon JUNCAGINACEAE Herb 0066000 TriglochinstriataRuiz&Pav. K Dicotyledon VERBENACEAE Herb 7138000 Verbena sp. Dicotyledon FABACEAE Herb 3905000 Viciasativa L.subsp. sativa Dicotyledon CAMPANULACEAE Herb 8668000 WahlenbergiastellaroidesCham. Dicotyledon SELAGINACEAE Herb 7568a Walafridacinerea K Dicotyledon CUCURBITACEAE Creeper 8564 Zehneriascabra(L.f.) Sond. K Dicotyledon ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Shrub 3965000 ZygophyllummorgsanaL.

Coastal & Environmental Services 60 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF FISH SPECIES IN THE ADJACENT ESTUARY

Scientific Name Common Name Marine/Estuarine Mugil cephalus Flathead mullet Liza richardsonii Southern mullet Liza dumerilii Sgroovy mullet Liza tricuspidens Striped mullet Myxus capensis Freshwater mullet Lichia amia Leervis Lithognathus lithognathus White steenbras Rhabdosargus holubi Cape stumpnose Argyrosomus hololepidotus Kob Pomadasys commersonnii Spotted grunter Pomadasus olivaceum Piggy Pomatomus saltatrix Elf Galeichthys feliceps Sea catfish Monodactylus falciformis Cape moony Gilchristella aestuaria Estuarine round-herring Atherina breviceps Cape silverside Heteromycteris capensis Cape sole Solea bleekeri Blackhand sole Glossogobius giurus Tank goby Glossogobius callidus (tenuiformis) River goby Psammogobius knysnaensis Knysna sand goby Caffrogobius multifasciatus Prison goby Clinus superciloisus Super klipfish

Freshwater Barbus afer Eastern Cape redfin Barbus pallidus Goldie barb Sandelia capensis Cape kurper Oreochromis mossambicus Mocambique tilapia

Coastal & Environmental Services 61 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

APPENDIX 3: REPTILE SPECIES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT ON SITE

Scientific name English Name IUCN RDS Chelonians - Tortoises, Turtles and Terrapins Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh terrapin Geochelone pardalis Leopard tortoise Chersina angulata Angulate tortoise Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked tortoise Serpentes - Snakes Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's blind snake Leptotyphlops nigricans nigricans Black thread snake Lycodonomorphus laevissimus Dusky-bellied water snake Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown water snake Lamprophis aurora Aurora house snake Lamprophis fuliginosus Brown house snake Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied house snake Lamprophis guttatus Spotted house snake Lamprophis inornatus Olive house snake Lycophidion capense capense Cape wolf snake Duberria lutrix lutrix Common slug eater Pseudaspis cana Mole snake Amplorhinus multimaculatus Many-spotted snake Prosymna sundevallii sundevallii Sundevall's shovel-snout Psammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus Spotted skaapsteker Psammophis crucifer Montane grass snake Psammophis notostictus Karoo whip snake Aparallactus capensis Cape centipede eater Philothamnus hoplogaster Green water snake Philothamnus natalensis occidentalis Natal green snake Philothamnus semivariegatus semivariegatus Spotted bush snake Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic egg eater Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald snake Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted harlequin snake Aspidelaps lubricus lubricus Coral snake Naja nivea Cape cobra Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Causus rhombeatus Rhombic night adder Bitis arietans arietans Puff adder Bitis atropos Berg adder Sauria - Lizards Acontias gracilicauda gracilicauda Thin-tailed legless skink Acontias meleagris subsp. Cape legless skink

Coastal & Environmental Services 62 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Scientific name English Name IUCN RDS Acontias percivali tasmani Percival's legless skink Scelotes anguina Algoa dwarf burrowing skink Scelotes caffer Cape dwarf burrowing skink Mabuya capensis Cape skink Mabuya homalocephala smithii Red-sided skink Mabuya varia Variable skink Mabuya variegata variegata Variegated skink Tropidosaura gularis Cape mountain lizard Tropidosaura montana rangeri Common mountain lizard Nucras lalandii Delalande's sandveld lizard Nucras taeniolata taeniolata Ornate sandveld lizard Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Spotted sand lizard Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated plated lizard Tetradactylus africanus fitzsimonsi African long-tailed seps Tetradactylus seps Short-legged seps Chamaesaura anguina Cape grass lizard Cordylus cordylus Cape girdled lizard Cordylus tasmani Tasman's girdled lizard Pseudocordylus microlepidotus microlepidotus Cape crag lizard Varanus albigularis Rock monitor Varanus niloticus niloticus Water monitor Agama atra atra Southern rock agama Bradypodion sp. nov. Undescribed species (Branch In prep.) Bradypodion taeniabronchum Smith's dwarf chameleon Critically Endangered Bradypodion ventrale Southern dwarf chameleon Pachydactylus bibronii Bibron's gecko Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated gecko Pachydactylus mariquensis mariquensis Marico gecko Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted gecko Phyllodactylus (Goggia) hewitti ** Hewitt's dwarf leaf-toed gecko Phyllodactylus (Cryptacties) peringueyi ** Péringuey's leaf-toed gecko Data defficient Phyllodactylus (Afrogecko) porphyreus ** Marbled african leaf-toed gecko Lygodactylus capensis capensis Cape dwarf gecko Hemidactylus mabouia Moreau's tropical house gecko

Coastal & Environmental Services 63 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

APPENDIX 4: BIRD SPECIES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT ON SITE

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Accipiter minullus Little Sparrowhawk R Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk R Acrocephalus arundinaceus Great Reed-Warbler NBM x Acrocephalus baeticatus African Reed-Warbler BM x Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp-Warbler R x Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler NBM x Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper NBM x Actophilornis africanus African Jacana R x x Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher R x x Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher NT R x x Alopochen aegyptiacus Egyptian Goose R x Amaurornis flavirostris Black Crake R x x Amblyospiza albifrons Thick-billed Weaver R x Anas capensis Cape Teal R x Anas erythrorhyncha Red-billed Teal R x Anas hottentota Hottentot Teal R x Anas smithii Cape Shoveler R x Anas sparsa African Black Duck R x Anas undulata Yellow-billed Duck R x Andropadis importunus Sombre Greenbul R x P Anhinga rufa African Darter R x Anthobaphes violacea Orange-breasted Sunbird R x Anthropoides paradisea Blue Crane VU R x Anthus cinnamomeus African Pipit R Anthus similis Long-billed Pipit R Apalis flavida Yellow-breasted Apalis R x Apalis thoracica Bar-throated Apalis R x P Apaloderma narina Narina Trogon R x Apus affinis Little Swift R Apus apus Common Swift NBM x x x x

Coastal & Environmental Services 64 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Apus barbatus African Black Swift BM x x x x Apus caffer White-rumped Swift BM Apus horus Horus Swift BM Ardea cinerea Grey Heron R x x P Ardea goliath Goliath Heron R x x Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron R x P Ardea purpurea Purple Heron R x x Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron NBM x x Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone NBM x x Aviceda cuculoides African Cuckoo Hawk R x Batis capensis Cape Batis R x Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda Ibis R x x Botaurus stellaris Eurasian Bittern CR R x Bradypterus baboecala Little Rush-Warbler R x Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-Owl R x Bubo capensis Cape Eagle-Owl R x Bubo lacteus Verreaux's Eagle-Owl R x Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret R x Burhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee R x Burhinus vermiculatus Water Thick-knee R x Buteo rufofuscus Jackal Buzzard R Buteo vulpinus Steppe Buzzard NBM x Calandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark R Calidris alba Sanderling NBM x Calidris canutus Red Knot NBM x Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper NBM x x Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Ra x Calidris minuta Little Stint NBM x x Camaroptera brachyura Green-backed Camaroptera R x Campephaga flava Black Cuckooshrike R x Campethera notata Knysna Woodpecker NT R x Caprimulgus europaeus European Nightjar NBM x

Coastal & Environmental Services 65 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar R x Catharacta antarctica Subantarctic Skua NBM x Centropus burchellii Burchell's Coucal R x x Cercomela familiaris Familiar Chat R Cercotrichas coryphoeus Karoo Scrub-Robin E-R x Cercotrichas leucophrys White-browed Scrub-Robin R x Ceryle rudis Pied Kingfisher R x P Chalcomitra amethystina Amethyst Sunbird R x P Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover NBM x x Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover NBM x x Charadrius marginatus White-fronted Plover R x Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover NBM x x Charadrius pallidus Chestnut-banded Plover NT R x x Charadrius pecuarius Kittlitz's Plover R x x P Charadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover R x x Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern BM x x Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern NBM x x Chlidonias niger Black Tern NBM x Chrysococcyx caprius Diderick Cuckoo BM x Chrysococcyx cupreus African Emerald Cuckoo BM x Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas's Cuckoo BM x Ciconia ciconia White Stork NBM x Ciconia nigra Black Stork NT R x x Cinnyris afra Greater Double-collared E-R x x P Sunbird Cinnyris chalybea Southern Double-collared E-R x x Sunbird Circus maurus Black Harrier VU E-R x Circus ranivorus African Marsh-Harrier VU R x Cisticola aberrans Lazy Cisticola R x Cisticola fulvicapillus Neddicky R x P Cisticola subruficapillus Grey-backed Cisticola Er -R x

Coastal & Environmental Services 66 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Cisticola tinniens Levaillant's Cisticola R x Clamator jacobinus Jacobin Cuckoo BM x Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird R x Columba guinea Speckled Pigeon R Columba livia Rock Dove R Coracias garrulus European Roller NBM x Coracina caesia Grey Cuckooshrike R x Corvus albus Pied Crow R x Corvus capensis Cape Crow R x Cossypha caffra Cape Robin-Chat R x Coturnix adansonii Blue Quail Ra x Coturnix coturnix Common Quail R x Creatophora cinerea Wattled Starling R x Cuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo BM x Cuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo BM x Cyanomitra veroxii Grey Sunbird R x Dendropicos fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker R x Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo R x Dromas ardeola Crab Plover Ra x Dryoscopus cubla Black-backed Puffback R x Egretta alba Great Egret R x Egretta garzetta Little Egret R x P Egretta intermedia Yellow-billed Egret R x x Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite R x Emberiza capensis Cape Bunting R x Emberiza flaviventris Golden-breasted Bunting R x Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill R x P Estrilda melanotis Swee Waxbill Er -R x Eudyptes chrysocome Rockhopper Penguin VU Ra x Euplectes capensis Yellow Bishop R x Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop R x Euplectes progne Long-tailed Widowbird R x

Coastal & Environmental Services 67 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Eupodotis afra Southern Black Korhaan E-R x Eupodotis barrowii Barrow's Korhaan VU E-R Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon NT R Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel VU NBM Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon NT R Falco rupicolis Rock Kestrel R Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby NBM Fregata ariel Lesser Frigatebird Ra x Fregata minor Great Frigatebird Ra x Fulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot R x Gallinago nigripennis African Snipe R x Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen R x Gorsachius leuconotus White-backed Night-Heron VU R x Gypohierax angolensis Palm-nut Vulture Ra Haematopus moquini African Black Oystercatcher NT E-R x Halcyon albiventris Brown-hooded Kingfisher R x Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish-Eagle R x P Hedydipna collaris Collared Sunbird R x Hieraaetus pennatus Booted Eagle R Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt R x x Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow BM x Hirundo albigularis White-throated Swallow BM Hirundo cucullata Greater Striped Swallow BM Hirundo dimidiata Pearl-breasted Swallow BM x Hirundo fuligula Rock Martin R Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow NBM x x x Honeybird Prodotiscus Brown-backed Honeybird R x regulus Indicator indicator Greater Honeyguide R x Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide R x x Indicator variegatus Scaly-throated Honeyguide R x Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern NBM x x

Coastal & Environmental Services 68 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Lagonosticta rubricata African Firefinch R x x Lamprotornis nitens Cape Glossy Starling Er -R x Laniarius ferrugineus Southern Boubou E-R x P Lanius collaris Common Fiscal R x P Lanius collurio Red-backed Shrike NBM Larus cirrocephalus Grey-headed Gull R x Larus vetula Cape Gull R x P Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit NBM x x Lybius torquatus Black-collared Barbet R x Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel VU NBM x Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel NT NBM X Megaceryle maxima Giant Kingfisher R x x Melierax canorus Southern Pale Chanting Er -R Goshawk Melierax gabar Gabar Goshawk R x Merops apiaster European Bee-eater NBM x Milvus aegyptius Yellow-billed Kite BM x Mirafra africana Rufous-naped Lark R Mirafra apiata Cape Clapper Lark E-R x Morus capensis Cape Gannet VU Er -R x Morus serrator Australian Gannet Ra x Motacilla aguimp African Pied Wagtail R x Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail R x P Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail NBM x Muscicapa adusta African Dusky Flycatcher R x Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher NBM x Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork NT NBM x x Myrmecocichla formicivora Anteating Chat E-R Nectarinia famosa Malachite Sunbird R x Neotis denhami Denham's Bustard VU R Neotis ludwigii Ludwig's Bustard VU Er -R Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard R x x

Coastal & Environmental Services 69 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew NBM x Numenius phaeopus Common Whimbrel NBM x Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl R x x Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron R x x

Oena capensis Namaqua Dove R x Oenanthe pileata Capped Wheatear R Onychognathus morio Red-winged Starling R x Oriolus larvatus Black-headed Oriole R x Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole NBM x Otus senegalensis African Scops-Owl R x Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck R x Pandion haliaetus Osprey NBM x Parisoma subcaeruleum Chestnut-vented Tit-Babbler Er -R x

Parus niger Southern Black Tit Er -R x Passer diffusus Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Er -R x

Passer domesticus House Sparrow R x x Passer melanurus Cape Sparrow Er -R x Pernis apivorus European Honey-Buzzard NBM x Phaethon lepturus White-tailed Tropicbird Ra x Phalacrocorax africanus Reed Cormorant R x P Phalacrocorax capensis Cape Cormorant NT Er -R x Phalacrocorax lucidus White-breasted Cormorant R x P Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Ra x Philomachus pugnax Ruff NBM x x Phoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo NT R x Phoenicopterus ruber Greater Flamingo NT R x P Phoeniculus purpureus Green Wood-Hoopoe R x Phyllastrephus terrestris Terrestrial Brownbul R x Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler NBM x

Coastal & Environmental Services 70 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Platalea alba African Spoonbill R x Plectropterus gambensis Spur-winged Goose R x Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis R x x Ploceus capensis Cape Weaver E-R x Ploceus ocularis Spectacled Weaver R x Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-Weaver R x P Pluvialis dominica American Golden Plover Ra x x Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover Ra x Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover NBM x Podica senegalensis African Finfoot VU R x x Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe R x x Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked Grebe R x x Pogoniulus pusillus Red-fronted Tinkerbird R x Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle VU R x Polyboroides typus African Harrier-Hawk R x P Porphyrio madagascariensis African Purple Swamphen R x x Porzana pusilla Baillon's Crake R x Prinia maculosa Karoo Prinia E-R x P Promerops cafer Cape Sugarbird E-R x Psalidoprocne holomelaena Black Saw-wing BM x x Pternistis capensis Cape Francolin E-R x x Puffinus assimilis Little Shearwater Ra x Puffinus puffinus Manx Shearwater NBM x Pycnonotus capensis Cape Bulbul E-R x x Rallus caerulescens African Rail R x Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet R x Riparia cincta Banded Martin BM x Riparia paludicola Brown-throated Martin R x Riparia riparia Sand Martin NBM x x Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-snipe NT R x x Rynchops flavirostris African Skimmer NT Ra x Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird NT R

Coastal & Environmental Services 71 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Sarothrura elegans Buff-spotted Flufftail R x Sarothrura rufa Red-chested Flufftail R x Scleroptila africanus Grey-winged Francolin E-R x Scopus umbretta Hamerkop R x Serinus albogularis White-throated Canary Er -R x Serinus canicollis Cape Canary R x Serinus flaviventris Yellow Canary Er -R x Serinus gularis Streaky-headed Seedeater R x Serinus mozambicus Yellow-fronted Canary R x Serinus sulphuratus Brimstone Canary R x Sigelus silens Fiscal Flycatcher E-R x P Spheniscus demersus African Penguin VU Er -R x Spreo bicolor Pied Starling E-R Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic Jaeger NBM x Sterna albifrons Little Tern NBM x Sterna bergii Swift Tern R x Sterna caspia Caspian Tern NT R x Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern EN R x Sterna hirundo Common Tern NBM x Sterna paradisaea Arctic Tern NBM x Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern NBM x Streptopelia capicola Cape Turtle-Dove R x Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove R x Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove R x P Strix woodfordii African Wood-Owl R x Struthio camelus Common Ostrich R Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling R Sylvietta rufescens Long-billed Crombec R x Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe R x x Tachymarptis melba Alpine Swift BM Tadorna cana South African Shelduck E-R x x Tchagra tchagra Southern Tchagra E-R x

Coastal & Environmental Services 72 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

Habitat IUCN Scientific name English Name (Roberts 7) Occurrence. Recorded RDS Fynbos Marsh Thicket Water Telophorus olivaceus Olive Bush-Shrike Er -R x Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie Er -R x Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise-Flycatcher BM x Thalassornis leuconotus White-backed Duck R x Threskiornis aethiopicus African Sacred Ibis R x x Tricholaema leucomelas Acacia Pied Barbet Er -R x Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper NBM x x Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank NBM x x Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper NBM x x Tringa totanus Common Redshank Ra x Turdus olivaceus Olive Thrush R x Turnix hottentotta Hottentot Buttonquail E-R x Turtur chalcospilos Emerald-spotted Wood-Dove R x P Tyto alba Barn Owl R Upupa africana African Hoopoe R Urocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird R x Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing R x x P Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing R Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah R x Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper NBM x x Zosterops virens Cape White-eye E-R x

Coastal & Environmental Services 73 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment – December 2010

APPENDIX 5: MAMMAL SPECIES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT ON SITE

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME SA RDB IUCN RDS Endemic / Introduced Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse V EN E Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled dormouse R LC E Panthera pardus Leopard R NT Eidolon helvum Straw-coloured fruit bat NT Dendromus mesomelas Brants's climbing mouse R Philantomba monticola Blue duiker R Poecilogale albinucha Striped weasel R Felis lybica African wild cat V Mellivora capensis Honey badger V Orycteropus afer Aardvark V Acomys subspinosus Cape spiny mouse Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse Amblysomus hottentotus Hottentot golden mole Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless otter Arctocephalus pusillus Cape fur seal Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal Cercopithecus aethiops Vervet monkey Chlorotalpa duthieae Duthie's golden mole Crocidura flavescens Greater red musk shrew E Cryptomys hottentotus Common molerat Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose Dasymys incomtus Water rat Dendromus melanotis Grey climbing mouse Desmodillus auricularis Short-tailed gerbil Epomophorus wahlbergi Walburgs epauletted fruit bat Eptesicus capensis Cape serotine bat Felis caracal Caracal Felis catus Feral housecat Galerella pulverulenta Small grey mongoose Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet Genetta tigrina Large-spotted genet Georychus capensis Cape molerat Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed gerbil Grammomys dolichurus Woodland mouse Herpestes ichneumon Large grey mongoose Hystrix africaeaustralis Porcupine Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare Macroscelides proboscideus Round-eared elephant shrew Mastomys coucha Multimammate mouse Miniopterus schreibersii Schreiber's long-fingered bat Mus domesticus House mouse I

Coastal & Environmental Services 74 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre Ecological Impact Assessment –December 2010

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME SA RDB IUCN RDS Endemic / Introduced Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse Mus setzeri Setzer's pygmy mouse Myosorex varius Forest shrew E Myotis tricolor Temminck's hairy bat Nycteris thebaica Common slit-faced bat Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer Otomys irroratus Vlei rat Otomys karoensis Saunders's vlei rat Otomys unisulcatus Karoo bush rat E Ourebia ourebi Oribi Papio ursinus Chacma baboon Paracynictis selousi Selous's mongoose Pelea capreolus Grey rhebuck E Pipistrellus nanus Banana bat Potamochoerus porcus Bushpig Procavia capensis Rock dassie Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok E Rattus norvegicus Brown rat Rattus rattus House rat Rhabdomys pumilio Striped mouse Rhinolophus capensis Cape horseshoe bat E Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's horseshoe bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian fruit bat Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse Suncus infinitesimus Least dwarf shrew E Suncus lixus Greater dwarf shrew Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat Taphozous mauritianus Tomb bat Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Tragelaphus strepsiceros Kudu Vulpes chama Cape fox

Coastal & Environmental Services 75 Laguna Bay Resort and Visitors Centre