DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Faunal Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Faunal Impact Assessment Final Faunal Impact Assessment PROPOSED WYNBERG IRT BUS DEPOT WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE. DRAFT FAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Chand Environmental Consultants P O Box 238 Plumstead 7801 Tel: 021 762 3050 Fax: 086 665 7430 www.chand.co.za Prepared by: CAPE TOWN Also in Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg, Grahamstown, Maputo (Mozambique) and Romsey (UK) 021 045 0900 www.cesnet.co.za June 2021 Faunal Impact Assessment REV ISIONS TRACKING TABLE CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Faunal Impact Aseessment for the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot, Western Cape Province. Client Name & CHAND Environmnetal Consultants Address: Status: Final Issue Date: Draft June 2020 Final June 2021 Lead Author: Amber Jackson [email protected] Reviewer: Ms Tarryn Martin [email protected] No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies Report Version This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or www.cesnet.co.za rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa. CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot i Faunal Impact Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Objectives and Terms of Reference ......................................................................... 1 1.4 Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 2 3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................. 5 3.1 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Topography ................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 Current Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 7 3.5 Wetland and Hydrology ............................................................................................. 8 3.4 Protection level: Other Ecological Support Area .................................................... 9 3.6 Protected areas ........................................................................................................ 12 3.7 Screening Tool: Sensitive Species ........................................................................ 12 4. REGIONAL AND PROJECT AREA FAUNA ....................................................... 14 4.1 Amphibians .............................................................................................................. 14 4.1.1 Amphibians of the Western Cape ........................................................................ 14 4.1.2. Amphibian Species of Conservation Concern .................................................. 15 4.2. Reptiles ................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1. Reptiles of Conservation Concern ..................................................................... 22 4.3. Mammals ................................................................................................................. 23 4.3.1. Mammals of Conservation Concern ................................................................... 23 4.4. Birds ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.4.1. Birds of Conservation Concern .......................................................................... 27 5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 31 6 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ................................................. 34 6.1 Identified Impacts .................................................................................................... 34 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 41 8 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 42 CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot ii Faunal Impact Assessment LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: C-Plan OESA Significance & Descriptions of Permissible Activities...................... 9 Table 3.2: The terrestrial vertebrate faunal species that triggers sensitivity includes: .......... 12 Table 4.1: Amphibians Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020). ............................................................................................. 20 Table 4.2: Threatened Reptiles Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020). ......................................................................... 22 Table A.1: Pre-mitigation Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 50 Table A.2: Description of Overall Significance Rating.......................................................... 51 Table A.3: Post-mitigation Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 52 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: Location of the proposed development. ................................................................. ix Table A: Summary of expected impacts on fauna from the proposed development .............. xi Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed development. ............................................................... 1 Figure 1.2: Proposed development layout. ............................................................................ 1 Figure 3.1: Graphs illustrating the average monthly maximum and minimum temperature and average monthly precipitation for Cape Town (Weather & Climate, 2020). ............................ 5 Figure 3.2: Topography of the project area (South West to North East) (Google Earth Pro, 2020). ................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.3: Potential Biodiversity Corridors in the CoCT (Marlene Laros & Ass., 2007). ........ 8 Figure 3.4: Land use map showing the project area to occur with an area zoned as Public Open Space ........................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3.5: Project area in context of regional vegetation types. The project area occurs within the Cape Flats Sand Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2020). ................................... 10 Figure 3.6: Delineated project area wetland showing the majority of the project area to occur within a degraded wetland (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020). ....................................................... 11 Figure 3.7: CBAs, Conservation Areas and OESA in relation to the project area (CoCT, 2017). ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3.8: Animal species sensitivity for the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot project area (DEA, 2020). ....................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4.1: Distribution of S. pantherina in relation to the project area - black square (IUCN, 2016) .................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4.2: Formally mapped breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline) (WLTCC, 2016) ..................................................... 17 Figure 4.3: Known breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline). .................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4.4: Distribution of M. capensis in relation to the project area - red square ............... 19 Figure 4.5: Distribution of X. gilli in relation to the project area - red square (IUCN, 2017). 20 Figure 4.6: C. maurus High animal sensitivity in relation to the project area ........................ 28 Figure 4.7: Distribution of C. maurus in relation to the project area - red square (Birdlife Int, 2017). ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwater Fishes
    WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE state oF BIODIVERSITY 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 Methods 17 Chapter 3 Freshwater fishes 18 Chapter 4 Amphibians 36 Chapter 5 Reptiles 55 Chapter 6 Mammals 75 Chapter 7 Avifauna 89 Chapter 8 Flora & Vegetation 112 Chapter 9 Land and Protected Areas 139 Chapter 10 Status of River Health 159 Cover page photographs by Andrew Turner (CapeNature), Roger Bills (SAIAB) & Wicus Leeuwner. ISBN 978-0-620-39289-1 SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 2 Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2007 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Andrew Turner [email protected] 1 “We live at a historic moment, a time in which the world’s biological diversity is being rapidly destroyed. The present geological period has more species than any other, yet the current rate of extinction of species is greater now than at any time in the past. Ecosystems and communities are being degraded and destroyed, and species are being driven to extinction. The species that persist are losing genetic variation as the number of individuals in populations shrinks, unique populations and subspecies are destroyed, and remaining populations become increasingly isolated from one another. The cause of this loss of biological diversity at all levels is the range of human activity that alters and destroys natural habitats to suit human needs.” (Primack, 2002). CapeNature launched its State of Biodiversity Programme (SoBP) to assess and monitor the state of biodiversity in the Western Cape in 1999. This programme delivered its first report in 2002 and these reports are updated every five years. The current report (2007) reports on the changes to the state of vertebrate biodiversity and land under conservation usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Ecology and Conservation of Frogs in Urban Habitats of South Africa
    Frogs about town: Aspects of the ecology and conservation of frogs in urban habitats of South Africa DJD Kruger 20428405 Thesis submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in Zoology at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University Supervisor: Prof LH du Preez Co-supervisor: Prof C Weldon September 2014 i In loving memory of my grandmother, Kitty Lombaard (1934/07/09 – 2012/05/18), who has made an invaluable difference in all aspects of my life. ii Acknowledgements A project with a time scale and magnitude this large leaves one indebted by numerous people that contributed to the end result of this study. I would like to thank the following people for their invaluable contributions over the past three years, in no particular order: To my supervisor, Prof. Louis du Preez I am indebted, not only for the help, guidance and support he has provided throughout this study, but also for his mentorship and example he set in all aspects of life. I also appreciate the help of my co-supervisor, Prof. Ché Weldon, for the numerous contributions, constructive comments and hours spent on proofreading. I owe thanks to all contributors for proofreading and language editing and thereby correcting my “boerseun” English grammar but also providing me with professional guidance. Prof. Louis du Preez, Prof. Ché Weldon, Dr. Andrew Hamer, Dr. Kirsten Parris, Prof. John Malone and Dr. Jeanne Tarrant are all dearly thanked for invaluable comments on earlier drafts of parts/the entirety of this thesis. For statistical contributions I am especially also grateful to Dr. Andrew Hamer for help with Bayesian analysis and to the North-West Statistical Services consultant, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity and Ecology of Critically Endangered, Rûens Silcrete Renosterveld in the Buffeljagsrivier Area, Swellendam
    Biodiversity and Ecology of Critically Endangered, Rûens Silcrete Renosterveld in the Buffeljagsrivier area, Swellendam by Johannes Philippus Groenewald Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Science in Conservation Ecology in the Faculty of AgriSciences at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof. Michael J. Samways Co-supervisor: Dr. Ruan Veldtman December 2014 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration I hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis, for the degree of Master of Science in Conservation Ecology, is my own work that have not been previously published in full or in part at any other University. All work that are not my own, are acknowledge in the thesis. ___________________ Date: ____________ Groenewald J.P. Copyright © 2014 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgements Firstly I want to thank my supervisor Prof. M. J. Samways for his guidance and patience through the years and my co-supervisor Dr. R. Veldtman for his help the past few years. This project would not have been possible without the help of Prof. H. Geertsema, who helped me with the identification of the Lepidoptera and other insect caught in the study area. Also want to thank Dr. K. Oberlander for the help with the identification of the Oxalis species found in the study area and Flora Cameron from CREW with the identification of some of the special plants growing in the area. I further express my gratitude to Dr. Odette Curtis from the Overberg Renosterveld Project, who helped with the identification of the rare species found in the study area as well as information about grazing and burning of Renosterveld.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Theecological Systemsof Puerto Rico
    United States Department of Agriculture Guide to the Forest Service Ecological Systems International Institute of Tropical Forestry of Puerto Rico General Technical Report IITF-GTR-35 June 2009 Gary L. Miller and Ariel E. Lugo The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Gary L. Miller is a professor, University of North Carolina, Environmental Studies, One University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804-3299.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Biology of Endangered Freshwater Fishes – Linking Conservation of Endangered Freshwater Fishes with River Conservation, Focussing on the Cederberg
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF ENDANGERED FRESHWATER FISHES – LINKING CONSERVATION OF ENDANGERED FRESHWATER FISHES WITH RIVER CONSERVATION, FOCUSSING ON THE CEDERBERG Report to the Water Research Commission Edited by IR Bills1 and ND Impson2 1South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity 2CapeNature WRC Report No. KV 305/12 ISBN 978-1-4312-0348-2 JANUARY 2013 OBTAINABLE FROM Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 Gezina, Pretoria, 0031 South Africa [email protected] or download from www.wrc.org.za The publication of this report emanates from a WRC project entitled Conservation biology of endangered freshwater fishes – Linking conservation of endangered freshwater fishes with river conservation, focusing on the Cederberg. (WRC Project No.K8/592) DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. © WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Water Research Commission for providing the funding for this work. Cape Nature and the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity provided varied logistical support for most of the sub-projects. In particular Mrs. Sally Terry (SAIAB) helped with all aspects of coordination and curation of samples at SAIAB. Dr Olaf Weyl co-supervised Vusi Mthombeni’s MSc work and together with R. Bills provided additional funding for the catfish biology study. iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No 1 Introduction .………………………………………………………….…………….......1 Roger Bills and Dean Impson 2 Barnard’s rock catfish (Austroglanis barnardi).…………………….…………….5 Roger Bills 3 Clanwilliam roc catfish (Austroglanis gilli).………………………………………17 Roger Bills 4 Twee River redfin (Barbus erubescens) …………………………….……………30 Roger Bills 5 A study of the maintenance and culture requirements of Barbus erubescens, Austroglanis barnardi and A.
    [Show full text]
  • HERPETOFAUNA ASSESSMENT Proposed Princess Vlei Circulatory Trail Grassy Park, Western Cape Province, South Africa
    HERPETOFAUNA ASSESSMENT Proposed Princess Vlei Circulatory Trail Grassy Park, Western Cape Province, South Africa Version 1: October 2019 Version 2: April 2020 For The EnvironmentalDRAFT Partnership Kakale Munamati [email protected] By Enviro-Insight Luke Verburgt (Pr. Sci. Nat.) [email protected] Alex Rebelo [email protected] 1 , TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Project Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Desktop Survey .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 GIS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Herpetofauna Assessment ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Report
    ESKOM JUNO-GROMIS POWERLINE DEVIATION ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Ecological Impact Assessment Report PROPOSED 15KM 400KV JUNO-GROMIS POWERLINE DEVIATION NEAR NUWERUS, MATZIKAMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared for: MEGAWATT PARK, SUNNINGHILL SANDTON, 2146 Prepared by: Cape Town Also, in Cape Town, East London, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Maputo (Mozambique) and Romsey (UK) www.cesnet.co.za March 2021 CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services ESKOM i Ecological Impact Assessment Report REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment for the proposed 15km 400kV Juno-Gromis Powerline Deviation near Nuwerus, Matzikama Local Municipality, Western Cape Province Client Name & Eskom Holdings SOC Limited Address: Megawatt Park Sunninghill Sandton 2146 Status: Draft 1 Issue Date: December 2020 Authors: Ms Tarryn Martin [email protected] Ms Nicole Wienand [email protected] Ms Amber Jackson [email protected] Reviewer: Dr Ted Avis [email protected] No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies Report Version Date This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by [email protected] its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 Possible Impacts of Proposed River Club Development
    South African astronomical observatory: vegetation and conservation 4.4 Possible impacts of proposed River Club development on the renosterveld of the SAAO site Dr Liz Day’s report on the wetlands of the River Club (Day, 2015) says the following: “The Flood Report of Krige (2015) (in Day, 2015) suggests that infilling of the entire River Club site to the 1:50 year flood level would not affect flooding in adjacent properties. Subsequent discussions with Mr Krige clarified the fact that infilling of the floodline would have an (as yet) unquantified effect on floodplain capacity, resulting in likely more rapid inundation of areas below a specified floodline, during an event of such a magnitude (as a result of reduced storage capacity). It is assumed that, up to floods of a magnitude at which flows bypass the constricting Salt River bridge, described in Krige (2015), infilling of the floodplain would also result in increased inundation depth in areas that have not been infilled”. There would be no impacts on the dryland renosterveld vegetation at the SAAO site (the water levels would be constant). However, as articulated by Day (2015) there is possibility that certain wetlands would be more quickly inundated, along with an increase in inundation depth. This would likely affect the species composition of localised wetland habitats, where deeper water species such as Typha capensis bulrush are likely to invade at the expense of those species with a more ephemeral wetland character. By comparison, the artificial perennial inundation of the Kuils River wetlands has led to the decline and even loss of certain wetland species in the area (Ninham Shand, 1999; Low, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Agulhas National Park State of Knowledge
    AGULHAS NATIONAL PARK STATE OF KNOWLEDGE Contributors: T. Kraaij, N. Hanekom, I.A. Russell, R.M. Randall SANParks Scientific Services, Garden Route (Rondevlei Office), PO Box 176, Sedgefield, 6573 Last updated: 16 January 2008 Disclaimer This report has been produced by SANParks to summarise information available on a specific conservation area. Production of the report, in either hard copy or electronic format, does not signify that: . the referenced information necessarily reflect the views and policies of SANParks; . the referenced information is either correct or accurate; . SANParks retains copies of the referenced documents; . SANParks will provide second parties with copies of the referenced documents. This standpoint has the premise that (i) reproduction of copywrited material is illegal, (ii) copying of unpublished reports and data produced by an external scientist without the author’s permission is unethical, and (iii) dissemination of unreviewed data or draft documentation is potentially misleading and hence illogical. This report should be cited as: Kraaij T, Hanekom N, Russell IA & Randall RM. 2009. Agulhas National Park – State of Knowledge. South African National Parks. TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE: TEXT IN SMALL CAPS PERTAINS TO THE MARINE COMPONENT OF THE AGULHAS AREA Abbreviations used 3 Abbreviations used............................................................................................................4 1. ACCOUNT OF AREA...................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Weskusfleur Substation in the Vicinity of Koeberg Substation
    PROPOSED WESKUSFLEUR SUBSTATION IN THE VICINITY OF KOEBERG SUBSTATION: FAUNA & FLORA SPECIALIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT PRODUCED FOR LIDWALA CONSULTING ENGINEERS BY [email protected] JUNE 2015 Fauna & Flora Specialist EIA Report CONTENTS Declaration of Consultants’ Independence .............................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Scope of Study............................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Assessment Approach & Philosophy............................................................................................. 7 1.3 Site Visit.......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Data Sourcing and Review ............................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Site Visits & Field Assessment ..................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Sensitivity Mapping & Assessment ............................................................................................. 12 2.4 Limitations & Assumptions ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Citizenship in Citizen Science: a Case Study of a Volunteer Toad Conservation Group in Noordhoek, South Africa
    ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP IN CITIZEN SCIENCE: A CASE STUDY OF A VOLUNTEER TOAD CONSERVATION GROUP IN NOORDHOEK, SOUTH AFRICA. Half-thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MASTERS IN EDUCATION (Environmental Education) at RHODES UNIVERSITY by Sheraine van Wyk Student Number: g13V5164 Supervisor: Dr Ingrid Schudel February 2015 ABSTRACT The endangered Western Leopard Toad (Amietophrynus pantherinus) is endemic to the winter-rainfall parts of the Western Cape, areas which are also favoured for human settlement. Residents in the Noordhoek area witnessed many toads being killed on roads during their annual migration to breeding ponds. Concerned citizens mobilised a volunteer group to mitigate this threat to the species. Toad NUTS (Noordhoek Unpaid Toad Savers), a well-established and successful citizen science group is explored as a case study of how environmental citizenship emerges in a citizen science group. This research has three research goals. Firstly to probe the enabling and constraining factors shaping the Toad NUTS practices, secondly to investigate the learning dynamics in the citizen science group and thirdly to understand how participation in citizen science develops environmental citizenship. Practice architectures theory (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008) was used to explore how cultural-discursive, economic-material and social-political arrangements shape the practices of the Toad NUTS group. The Toad NUTS group was identified as a community of practice, therefore Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice theory was used to better understand the social learning processes within the group. The Global Citizenship Education international policy document was used to capture the aims of citizenship education as it relates to environmental issues and identifies the competencies that citizenship education initiatives should develop.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study
    Fauna and Flora Specialist Ecological Study Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of the Impofu East Wind Farm Near Oyster Bay, Eastern Cape Province: EIA PHASE REPORT ECOLOGICAL SPECIALIST SERVICES Assessment/Management/Research Prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd on Behalf of Red Cap Impofu East (Pty) Ltd By 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions (Pty) Ltd February 2019 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Red Cap Energy (Pty) Ltd has appointed Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd to undertake the required application for environmental authorisation process for the proposed Impofu East Wind Farm located near to Oyster Bay in the Eastern Cape Province. It is anticipated that the Impofu East Wind Farm would be comprised of up to 33 turbines of between 3-6MW each. The development is currently in the EIA Phase and Red Cap Impofu East (Pty) Ltd has appointed 3Foxes Biodiversity Solutions to provide a specialist terrestrial biodiversity Impact Assessment Study of the development site as part of the EIA process. Several site visits as well as a desktop review of the available ecological information for the area was conducted in order to identify and characterise the ecological features of the site. The Impofu East Wind Farm site consists largely of Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos and Southern Cape Dune Fynbos with small patches of Southern Afrotemperate Forest in kloofs and along drainage systems. The majority of the Tsitsikamma Sandstone Fynbos within the site has been lost to transformation but there is a large tract of intact Southern Cape Dune Fynbos in the south of the site. The transformation of the area for agriculture has significantly affected the abundance and distribution of fauna at the site.
    [Show full text]