Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report Prepared for NM Environmental by GJ McDonald and L Mboyi 07 February 2018 Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report Executive summary The proposed development is sited in an area which has either been transformed or impacted upon by commercial and small-scale agricultural activities and alien plant invasion to a greater or lesser extent. Such vegetation as is found is often of a secondary nature where cane fields have been allowed to become fallow and these disturbed and secondary habitats are substantially invaded by forbs and woody species. Near-natural vegetation is limited and may be found along water courses and certain roads. Local sensitivities - vegetation Plants protected provincially The following Specially Protected species will be affected by the proposed development: Aloe maculata (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at and around 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E, Freesia laxa (Iridaceae) found at WTW1, Kniphofia sp. (Liliaceae/Asphodelaceae) found at both WTW1 and WTW2. These will require a permit from eKZNw to translocate. Specially Protected species in the general area such as Millettia grandis, Dioscorea cotinifolia (Dioscoreaceae) and Ledebouria ovatifolia (Liliaceae/Hyacinthaceae) will require the developers to apply to the relevant competent authority for permits to move or destroy such species (as appropriate) should they be encountered during construction. Although these species were not encountered in the proposed footprint of the areas sampled for this survey, this was not an exhaustive survey and the potential exists that they may be present. Plants protected by the National Forests Act Pittosporum viridiflorum and Sclerocarya caffra were encountered in the general area during this survey and, if encountered once the final pipeline route is selected, will require a permit from DAFF for their removal. Rare, Red Listed and Endemic species The Red-Listed species Hypoxis hemerocallidea (DECLINING) is encountered in large numbers at the sites i McDonald & Mboyi, 2017 Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report designated as WTW1 and WTW2 and will require permit authorization for their translocation. Local sensitivities – fauna The faunal study revealed that a number of species of potential Conservation Significance have been recorded from suitable habitat within the same Quarter Degree Grid Squares. None was recorded from the site during the site visit, nor are they expected to occur there for the most part due to the absence of suitable habitat for these species at the study site. If present, many of these species are likely to move away from the area during construction and should return after rehabilitation of the area. However, the areas designated as WTW1 and WTW2 constitute sensitive areas in the context of the proposed development, especially from an amphibian perspective. The site designated as WTW1 is an extensive hygrophilous grassland with a stream running through it. Low-lying areas may well be inundated at times and the area indicated in red (below) provides a valuable link to an off-site amphibian breeding area (a number of species were heard calling). That area is indicated in yellow (below). Although the WTW1 site does not fall within the D’MOSS, its loss would impact on the remaining D’MOSS habitat and its use for siting the proposed water treatment works is questionable. Furthermore, it would be prudent to re-route the gravity main indicated in green (below) so as to avoid impacting on the amphibian breeding habitat. The WTW2 site has a number of small water courses associated with it and hygrophilous grassland which may well be inundated in years of high rainfall. The area falls within the D’MOSS and should be excluded from development activities. Rocky areas as indicated in red (below) provide valuable habitat for herpetofauna and care should be exercised during construction within these areas to minimize disturbance and habitat loss (30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E and 30°11'18.84"S/30°44'56.82"E). ii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017 Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report Conclusion For the most part, the proposed development can be executed within acceptable limits of impact on the environment; many of these impacts can be mitigated. The proposed pipeline, pump station and reservoir are to be sited in highly transformed habitat and/or secondary habitat and can be supported. The proposed WTW sites are problematic. WTW1 is a hygrophilous grassland and is a sensitive habitat on the broader environmental context of the area. Any activity in this area would require a WULA and should take into account the possibility that the site may provide breeding and transit opportunities for amphibians of conservation significance. The same can be said of the WTW2 site with the additional restriction of the site being designated as part of the D’MOSS. Floral and faunal diversity is likely to be highest in the region of 30°11'27.09"S/ 30°45'46.30"E and 30°11'18.84"S/30°44'56.82"E as these areas are most natural and undisturbed and contain rock habitats suitable for reptiles in particular. It is my opinion that there should be no opposition to the proposed development provided that the WTW2 option is not entertained and that an alternative siting for WTW1 is investigated. iii McDonald & Mboyi, 2017 Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Terms of reference ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of the study ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Constraints of study/fieldwork .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Study area .............................................................................................................................................. 4 3. DESKTOP FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Vegetation types .................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Spatial Planning Tools: EKZN Wildlife C-plan and D’MOSS impacts of proposed development ......... 15 4. STUDY FINDINGS: VEGETATION ............................................................................................................... 19 4.1 Indigenous and Protected species found in the study area ................................................................ 22 4.2 Species of conservation significance Recorded from the site ............................................................. 24 4.2.1 Plants protected provincially ........................................................................................................... 24 4.2.2 Plants protected by the National Forests Act .................................................................................. 24 4.2.3 Red Listed and Endemic species ...................................................................................................... 24 4.2.4 Local sensitivities ............................................................................................................................. 30 4.3 Alien and invasive species encountered in the study area ................................................................. 30 4.4 INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT CONTROL METHODS ...................................................................................... 30 4.4.1 Manual Control Methods ................................................................................................................ 30 4.4.2 Chemical Control ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.4.3 Biological Control ............................................................................................................................. 32 5. STUDY FINDINGS: FAUNA ........................................................................................................................ 33 5.1 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................. 33 iv McDonald & Mboyi, 2017 Proposed Lower uMkomazi Pipeline Project Terrestrial Biodiversity Report 5.1.1 Threatened species .......................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.2.1 Threatened species .......................................................................................................................... 35 5.3 Reptiles ...............................................................................................................................................