Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 FLORIDA PO Box 2131, Florida Hills, 1716 South Africa 25 Main Avenue, Cnr Die Ou Pad, Florida, 1709 Tel +27 011 672 0666 Fax +27 011 672 0008 http://www.golder.com REPORT ON Ecological Status Report for ESKOM Kappa Study Area Report No : 11437/11569/1/E Submitted to: Zitholele Consulting Pty Ltd Client Address DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies - Zitholele Consulting 1 Copy - Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd – Library July 2008 11437 Directors: P Onley (Australia), FR Sutherland, AM van Niekerk, SAP Brown LOCAL OFFICES IN JOHANNESBURG AND PIETERMARITZBURG GOLDER COMPANIES LOCATED IN AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA July 2008 i 11437/11569/1/E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Zitholele Consulting was contracted by ESKOM to conduct and to compile an ecologicl Assessment Report (as is required by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations: Regulations No. 1182 & 1183 of the EnvironmentConservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989)) of the possible sites for a Power Substation in the Tankwa Karoo area of the Western Cape. Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd was in turn sub-contracted by Zitholele Consulting to conduct the ecological assessment for the study area. The object of this study was to assess and identify species and habitats that will be potentially impacted by the proposed activities, including any Red Data Book species. The area consists of a number of possible impact sites. This area is not currently managed through a fire regime and no agriculture is practiced, but some grazing occurs on site. The karoo vegetation is sensitive to disturbance due to various factors. The low rainfall, high temperatures and evaporation rate within the study area leads to a low production phytomass and hence slow nutrients cycle and low organic content of soils. Establishment of seedlings and eventually adult plants is slow because of a low survival rate in such harsh conditions. The many scars on the karoo landscape (erosion gullies, denuded land etc.) caused by overgrazing and insensitive development practices of the past, bear testimony to the sensitivity of the vegetation and the slow rate of recovery in the absence of proper rehabilitation measures. The vegetation communities on site have been highly impacted by over 200 years of overgrazing. Generally the area can be classified as being of low to moderate ecological function and moderate to high conservation importance. Most of the species expected to occur were widespread species of little or no conservation concern. Faunal species diversity was very low for all taxa, this may be due to informal hunting in the area and previous impacts. No Red Data avifaunal species were found to inhabit the area and little evidence was found of any other fauna of conservation importance, the possibility of other Red Data faunal species occurring in the area is, however, high for a number of species. Few, if any, rare species, protected species or Red Data species will potentially be impacted by a development in this area, as the proposed development is due to take place in an area that has been impacted previoiusly and is unlikely to support many (if any) Red Data Species. No Red Data plant species were recorded from the study site and it is unlikely that this area would support rare or threatened species, therefore, it is unlikely that the impact on biodiversity by any development on this site would be severe due to the relatively small footprint of the development. Although this study does give a good representation of the species richness of the area investigations of this nature are but “snapshot” surveys and results are purely indicative of the biological biodiversity. This data may also serve as useful baseline data for further studies of the area or for further monitoring of the area. GOLDER ASSOCIATES July 2008 ii 11437/11569/1/E Strict adherence to specific mitigation measures and general practice during construction and maintenance is the only way to demonstrate commitment to the environmental management principles. GOLDER ASSOCIATES July 2008 iii 11437/11569/1/E TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1 2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................1 3 LIMITATIONS TO THIS INVESTIGATION..............................................2 4 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................2 4.1 General Floristic Attributes................................................................2 4.2 Red Data Floral Assessment.............................................................3 4.3 Floristic Sensitivity Analysis...............................................................3 4.4 General Faunal Attributes..................................................................4 4.5 Red Data Faunal Assessment...........................................................5 4.6 Biodiversity Impact Evaluations.........................................................6 4.6.1 Assessment of significance..................................................6 4.6.2 Description of impact mechanisms.......................................8 4.6.3 Development of mitigation measures...................................9 5 THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT..................................................10 5.1 Location...........................................................................................10 5.2 Distribution......................................................................................12 5.3 Vegetation and Landscape Features...............................................12 5.4 Geology and Soils...........................................................................12 5.5 Climate............................................................................................12 5.6 Important Taxa................................................................................12 5.7 Biogeographically Important Taxa...................................................15 5.8 Endemic Taxa.................................................................................15 5.9 Conservation...................................................................................15 5.10 Remarks..........................................................................................15 6 FLORAL ASSESSMENT......................................................................15 6.1 Floral Species Composition.............................................................15 6.2 Vegetation Communities..................................................................16 6.2.1 Karroid Scrubland Community...........................................17 6.2.2 Acacia Woodland Community............................................18 6.3 Species of Importance.....................................................................18 7 FAUNAL ASSESSMENT......................................................................19 7.1 Recorded Faunal Species...............................................................19 7.1.1 Arthropoda.........................................................................19 7.1.2 Reptilia...............................................................................19 7.1.3 Amphibia............................................................................20 7.1.4 Aves..................................................................................20 7.1.5 Mammalia..........................................................................21 7.2 Red Data Faunal Species................................................................22 7.3 Ecological Function.........................................................................22 7.4 Conservation Importance.................................................................26 8 BIODIVERSITY IMPACT EVALUATION...............................................28 9 DISCUSSION.......................................................................................29 GOLDER ASSOCIATES July 2008 iv 11437/11569/1/E LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: 1:250 000 topograpical map illustrating the location of the study sites................................11 Figure 2: Location of the Tanqua Karoo (Base image: EarthSat 150m).............................................14 Figure 3: 1:50 000 topographical map indicating the Ecological Function of Site D...........................23 Figure 4: 1:50 000 topographical map indicating the Ecological Function of Site E............................24 Figure 5: 1:50 000 topographical map indicating the Ecological Function of Site F............................25 Figure 6: 1:250 000 topographical map indicating the Conservation Importance of the study sites....27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Consequence and probability ranking...................................................................................7 Table 2: Categories for the rating of impact magnitude and significance.............................................8 Table 3: Categories for prescribing and designing mitigation measures............................................10 Table 4: Study areas investigated for the purposes of this survey.....................................................10 Table 5: Red Data faunal species that may occur in the study area..................................................22 Table 6: Table indicating the biodiversity impact evaluation..............................................................28 GOLDER ASSOCIATES July