fairewood estate residential development ... fairewood estate...port alfred rd (r67), stones hill...

FAIREWOOD ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

DEDEAT Ref: EC04/C/LN1&3/M/05-2015

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

Fairewood Estate (Pty) Ltd

Fairewood Nature Reserve Port Alfred Rd (R67), Stones Hill

Grahamstown, 6140

Prepared by:

EOH: Coastal & Environmental Services

P.O. Box 934 Grahamstown, 6140

046 622 2364 South Africa Also in East London, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth,

Johannesburg and Maputo www.cesnet.co.za

April 2015

http://www.cesnet.co.za/

Ecological Assessment – April 2015

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services i FERD

This Report should be cited as follows: EOH Coastal & Environmental Services, April 2015: Fairewood Estate Residential Development: Ecological assessment and Sensitivity Analysis, CES, Grahamstown.

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services

Report Title: Ecological Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis

Report Version: Draft Report

Project Number: 210

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Ms Ayanda Zide Report Writer

05/05/2015

Mr Craig Sholto-

Douglas Report Writer

05/05/2015

Ms Tarryn Martin (Pri.

Sci. Nat) Report Reviewer

09/05/2015

Copyright

This document contains intellectual property and propriety information that are protected by

copyright in favour of EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (CES) and the specialist consultants.

The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the

prior written consent of CES. The document is prepared exclusively for submission to Fairewood

Estate (Pty) Ltd in the Republic of South Africa, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and

trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services ii FERD

THE PROJECT TEAM Ms Ayanda Zide, Environmental Consultant and Botanical Specialist

Ayanda holds a BSc in Botany, Microbiology and Chemistry and a Bsc (Hons) in Botany where her

thesis focused on identifying and characterising galls and gall forming insects and associated

pathogens (Fungi) on the mangrove species Avicennia marina. Courses in her honours year

included Diversity Rarity and Endemism (DRE), Pollination Biology, Estuarine Ecology,

Rehabilitation Ecology, a Stats course and a short GIS course. Her research interests lie in

biological invasion, conservation, rehabilitation ecology, plant biotechnology and water research.

Ayanda conducts vegetation and impact assessments that guide proposed developments to

reduce their impacts on sensitive vegetation. As part of these surveys she identifies and maps the

vegetation communities and areas of high sensitivity. She has worked as a botanical assistant on

the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority botanical baseline survey and has conducted

groundtruthing surveys and ecological assessments for developments in the Eastern Cape.

Mr Craig Sholto-Douglas, Environmental Consultant Craig holds a BSc (Env Sci and Zoology) and a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science. He is

currently completing his MSc in Environmental Science, focusing on factors influencing

survivorship of Portulacaria afra (Spekboom) cuttings, in attempts to restore degraded lands in the

Greater Addo Elephant National Park. Craig has consulting experience in the restoration ecology

and natural resource management fields, with focus on the Subtropical Thicket Restoration Project

(STRP). His academic background includes courses in Urban Forestry and Greening, Non-Timber

Forest Products, Community-Based Natural Resource Management and G.I.S. He has been

involved in vegetation mapping and the compilation of plant species lists in the Addo, Kabouga and

Darlington sections of the Greater Addo Elephant National Park.

Ms Tarryn Martin, Reviewer Tarryn holds a BSc (Botany and Zoology), a BSc (Hons) in African Vertebrate Biodiversity and a

MSc with distinction in Botany from Rhodes University. Tarryn’s Master’s thesis examined the

impact of fire on the recovery of C3 and C4 Panicoid and non-Panicoid grasses within the context of

climate change for which she won the Junior Captain Scott-Medal (Plant Science) for producing

the top MSc of 2010 from the South African Academy of Science and Art as well as an Award for

Outstanding Academic Achievement in Range and Forage Science from the Grassland Society of

Southern Africa. She conducts vegetation assessments including vegetation and sensitivity

mapping to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts on sensitive vegetation. Tarryn

has conducted a number of vegetation and impact assessments in Mozambique (to IFC standards)

which include the Lurio Forestry Project in Nampula, the Syrah Graphite Mine in Cabo del Gado

and the Baobab Iron Ore Mine in Tete, Mozambique. Tarryn has also designed and implemented

the Terrestrial Monitoring Program for Kenmare, MOMA, a heavy minerals mine in Mozambique.

She has worked on the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority botanical baseline survey for

phase 2 of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project as well as numerous local ecological

assessments.


DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Fairewood Estate Residential Development: Ecological assessment and Sensitivity Analysis

I AYANDA ZIDE declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed project, in application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

SIGNATURE: I CRAIG SHOLTO-DOUGLAS declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed project, in application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

SIGNATURE: I TARRYN MARTIN declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed project, in application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

SIGNATURE:

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services iv FERD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To be added after client’s review

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services v FERD

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... IV 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Project description and locality ........................................................................................ 1 1.2. Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Approach ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Limitations and assumptions ........................................................................................... 3

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION .................................................................................................... 5 2.1. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) ........................................... 5 2.2. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) ......................... 5 2.3. National Water Act (No.36 of 1998) ................................................................................. 6 2.4. National Forest Act (No.84 of 1998)................................................................................. 7

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................... 8 3.1. Geology and Landform .................................................................................................... 8

Topography ............................................................................................................................. 8 Geology................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2. Climate ............................................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Current Land-use ............................................................................................................. 9

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 10 4.1. Regional Context ........................................................................................................... 10

4.1.1. SANBI Vegetation Map .......................................................................................... 10 4.1.2. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan ........................................................ 12

4.2. Site survey: description of vegetation/land cover ........................................................... 14 4.2.1. Grassland vegetation .......................................................................................... 14 4.2.2. Alien invasive stands .......................................................................................... 16 4.2.3. Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................. 18

4.3. Species of Conservation Concern ................................................................................. 19 4.4. Alien Species ................................................................................................................. 19

5. FAUNAL SPECIES AND HABITATS ................................................................................... 22 5.1. Amphibians and Reptiles ............................................................................................ 22

5.1.1. Reptiles ................................................................................................................. 22 5.1.2. Amphibians .......................................................................................................... 23 5.1.3. Birds ..................................................................................................................... 23

5.2. Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 24 6. BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 26

6.1. Site ............................................................................................................................... 26 6.2. Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 26

6.2.1. Grasensitivityssland vegetation and Alien Stands .............................................. 26 6.2.2. 6.22. Grassland near the riparian zone ............................................................... 26 6.2.3. Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................. 26

6.3. Summary of site sensitive areas .................................................................................... 26 6.4. Drainage lines and Wetlands ......................................................................................... 28

7. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 31 7.1. Planning and Design Phase .......................................................................................... 31 7.2. Construction Phase ....................................................................................................... 31 7.3. Impacts Associated with the Operation Phase ............................................................... 41 7.4. Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 42

8. IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 44 8.1. Current status ................................................................................................................ 44 8.2. Comparison of impacts .................................................................................................. 44 8.3. Plant removal\rehabilitation ........................................................................................... 45 8.4. Invasion of alien species ................................................................................................ 45 8.5. Operational phase recommendations ............................................................................ 45

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 46 TABLE A-1: PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE (VOS, 2009) ......................... 47 TABLE A-2: PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE (2015) ................................... 52 TABLE A-3 BIRD SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE .................................................. 56


TABLE A-4 MAMMAL SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE ........................................... 57

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Locality map for the proposed Fairewood Estate Residential development. .................................. 2 Figure 4-1 SANBI Vegetation map of the region. ............................................................................................ 11 Figure 4-2: ECBCP map of the project area, showing that the project area falls within the CBA 1 area. ....... 13 Figure 4-3: Vegetation map with a 32m buffer around the drainage line and dams. A 500 m buffer around

the Dam in the center. ............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6-2: Sensitivity map for the project area, 32m buffer around drainage lines. ...................................... 30 Figure 6-2: Threatened Ecosystems and NFEPA Rivers, Wetlands and Drainage LineError! Bookmark not

defined.

LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1: Species of Conservation Concern according to PNCO 19 Table 4-2: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to NEM:BA 19

LIST OF PLATES Plate 3-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area ............................................................ 8 Plate 4-1: Degraded grassland with Acacia longifolia invading. ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Plate 4-2: Stands of alien invasive species .................................................................................................... 16 Plate 4-3: (A) Alien stand that occurs in the South West region of the project area (B) Recently cleared alien

invasive stands in the project area. ......................................................................................................... 17 Plate 4-5: Riparian vegetation that occurred in the project area. .................................................................... 18 Plate 4-6: Seep found to occur close to the dam which is outside the project area. ...................................... 18 Plate 4-7: Alien invasive species Acacia mearnsii which was found to occur on the project area. ................ 21 Plate 5-1: Ranger’s toad (Amietophrynus rangeri) was the only amphibian found at the project site............. 23 Plate 6-1: Photograph illustrating the current dam and the stream which traverses the middle of the Estate 29

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 1 FERD

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project description and locality Fairewood Estate Pty (Ltd) proposes to develop 104 housing units on Farm portion 319/1 located 7km South East of Grahamstown in the Makana Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (Figure 1.1). This will development is known as the Fairewood Residential Development (ERD) and is accessed from the R67 (Port Alfred Road). The farm portion is 11 ha in size and the proposed footprint of the development will be approximately 6.11 ha which includes both the houses and associated infrastructure such as access roads, driveways, parking bays. An Amended Final Basic Assessment Report for the Fairewood Estate Residential Development was submitted to DEDEAT on the 04 October 2013. DEDEAT requested that more information was required to sufficiently address the issues it had requested in a previous letter dated 26 October 2012 and which the Amended Final Basic Assessment Report had not addressed. Twelve Issues were raised by DEDEAT in a letter dated 26 October 2012. The following Issue (No. 9 in the Letter) is relevant to this ecological assessment: “9. The Department requires the submission of a detailed vegetation assessment and sensitivity analysis, as the site does fall within a CBA 1 area and the description of the vegetation on page 20 is a general description of the region, and the discussion on page 22 does not contain sufficient detail, unless this is included as part of the report by W. Vos, Appendix D-1 - the report included as Appendix D-1 is noted. However this report only indicates Red Data species. There is no indication of the status of species in terms of the Provincial Ordinance, Ordinance 19 of 1974, protected trees in terms of the National Forest Act, Act 84 of 1998, and any listings in terms of NEMBA, Act 10 of 2004 etc. Furthermore, as the area is included as a CBA 1 in terms of the East Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP), the vegetation must be assessed in terms of those classifications utilised in the ECBCP. This must be reported on and taken into account in terms of the significance of the impacts of the development.” Given that the project area occurs within a CBA 1 area (further details are provided in chapter 4, below) and that the initial ecological assessment was conducted in June 2009 (5.5 years ago), it was deemed necessary to revisit the site to conduct a second ecological assessment to determine the current state of the vegetation and faunal habitats. Fairewood Estate Pty (Ltd) have appointed EOH Coastal and Environmental Services to review and update the existing Ecological Assessment, including the issues raised by DEDEAT.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services FERD 2

Figure 1-1: Locality map for the proposed Fairewood Estate Residential


1.2. Terms of Reference The terms of reference provided for this study are outlined below:

Review the previous Ecological and Sensitivity study for the area.

Review published literature on the ecology of the area in order to describe the study site in the context of the region and the Eastern Cape Province. The following spatial planning tools and references were consulted:

o Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP) o SANBI vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford) o National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) o SA Red Data List o NEM:BA species list (Act 10 of 2004) o Protected tree species list in terms of the National Forest Act (Act 84 of 1998) o Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance Act PNCO

Describe the study area in terms of land cover, vegetation, likely fauna and habitat. Faunal considerations will include mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds. This aspect of the report will specifically include the identification of -

o Areas of high biodiversity; o The presence of species of conservation concern, including sensitive, endemic and

protected species; o Habitat associations of the identified fauna and flora; o The presence of areas sensitive to invasion by alien species; and o The presence of conservation areas and sensitive habitats where disturbance should be avoided or minimised.

An assessment of the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from the proposed development (including associated infrastructure e.g. access road), both on the footprint and the immediate surrounding area during construction and operation;

A detailed description of appropriate mitigation measures that can be adopted to reduce negative impacts for each phase of the project, where required; and

Checklists of plant and animal groups identified in the region to date, highlighting sensitive species and their possible areas of distribution.

1.3. Approach The study site and surrounding areas were described using a three-phased approach. Firstly, a review of the previous Ecological assessment was conducted. Secondly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:

The South African Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP)

Makana Municipality SDF (2013-2014) Further to the above, one site visit was conducted (10 February 2015) in order to assess the actual ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visit served to inform potential impacts of the proposed project and how significantly it would impact on the surrounding ecological environment.

1.4. Limitations and assumptions This report is based on currently available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit:–


1. The report is based on a project description taken from design specifications for the proposed Fairewood Estate Residential development that have not yet been finalised, and which are likely to undergo a number of iterations and refinements before they can be regarded as definitive;

2. Descriptions of the natural environment are based on limited fieldwork and available literature.


2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Environmental legislation relevant to the proposed Fairewood ERD is summarised below. Biodiversity Plans and Programmes are discussed in Chapter 3 where they are used to describe the desktop ecological conditions.

2.1. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) Relevant Sections of the Act: Section 2, 23, 24, 24-1, 28 -33 Applications for the Fairewood ERD:

Application of the NEMA principles (e.g. need to avoid or minimise impacts, use of the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, etc.)

Application of fair decision-making and conflict management procedures are provided for in NEMA.

Application of the principles of Integrated Environmental Management and the consideration, investigation and assessment of the potential impact of existing and planned activities on the environment; socio-economic conditions; and the cultural heritage.

Implications for the proposed Fairewood ERD:

In terms of Section 28, every person who causes; has caused, or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable measures to prevent pollution or rectify the damage caused.

2.2. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) Relevant Sections of the Act: Section 50-62, 63-77, 75 Objectives of the Act The objectives of the Act include inter alia: To provide for:

The management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity;

o The use of indigenous biological resources in a suitable manner; o The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bio-prospecting of genetic

material derived from indigenous biological resources; and o To give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are

binding on the Republic.

To provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and

To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of the Act.

Threatened or protected ecosystems and species Sections 50-62 provide details relating to the protection of threatened or protected ecosystems and species. A person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without a permit (Section 56-1). (Refer to EC Environmental Conservation Bill for lists of endangered and protected faunal and floral species). Alien and invasive species Sections 63-77 provide details relating to the alien and invasive species with the purpose of preventing the introduction and spread, managing and controlling, and eradicating alien and invasive species.


Implications for the Fairewood ERD:

Permits for the removal of PROTECTED SPECIES should be obtained before the removal of any protected species and before construction commences.

An invasive species monitoring, control and eradication plan for land/activities under their control should be developed, as part of their environmental plans in accordance with section 11 of NEMA.

2.3. National Water Act (No.36 of 1998) Purpose of the Act (Section 2) The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the Nation’s water resources are protected, used, developed, conserved and controlled in ways which take into account, including: d) Promoting sustainable use of water. g) Protect aquatic and associated ecosystems and their biological diversity. h) Reducing and preventing pollution and degradation of water resources. Protection of water resources (Section 12-20) Provides details of measures intended to ensure the comprehensive protection of all water resources, including the water reserve and water quality. With respect to the establishment of water quality objectives, objectives may relate to (Section 13):

the presence and concentration of particular substances in the water

the characteristics and quality of the water resource and the in-stream and riparian habitat

the characteristics and distribution of aquatic biota

the regulation and prohibition of in-stream and land-based activities which may affect the quantity and quality of the water resource

Section 19 deals with Pollution Prevention (Part 4) The person (including a municipality) who owns, controls occupies or uses the land in question, is responsible for taking reasonable measures to prevent pollution of water resources. If the measures are not taken, the catchment management agency concerned, may itself do whatever is necessary to prevent the pollution or remedy its effects and recover all reasonable costs from the persons responsible for the pollution. The ‘reasonable measures’ which have to be taken may include measures to:

a) Cease, modify or control any act or process causing the pollution; b) Comply with any prescribed waste standard or management practice; c) Contain or prevent the movement of pollutants; d) Eliminate any source of the pollution; e) Remedy the effects of the pollution; and f) Remedy the effect of any disturbance to the bed and banks of a watercourse.

With respect to pollution of rivers, the following definition is relevant when considering the potential impacts of development on water resources. Pollution may be deemed to occur when the following are affected:

a) the quality, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of instream flow; b) the water quality, including the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the

water; c) the character and condition of the in-stream and riparian habitat; d) the characteristics, condition and distribution of the aquatic biota.

The Act defines ‘instream habitat’ as including the physical structure of a watercourse and the associated vegetation in relation to the bed of the watercourse.


Riparian ecosystems ‘Riparian habitat’ includes the physical structure and associated vegetation of the areas associated with a watercourse which are commonly characterised by alluvial soils, and which are inundated or flooded to an extent and with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation of species and physical structure distinct from those of adjacent land areas. Section 21 deals with the Use of Water Section 21 (a-k) describes activities defined as a water use under the act. These activities may only be undertaken subject to the application for, and issue of, a water use licence.


Appropriate measures must be taken to prevent the pollution of water courses

Riparian zones must be protected

Construction within 32 m of a water course or within 500 metres of a wetland will require a Water Use licence under section 21 (c) & (i) issued by the Department of Water Affairs.

According to the boundaries of the area (Farm portion 319/1), a watercourse and 3 man-made dams occur on the project area thus a Water Use licence will be required.

2.4. National Forest Act (No.84 of 1998) Any area that has vegetation which is characterised by a closed and contiguous canopy and under storey plant establishment is defined as a ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF): Forestry sector. A clause in Chapter 3, Part 1 covers: Prohibition on destruction of trees in natural forests. Section 7 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any indigenous living tree in, or remove or receive any such tree from, a natural forest except in terms of (a) A licence issued under subsection (4) or section 23. Effect of setting aside protected areas Section 10 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any forest produce in, or remove or receive any forest produce from, a protected area, except—

a) in terms of the rules made for the proper management of the area in terms of section 11(2)(b);

b) in the course of the management of the protected area by the responsible organ of State or person;

c) in terms of a right of servitude: d) in terms of the authority of a licence granted under section 7(4) or 23; e) in terms of an exemption under section 7(1)(b) or 24(6); or f) in the case of a protected area on land outside a State forest, with the consent of the

registered owner or by reason of another right which allows the person concerned to do so, subject to the prohibition in section 7(1).


No indigenous forests will be affected by the project footprint.


3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Geology and Landform The Eastern Cape Province contains a wide variety of landscapes, from the stark Karoo (the semi-desert region of the central interior) to mountain ranges and gentle hills rolling down to the sea. The climate and topography gives rise to the great diversity of vegetation types and habitats found in the region. Topography The project site is characterised by low rounded hills and mountains. The elevation ranges from 500 to 560 metres above sea level (masl). The project site is north facing in most areas, with relatively steep (1 in 8) slopes surrounding large areas of flat land. The steeper areas are characterised by rocky outcrops, while the lower areas consist of flat grasslands. Plate 3-1 illustrates the general topography of the project site.

Plate 3-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area


Geology Grahamstown is situated in the eastern part of the Cape Fold Belt and is underlain mainly by rocks of the Witteberg Group of the Cape Supergroup, and the Dwyka and Ecca groups of the Karoo Supergroup. Shallow quartzitic sandstone bedrock prevails in this area, overlain by silcrete type of soils. The terrain is relatively steep and although the soils have high seepage rates there is limited seepage into the ground due to the shallow impervious bedrock. The project site consists mainly of quartzite and quartzitic sandstone derived from the Dwyka Group and Lake Mentz Subgroup of the Witteberg Formation (Plate 3-2). These quartzites are overlain by fine-grained shales and thin sandstones (Jacob et al., 2004) which give rise to weakly developed, rocky, shallow soils.

3.2. Climate The Eastern Cape Province of South Africa has a complex climate due to its location at the confluence of two climatic regimes, namely temperate and subtropical. As a result there are wide variations in temperature, rainfall and wind patterns, mainly as a result of movements of air masses, altitude, mountain orientation and the proximity of the Indian Ocean. The Makana region falls in the heart of three major transitional climatic regions:

From the south-western region there is a maritime influence of winter rainfall. In this region it changes to spring and autumn rainfall with south easterly winds bringing torrential rains which are very variable and inconsistent.

From Grahamstown north-eastwards the rainfall changes to a general summer rainfall.

The interior south of the Winterberg is affected by both these climatic patterns, with cold fronts and little winter rain, but summer rain from sporadic thunder showers.

Winds and alternating cold and warm fronts thus make for a very variable climate throughout the region and project site. The area normally receives approximately 466mm of rainfall per year and because it receives most of its rainfall during winter it has a Mediterranean climate. The lowest rainfall (16mm) occurs in July and the highest (57mm) in March. The monthly distribution of average daily maximum temperatures indicates that the average midday temperatures range from 18.9°C in July to 26.8°C in February. The region is the coldest during July with average temperatures of 5.6°C during the night.

3.3. Current Land-use The project area (6.11 hectares) is part of a larger eco-reserve with adjoining farms (totalling 150 ha). The eco-reserve has been fenced and stocked with a variety of wildlife, and is used for environmental education purposes. The reserve is stocked with Blesbok, Bushbuck, Duiker, Eland, Impala, Kudu, Ostrich, Red Hartebeest, Mountain Reedbuck, Springbok and Zebra. Facilities within the eco-reserve include;

An outdoor education and recreation centre, including boma and ablution facilities, water and electricity;

A community centre;

Several short trails for hikers, botanists and birdwatchers; and

Eco-Centre accommodation


4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1. Regional Context The project area falls within the Fynbos Biome which takes its name from the dominant vegetation in the region – fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). This biome consists of three quite different, naturally fragmented vegetation types (fynbos, renosterveld and strandveld) that occur in the summer and winter rainfall areas. Fynbos comprises of species that are typically small-leaved, evergreen shrubs and that rely on fire for regeneration. This Biome is endemic to South Africa and occupies most of the Cape Fold Belt, the adjacent lowlands between mountains and the Atlantic Ocean in the west and south as well as between the mountains and the Indian Ocean in the south.

4.1.1. SANBI Vegetation Map Mucina and Rutherford (2006) developed the National Vegetation map as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project: “It was compiled in order to provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.” The map was developed using a wealth of data from several contributors and has allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. The SANBI Vegetation map informs finer scale bioregional plans such as STEP. This SANBI Vegmap project has two main aims:

“to determine the variation in and units of southern African vegetation based on the analysis and synthesis of data from vegetation studies throughout the region, and

to compile a vegetation map. The aim of the map was to accurately reflect the distribution and variation on the vegetation and indicate the relationship of the vegetation with the environment. For this reason the collective expertise of vegetation scientists from universities and state departments were harnessed to make this project as comprehensive as possible.”

The map and accompanying book describes each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important. This is the most comprehensive data for vegetation types in South Africa. According to this spatial planning tool, only Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos is found within the project area (Figure 4-1). Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos This vegetation type occurs in the Eastern Cape Province, from Baroe to Kapriverberge which is east of Grahamstown. It is associated with low rounded hills and mountains and supports low to medium-high, closed, ericoid shrubland or grassland with a closed restioid and/or grass understory. This vegetation type is characterised by Grassy fynbos which is interspersed with localised patches of dense proteoid and ericaceous fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). It is classified as LEAST THREATENED, with a conservation target of 30%. It is statutorily conserved in the Greater Addo Elephant National Park (15%) and an additional 16% in a number of private reserves.

EOH Coastal & Environmental Services FERD 11

Figure 4-1 SANBI Vegetation map of the region.


4.1.2. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan The ECBCP is a first attempt at detailed, low-level conservation mapping for land-use planning purposes. Specifically, the aims of the Plan were to map critical biodiversity areas through a systematic conservation planning process. The current biodiversity plan includes the mapping of priority aquatic features, land-use pressures, critical biodiversity areas and develops guidelines for land and resource-use planning and decision-making. The main outputs of the ECBCP are “critical biodiversity areas” or CBAs, which are allocated the following management categories:

1. CBA 1 = Maintain in a natural state 2. CBA 2 = Maintain in a near-natural state

The ECBCP maps CBAs based on extensive biological data and input from key stakeholders. The ECBCP, although mapped at a finer scale than the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al., 2005) is still, for the large part, inaccurate and “course”. Therefore it is imperative that the status of the environment, for any proposed development MUST first be verified before the management recommendations associated with the ECBCP are considered (Berliner and Desmet, 2007). It is also important to note that in absence of any other biodiversity plan, the ECBCP has been adopted by the Provincial Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs as a strategic biodiversity plan for the Eastern Cape. According to the ECBCP spatial planning tool the entire project area occurs in an area categorised as a CBA 1 area (Figure 4-2). The ECBCP recognizes that some of the areas that are classified as CBAs were in a degraded state, in such cases those classified as CBA 1 areas, are areas which are said to be “important remaining (degraded) areas”, where the area has little or no intact biodiversity remaining but is said to have potential to regain a CBA 1 status through rehabilitation. When related to the Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMCs), a degraded CBA 1 area needs to be maintained in a near natural state (landscape). Though the proposed project area is classified as a CBA 1, the site visit conducted (10 February 2015) showed that this area has been severely transformed with little natural vegetation and endemic species remaining in the area. An exception is the vegetation found near the stream which is fairly intact and considered to be in moderate condition. Poor land management practices in the project area has resulted in it becoming infested with alien invasive species such Acacia longifolia and Acacia mearnsii. Alien invasive species were found to occur throughout the project area from the grassland areas, to the “unnatural forest vegetation” which had tall stands of Alien invasive species forming a closed canopy to the vegetation along the drainage lines. The ecological assessment, that included a groundtruthing site survey, indicated that the current status of the project area when assessed at a finer scale, is degraded and that its classification as a CBA 1 area should be downgraded to near natural landscape. The area is transformed and currently adds very little conservation value due to the infestation by alien invasive species.


Figure 4-2: ECBCP map of the project area, showing that the project area falls within the CBA 1 area.


4.2. Site survey: description of vegetation/land cover Three vegetation types were found to occur in the project area namely grassland, stands of alien invasive species forming a closed canopy and riparian vegetation along the drainage lines (Figure 4-3).

4.2.1. Grassland vegetation This vegetation type was found to occur throughout most of the project area and was dominated by grass species such as Sporobolus africanus, Cynodon dactylon and Kyllinga erecta. Patches of tree species dominated by Searsia (previously Rhus) pyroides were interspersed throughout the grassland. This vegetation type was transformed as a result of the grazing that occurs on the project area and had a number of alien species which included Acacia longifolia and Circium valgare. This vegetation type had a low number of SCC. Palmer (2004) states that, in drier and north facing slopes Suurburg Quartzite Fynbos vegetation is replaced by grassland due to over burning or over protecting the area from fire. The vegetation type found in this project area does not align with the description provided by Mucina and Rutherford and is predominated by degraded grassland rather than Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos as predicted.

Plate 4-1: Degraded grassland with Acacia longifolia invading.


Figure 4-3: Vegetation map with a 32m buffer around the drainage line and dams. A 500 m buffer around the Dam in the centre.


4.2.2. Alien invasive stands

This vegetation type was found to occur in portions along the South–East boundary of the property as well as in a patch on the South-West region of the property. Some regions of this vegetation had been cleared of alien invasive species, leaving an area characterised by grassland and rocky outcrops. In the South-East boundary this vegetation was dense and dominated by alien species interspersed with some indigenous species. This vegetation type is of low conservation importance. The dominant invasive species included Lantana camara, Acacia mearnsii and Acacia longifolia. Natural vegetation that was dominant included the grass species Cynodon dactylon and tree species Searsia pyroides.

Plate 4-2: Stands of alien invasive species


Plate 4-3: (A) Alien stand that occurs in the South West region of the project area (B) Recently cleared alien invasive stands in the project area.

A

B


4.2.3. Riparian Vegetation The riparian vegetation is restricted to the watercourses occurring within the project area. This vegetation was in fairly moderate condition and is dominated by species such as Pennisetum clandestinum, Pycreus acetocolla and Cynodon dactylon. Species of Conservation Concern such as Aristea ecklonii and Erica caffra were found near the drainage lines. Searsia pyroides was dominant in the Eastern sections of the stream. Dominant alien species in this vegetation type included Lantana camara and Acacia longifolia. A seep was also found occurring near the dam which is outside the project area and was dominated by Pycreus acetocolla, Bulbostylis humilis and Paspalum dilatatum.

Plate 4-5: Riparian vegetation that occurred in the project area.

Plate 4-6: Seep found to occur close to the dam which is outside the project area.


4.3. Species of Conservation Concern The species list from the site survey and the previous Ecological Assessment (Vos, 2009) was assessed against the South African Red Data List, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) list of protected species, DAFF’s list of protected tree species and the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list of species. Based on this survey and the survey conducted by Vos (2009) a total of thirteen species were listed on the PNCO list of species (Table 4-1). None of the species found to occur on the project area are listed on NEM:BA and DAFF’s protected tree list (see below: Table A-1). Hypoxis haemerocallida was found to occur on the site and islisted as “Declining”. The previous study also found Ornithogalum juncifolium (Critically rare) and Cineraria pinnata (Near Threatened) to occur on site. A full list of the species has been included in (Table A-1 and A-2). Permits for the removal of PNCO species will be required. Table 4-1: Species of Conservation Concern according to PNCO

FAMILY Scientific name PNCO

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe pluridens Schedule 4

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe sp. Schedule 4

IRIDACEAE Aristea abysssinica Schedule 4

IRIDACEAE Aristea ecklonii Schedule 4

IRIDACEAE Aristea schizolaena Schedule 4

IRIDACEAE Bobartia orientalis Schedule 4

APOCYNACEAE Carissa bispinosa Schedule 4

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus deliciosus

Schedule 4

APOCYNACEAE

Cynanchum natalitium Schedule 4

ERICACEAE Erica caffra Schedule 4

IRIDACEAE Gladiolus sp. Schedule 4

SCROPHULARIACEAE Halleria lucida Schedule 4

PROTEACEAE Helichrysum foetidum

Schedule 4

4.4. Alien Species A number of species that were found to occur on the site are listed as alien invasive species by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act No, 10 of 2004). Dominant Alien invasive species included Lantana camera, Acacia mearnsii and Acacia longifolia. Alien invasive species were found to occur throughout the project area. Alien species occurring within the project area and their category were assessed according to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act No, 10 of 2004) (published 1 August 2014). Alien invasive species found in the previous study (Vos, 2009) have also been included. Table 4-2: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to NEM:BA

Species Category Comment

Acacia longifolia, Cirsium vulgare, Lantana camara Lantana rugosa

1b

Category 1b weeds are:

1) According to NEM:BA category 1b Listed species are those species listed as such by


Psidium cattlelanum Agave sisalana Ligustrum lucidum Melia azaderach Opuntia ficus-indica Pinus pinaster Pennistetum clandestinum Senna didymobotrya Solanum mauritianum

notice in terms of section 70(1)(a) of the Act as species which must be contained.

2) A landowner upon whose land a Category 1 b Listed Invasive Species occurs and which species is under the landowner's control must:

a) comply with the provisions of section 73(2) of the Act; and

b) contain the listed invasive species in compliance with section 75 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act;

3) If an Invasive Species Management Programme has been developed in terms of regulation 7, a landowner must control the listed invasive species in accordance with such programme.

4) A landowner contemplated in sub-regulation (2) must allow an authorised official from the Department to enter onto the land to monitor, assist with or implement the containment of the listed invasive species, or compliance with the Invasive Species Management Programme contemplated in regulation 7.

Acacia mearnsii, Psidium guajava

2

Category 2 weeds are: 1) Category 2 Listed Invasive Species are those

species listed by notice in terms of section 70(1)(a) of the Act as species which require a permit to carry out a restricted activity within an area specified in the Notice, the Fish Sanctuary Areas, within National Parks Provincial Reserves, Mountain Catchment areas or Forestry Reserves specified in the Protected Areas Act, or in the Permit as the case may be.

2) Unless otherwise indicated in the Notice, no person may carry out a restricted activity in respect of a Category 2 Listed Invasive Species without a permit.

3) A landowner on whose land a Category 2 Listed Invasive Species occurs must ensure that the specimens of the species do not spread outside of the land or the area specified in the permit.

4) Unless otherwise specified in the List, any species listed as a Category 2 Listed Invasive Species that occurs outside the specified area contemplated in subregulation (1), must, for purposes of these Regulations, be considered to be a Category 1 b Listed


Invasive Species and must be managed according to regulation 3.

Individual specimens of listed invasive plant species that are declared as National Heritage Trees or National Monuments, in terms of the National Heritage Act 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), are Category 2 specimens.

Plate 4-6: Alien invasive species Lantana camara which was found to occur on the site.

Plate 4-7: Alien invasive species Acacia mearnsii which was found to occur on the project area.


5. FAUNAL SPECIES AND HABITATS

5.1. Amphibians and Reptiles Amphibians and reptiles are well represented in sub-Saharan Africa. However, distribution patterns in southern Africa are uneven both in terms of species distribution and in population numbers (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Climate, centres of origin and range restrictions are the three main factors that determine species distribution. The eastern coast of South Africa has the highest amphibian diversity and endemicity while reptile diversity is generally highest in the north eastern extremes of South Africa and declines to the south and west (Alexander and Marais, 2010).

5.1.1. Reptiles South Africa has 350 species of reptiles, comprising 213 lizards, 9 worm lizards, 105 snakes, 13 terrestrial tortoises, 5 freshwater terrapins, 2 breeding species of sea turtle and 1 crocodile (Branch, 1998). Of those 350 reptile species, the Eastern Cape is home to 133 which include 21 snakes, 27 lizards and eight chelonians (tortoises and turtles). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats. Consultation of the Animal Demography Unit historical records indicates that 60 species of reptiles are likely to occur within the project area. Only one Near Threatened species (Nucras taeniolata - Albany Sandveld Lizard) listed on the IUCN Red Data List is likely to be found in the study area (Table 5-1). No Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) according to NEMBA are likely to occur in the study area. However, all lizards and tortoises are listed as a schedule 2 species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal. During the one day site visit, only one reptile species (Trachylepis varia) out of a potential 60 species was recorded from the study site. Table 5.1: Reptile species of conservation concern that are likely to occur in the project area (ADU)

Family Scientific Name Common name Red List Status

PNCO

Colubridae Dasypeltis inornata Southern Brown

Egg-eater - Schedule 2

Colubridae Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater - Schedule 2

Colubridae Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-

eater

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Lamprophis aurora Aurora House

Snake

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied House Snake

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House

Snake - Schedule 2

Colubridae Lycodonomorphus

inornatus

Olive House Snake

- Schedule 2


laevissimus

Dusky-bellied Water Snake

- Schedule 2


rufulus

Brown Water Snake

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Lycophidion capense

capense Cape Wolf Snake

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Philothamnus natalensis

occidentalis

Western Natal Green Snake

- Schedule 2

Colubridae Philothamnus

semivariegatus Spotted Bush

Snake - Schedule 2


Colubridae Prosymna sundevalli Sundevall's Shovel-

snout

- Schedule 2

Lacertidae

Nucras taeniolata Albany Sandveld

Lizard

Near threatened

Schedule 2

5.1.2. Amphibians

Amphibians are important in wetland systems, particularly where fish are excluded or of minor importance. In these habitats frogs are dominant predators of invertebrates. Frog abundance and diversity is a poignant reflection of the general health and well-being of aquatic ecosystems. According to historical records, 14 species of amphibians have been documented in the Quarter Degree Squares that the project area falls in. Of these 14 species, none are listed as species of conservation concern nor as a schedule 1 on the PNCO list. However, all frogs and toads are listed as schedule 2 species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal. During the one day site visit, only one frog species (Amietophrynus rangeri) out of a potential 14 species was recorded at the study site.

Plate 5-1: Ranger’s toad (Amietophrynus rangeri) was the only amphibian found at the project site

5.1.3. Birds Nine bird species are endemic to South Africa, but there are no Eastern Cape endemics. However, there are 62 threatened species within the Eastern Cape Province (Barnes, 2000). Most of these species occur in grasslands or are associated with wetlands, indicating a need to conserve what is left of these ecosystems (Barnes, 2000). According to SABAP2 for the QDS 3326BC, 304 bird species are expected to be found in the site area. During the one day site visit, 27 bird species (Appendix C) out of a potential 304 species were recorded, none of which are of conservation concern. Historical records indicate that there are four Vulnerable species and seven Near


Threatened species likely to occur in the project area (Table 5-2). The Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) is a critically endangered species according to NEMBA, as well as a listed species on Appendix II of CITES. Denham’s Bustard (Neotis denhami) and the Southern Ground-Hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri) are listed as protected on the NEMBA list, and the Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) is listed as threatened. Martial Eagles are commonly found in savanna and open woodland areas, with sporadic occurrences within grasslands. Although it is fairly likely that the species will frequent the area, it is unlikely that they will nest on site as they prefer larger savanna type trees or forks in large pylons. Blue Cranes and Denham’s Bustards are resident and local nomads within the area; however, they prefer agricultural lands further away from towns or cities. Both species may frequent the project area sporadically for feeding purposes, but it is unlikely to find either species on the study site for any extended period of time. Although both species are known to nest in habitats found in the project area (such as grasslands and agricultural areas), it is unlikely that either species will nest on site due to the proximity to existing infrastructure and operations (dog kennels) on the property. Southern Ground-Hornbills are scarce residents and nomads mainly in savannah, woodlands and grasslands mainly with adjoining forest. However, the species is now mainly confined to large reserves and national parks which reduce the likelihood of the species nesting within the project site. The species has only been recorded on very rare occasions within the area. It is highly unlikely that the species will occur or nest on the project site. None of the listed bird species of conservation concern were recorded on site during the one day site visit. Table 5.2: Bird species of conservation concern that are likely to occur in the project area

(BirdlifeSA, 2014).

Family Scientific

Name Common

name Red List status

CITES NEMBA PNCO

GRUIDAE Anthropoides paradiseus

Blue Crane Vulnerable Appendix

II Critically

endangered Schedule

2

SAGITARIIDAE

Sagittarius serpentarius

Secretary Bird

Vulnerable Appendix

II -

Schedule 2

BUCEROTIDAE

Bucorvus leadbeateri

Southern Ground-Hornbill

Vulnerable - Protected Species

Schedule 2

ACCIPIT RIDAE

Circus maurus Black Harrier Vulnerable - - Schedule

2

CORACIIDAE Coracias garrulus

European Roller

Near Threatened

- - Schedule

2

OTIDIDAE Neotis

denhami Denham's Bustard

Near Threatened

- Protected Species

Schedule 2

ANATIDAE Oxyura maccoa

Maccoa Duck Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

ACCIPITRIDAE

Polemaetus bellicosus

Martial Eagle Near

Threatened - Threatened

Schedule 2

ACCIPITRIDAE

Stephanoaetus coronatus

Crowned Eagle

Near Threatened

- - Schedule

2

PICIDAE Campethera

notata Knysna

Woodpecker Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

TIMALIIDAE Lioptilus

nigricapillus Bush

Blackcap Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

5.2. 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 and farming areas, this percentage is greatly reduced, with the vast majority of mammals present being small or medium-sized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucerotidae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucerotidae


Ninety-one mammal species are predicted to occur at the study site, of which 9 were confirmed during the one day site visit (Appendix C). The site contains 6 extra-limital mammals (Fallow deer, Burchell’s zebra, Impala, Springbok, Waterbuck and Gemsbuck), of which 4 were seen on site. According to NEMBA, three protected mammal species and one vulnerable species have distributions that coincide with the project area (Table 5-1). The likelihood of leopard (Panthera pardus) occurring on site is extremely low as no documented evidence of the species has been recorded for the area in a number of years. Furthermore, the proposed development is surrounded by electrical game fencing and is bordered by two busy roads (N2 and R67) which would reduce the chances of this species entering the site. The White tailed mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) which has a distribution that co-insides with the project area is listed as Endangered. Since there are suitable habitats within the project area for this species, it is likely to be found here. Three species that may occur within the project area are listed on the NEMBA list as protected (South African Hedgehog, Honey Badger and Cape Fox) (Table 5-1). It is unlikely that Cape Fox (Vulpes chama) will be found within the project site as the species usually avoids populated areas, preferring to keep a substantial distance from cities and towns. The South African Hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis) and Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) are both species which have been known to occur within ecological corridors and ecotones between urban and natural areas. As the South African Hedgehog does not occupy large territories the species may occur at the site. Certain habitats at the project site are suitable for Honey Badgers, but it is unlikely that they would occur as they require a much larger foraging area than that offered by the study site. Schreibers Long-fingered bats roost in caves or in crevices and holes in trees. As there are no caves and limited suitable trees in the project area it is unlikely that it would occur in the project area. Table 5-1: Mammals of conservation concern likely to be found within the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name IUCN NEMBA PNCO

Atelerix frontalis South African hedgehog - Protected Schedule 2

Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse EN - -

Mellivora capensis Honey Badger - Protected Schedule 2

Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC Protected -

Miniopterus schreibersii Schreibers Long-fingered bat NT - Schedule 2

Panthera pardus Leopard NT Vulnerable Schedule 2


6. BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

6.1. Site sensitivity The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of high, medium and low areas of sensitivity (Figure 6.1). Areas of high sensitivity include:

Process areas such as rivers, wetlands and streams that are important for ecosystem functioning, including surface and ground water as well as animal and plant dispersal;

Areas that have a high species richness;

Areas that are not significantly impacted, transformed or degraded by current land use; and

Areas that contain the majority of species of special concern found in the area and may contain high numbers of globally important species, or comprise part of a globally important vegetation type.

Areas of medium sensitivity include:

Areas that still provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded;

Degraded areas that still have a relatively high species richness; and

Degraded areas that still contain species of special concern. Areas of low sensitivity include:

Areas that are highly impacted by current land use and provide little value to the ecosystem; and

Highly degraded areas that are unlikely to harbour any species of special concern.

6.2. Vegetation

6.2.1. Grassland vegetation and Alien Stands A large portion of the grassland vegetation and stands of alien trees were assigned a low sensitivity as these areas were degraded, only contained a few species of conservation concern and were invaded by alien invasive species. Even though this vegetation was degraded, a rocky outcrop (Figure 6.2) was found to occur in this vegetation. This area plays an important ecological role such as providing habitat for faunal species and has therefore of moderate sensitivity. Proper planning should be considered to avoid this area. .

6.2.2. Grassland near the riparian zone A small portion of the Grassland vegetation in the area was found to be in good condition, only had a few alien invasive species and was assigned a moderate sensitivity (Figure 6-2).

6.2.3. Riparian Vegetation This vegetation was found to occur near a watercourse (stream) and it was in moderate to good condition. Alien invasion in this area was not prevalent as in the other vegetation found on site. Even though this vegetation type has been impacted by human activity, it is still important as a natural corridor and the continuation of ecosystem processes. Riparian areas are also sensitive to change. For this reason, this vegetation type was assigned as high sensitivity

6.3. Summary of site sensitive areas


Figure 6-1: Infrastructure overlaid on the sensitivity map of the proposed project area.


Comment Figure 6-1 illustrates the infrastructure layout of the proposed Fairewood ERD, the proposed project occurs mostly in the grassland area which is categorised as a Low sensitivity area with the main internal road going across the riparian vegetation which has been categorised as a high sensitive area. The housing units, WWTS (Waste water treatment works) sites and main internal roads occur within the 32 m buffer zone, indicating that a WULA (Water use licence application) is required. The proposed development will affect the ecological role that the area plays for the faunal species as there may be restricted movement in this area for some of the species and restricted utilisation of the stream by the faunal species that previously utilised this area. A small portion of the riparian zone will be lost due to the road A small portion of the riparian zone will be lost due to the road which will cross this vegetation. It is recommended that the position of the WWTS to the east of the stream is moved further east and away from the riparian area. A number of the housing units (about 20 of them) fall within the 32 m buffer of the riparian zone, which ranged between 14-28m from the riparian zone construction in this area will require a permit for the DWAS. It is recommended that mitigation measures should be put in place to ensure that the impacts to this vegetation are minimised during the construction phase.

6.4. Drainage lines and Wetlands In this report, drainage lines have been classified as having a HIGH sensitivity (Figure 6-1). It is recommended that no development occurs within the 32 m buffer of the drainage line. The drainage lines are important as they may act as refugia and/or corridors for faunal movement. Disturbance to these areas may affect animal habitats, particularly for amphibian species that are dependent on these areas. The main drainage features are the three streams, one of which traverses the middle of the Estate, and flows from the south west to the north east direction. It is on this stream, now intended as one of the water sources for the Estate that a dam was built (Plate 6-1). The other stream forms the northwest boundary of the Estate and flows from the west to east direction, almost parallel to the national road (the N2). The third stream forms the north eastern boundary of the Estate and flows from the southeast to the northwest. Details of the locations of the streams in relation to the proposed development can be found in the sensitivity map (Figure 6-1)


Plate 6-1: Photograph illustrating the current dam and the stream which traverses the middle of the Estate

Ecological Assessment – March 2015


Figure 6-2: Sensitivity map for the project area, 32m buffer around drainage lines.


7. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT The ecological study undertaken provides the necessary information in order to assess the impacts of the proposed Fairewood ERD on the vegetation and the flora at various relevant spatial and temporal scales. The individual impacts can be grouped together as a series of key environmental issues. All of the issues relate to the removal of the existing vegetation cover and loss of faunal habitat within the footprint area of the Fairewood ERD. At the spatial scale of the development, impacts described below will not be considerable as only small areas were in moderate to good condition and there is not a high number of Species of Conservation Concern, but nonetheless these need to be seen in the context of the study area as a whole. Impacts of the current land use are taken into account in order to provide a comparison between the Fairewood ERD impacts and those that are already occurring. Impacts are assessed based on the current Property Design Layout. Should the area change, the impacts and associated mitigation measures, will need to be revisited. Ecological impacts were identified during the Planning and Design, Construction and Operation Phase of the proposed Fairewood ERD and are described below. These included the consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that may occur.

7.1. Planning and Design Phase Activities associated with the design and pre construction phase pertains mostly to a feasibility assessment which is done at a desktop level. In some cases site visits need to take place but the impact of these visits is negligible, if any, e.g. photographs and field surveys, etc. However, impacts that could occur during the construction and operational phases should be assessed during this phase and mitigation measures implemented early in the process to minimise impacts.

7.2. Construction Phase Issue 1 - Loss of vegetation communities: this includes the loss of each of the vegetation community types identified on the site, as a result of the clearing of the land for construction. This issue describes only the direct loss of the vegetation communities and no associated loss of animal or plant species of special concern, nor the effect on ecosystem functioning or the loss of habitats. Impact 1: Loss of Grassland Vegetation Most of the proposed Fairewood ERD occurs within this vegetation type. The construction of the project infrastructure, access roads/road upgrade and bridge will result in the clearance and subsequent loss of this vegetation within the project area. This vegetation type is comprised of grasses, herbaceous plants with tree patches in some areas. The grassland is of low sensitivity due to grazing, alien invasive species and having a low number of species of conservation concern. Even though this vegetation type is of low sensitivity the impacts in this area still require mitigation. Mitigation and management of the grassland vegetation Mitigation measures include the following:

Vegetation clearing and trampling must be kept to a minimum;

Existing roads must be used where feasible;


A search and rescue plan must be implemented and species of conservation concern removed prior to construction and placed in a nursery for rehabilitation. Permits will be required prior to removal;

A rehabilitation plan should be implemented in the areas which are affected during the construction phase and areas which are not affected but are currently disturbed by other land use practices and alien invasive species. Since this development will affect most of the property, the rehabilitation of the remaining area will curb disturbance in the area and also curb the introduction of alien invasive species in the area and its surroundings.

Areas which are not used during the development should be cleared of alien invasive species and be incorporated into the rehabilitation plan.

Significance statement Project: The loss of the Grassland area will definitely occur and will have a Slight, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be LOW NEGATIVE. Even with mitigation measures it will remain LOW NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW- due to the continuation of the current land use (grazing and poor land management use) and the infestation of alien invasive species already present on the site.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall

Significance Temporal

Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Grassland Vegetation

Without Mitigation

Medium term Study Area Slight Definite LOW-

With Mitigation

Short term localised Slight Definite LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight May Occur LOW -

Impact 2: Loss of Alien stands The construction of the housing units will lead to the removal of some of this vegetation which will be a positive impact as alien invasive species will be removed. Since this vegetation type is comprised predominantly of alien invasive species, it has been assigned a low sensitivity. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Areas with the alien stand which have not been removed during the construction should be cleared and the area rehabilitated. This will improve the current status of these areas and also prevent the introduction of alien invasive species in the area.


An alien invasive management plan must be implemented. Significance statement Project: The loss of the “Unnatural Forest” Alien stands will definitely occur and will have a Slight, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be LOW Positive. With mitigation measures this will be MODERATE POSITIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be HIGH NEGATIVE. The vegetation will continue to be invaded by alien species.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Short term Study Area Slight Definite LOW+

With Mitigation

Long term Study Area Moderate beneficial

Definite MODERATE

+

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Moderate Definite HIGH-

Impact 3: Loss of Riparian vegetation Loss of riparian vegetation will occur where the road cross way occurs (Figure 6-1) This vegetation type is highly sensitive due to the ecological processes it provides and the floral and faunal species it harbours, as such unnecessary disturbance within this area should be avoided. Construction occurring within 32m of a water course and 500m of a wetland will require a Water Use Licence (Figure 4.3 and 4.4). Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Where feasible vegetation clearing and trampling should be avoided in this area;

Unnecessary infrastructure should be located outside of this vegetation type;

A search and rescue plan must be implemented and species of conservation concern removed prior to construction and placed in a nursery for rehabilitation. Permits for SCC will be required;

Alien species found in this area should be removed as part of the Alien management plan.

Significance statement Project:


Should the development occur in the Riparian vegetation, the loss of this vegetation will definitely occur and will have a Moderate, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this will be LOW NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW NEGATIVE. The vegetation will continue to be impacted on by the current land use.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation

Permanent Study Area Slight Definite LOW -

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight May Occur LOW-

ISSUE 2: Loss of species of special concern and biodiversity (general)

Issue 2 - Loss of species of conservation concern and biodiversity: this includes loss of both animal and plant species of conservation concern over the entire site, including all vegetation community types. It also encompasses the loss of biodiversity as a whole, which includes all species that occur on site taking into account their contribution to the biodiversity of the surrounding area and within the site. Impact 4: Loss of plant species of conservation concern Cause and Comment Seven plant SCC were found to occur in the project area. There may be a number of additional species of conservation concern that will be found on site during construction that were not observed during this study. It is therefore important that prior to construction, the area which development is going to occur on is ground truthed and a search and rescue for SCC is conducted. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following

Prior to construction the area should be ground truthed and SCC identified and the correct permits acquired for their removal.

o A search and rescue plan must be developed in order to identify and transplant Plant SCC, some of these species will not transplant thus areas with these species should be avoided as far as possible and be left undisturbed.

o Species of special concern must be marked prior to construction.

During Construction


o Fires must be prohibited; o Laydown areas must be rehabilitated once they are no longer required and

an alien invasive management program implemented to ensure alien species do not invade these areas;

o Construction activities must remain within the demarcated area; and o An ECO must be employed to ensure that the construction activities remain

within the designated area and that no unauthorised activities occur. Significance statement Project: The loss of Species of Conservation Concern will definitely occur and will have a, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be MODERATE NEGATIVE. This remains as LOW NEGATIVE if mitigation measures are implemented. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site would be LOW negative. Due to the current status of the proposed project area, this area may lose the few species of conservation concern that are presently found on the area. Alien invasive species compete with the natural/indigenous plant species and the grazing also affects the species that are present in the area. Significance statement

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation

Permanent Localised Slight Probable LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight May Occur LOW-

Impact 5: Loss of animal species of conservation concern Cause and Comment The desktop analysis and site survey indicated a number of reptile, amphibian, bird and mammal SCC which may occur within the study site. This may include important reptile species such as the Albany Sandveld Lizard (Nucras taeniolata) and many snake species. Species of frogs and toads are also likely to occur, frequenting the steams throughout the site. Four vulnerable bird species, including the critically endangered Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) are also likely to be found in certain habitats within the site. The endangered White-tailed mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) amongst other SCC mammals is also likely to occur across habitats within the proposed site.


Disturbance during the construction phase may result in the displacement of various animal species due to loss or disturbance of habitat and the restriction of migration corridors. The riparian vegetation is of most concern as it provides suitable habitat for many bird and amphibian species. An increase in traffic in the area may result in road fatalities, especially of amphibians moving between the streams within the site. An increase in noise may also impact the breeding behaviour of some species. Development in this area thus may result in the disturbance and the loss of certain species of SCC. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Workers must also be educated on conservation and must not be allowed to trap or poach animals on site.

The construction site must be monitored for animal traps and evidence of poaching.

Curtail unnecessary night driving on roads and implement a speed limit so that accidents are prevented.

Restrict construction activities to post-dawn and pre-dusk.

Protect abiotic habitats, such as the rocky outcrops and riparian areas which play an important ecological role such as providing shelter for reptiles, amphibians and birds. These areas should be considered restricted areas during construction

Activities that generate noise must occur during daylight hours to avoid disturbance.

It is recommended that if any fencing is to be erected the fences must have enough space between wires for small animals to move across them uninhibited.

Significance statement Project: The loss of faunal Species of Conservation Concern will definitely occur and will have a MODERATE, long term impact. The environmental significance of this impact will be LOW NEGATIVE if mitigation measures are implemented. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW negative, as the area would continue in its current state.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Long Term Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation

Long Term Study Area Slight Definite LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight Unlikely LOW-

Impact 6: Loss of Biodiversity Cause and Comment


Loss of biodiversity will occur as a result of the clearing and loss of vegetation on site during the construction phase. Both floral and faunal species, other than species of conservation concern will be affected. Even though biodiversity was low in this area, this impact should still be assessed. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Alien invasive species should be removed from the areas where development will not

occur, these areas should be rehabilitated and used for conservation. The area

should be actively managed to prevent the return of alien invasive species.

Significance statement Project: The loss of Biodiversity will definitely occur and will have a SLIGHT, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be LOW NEGATIVE. Even with the implementation of mitigation measures this will remain LOW NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW negative, due to factors such as grazing and alien infestation which are potentially affecting the biodiversity on the site.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Total Score Temporal

Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Slight Definite LOW-

With mitigation

Permanent Study area Slight Definite LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Regional Slight Probable LOW -

ISSUE 3: Pollution of the streams Issue 2 – Pollution of the Streams: the project includes the construction of the residential portions, construction and upgrade of the road and the construction of bridges. The construction of the infrastructure could generate pollution via accidental spillages and/or leakages of concrete, fuel and oil thus it is important to assess this impact. Impact 7: The pollution of the watercourses Cause and Comment Pollution of watercourses may arise from the accidental or negligent deposition into the active stream, fill material during excavation or placement, concrete during placement into formwork and fuel and oil from machinery. The impacts of spills of wet concrete, fuel and oil will be more severe and longer-lasting than spills of inert materials. Due to there being a


number of sources of pollution in close proximity to the riparian vegetation and the streams, the pollution may have a High impact. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Construction vehicles must be serviced in designated areas (off site or approved by the ECO).

Drip trays must be used where appropriate.

Any contaminated water/liquid must be disposed of appropriately.

Any construction debris must be removed from the river bed

A specialist or ECO must check the state of the rivers after construction Significance statement Project: Pollution of the watercourses by debris and fill (a) will probably occur and will have a Moderate, Short term impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be MODERATE NEGATIVE. With implementation of mitigation measures this will be LOW NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW positive, due to there being no increase in the pollution in the area.

Impact

Effect Risk or Likelihood

Total Score Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Short Local Moderate Definite MODERATE -

With mitigation

Short Local Slight Probable LOW -

No-Go

Without mitigation

Short Local Slight Positive

Probable LOW +

Significance statement Project: The pollution of watercourses by Concrete, fuel and oil (b) will probably occur and will have a Severe, Moderate impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be HIGH NEGATIVE. With implementation of mitigation measures this will be Moderate NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be Moderate positive, as with the current land use the area is not impacted by the pollution of concrete, fuel and oil.


Impact

Effect Risk or Likelihood

Total Score Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Medium Study Area Severe Probable HIGH-

With mitigation

Short Study Area Slight Probable MODERATE -

No-Go

Without mitigation

Short Local Moderate Positive

Probable MODERATE +

ISSUE 4: Disruption of ecosystem function and process The habitats that exist in the project area, together with those of the surrounding area that are linked, form part of a functional ecosystem. Destruction or modification of habitats causes disruption of ecosystem function, and threatens the interplay of processes that ensure environmental health and the survival of individual species. This issue deals with a collection of complex ecological impacts that are almost impossible to predict with certainty, but which are nonetheless important. Fragmentation is one of the most important impacts on vegetation, especially when this creates barriers in previously continuous vegetation, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and diversity. In terms of current land use, this impact occurs when large areas of vegetation are overgrazed. The removal of existing vegetation creates ‘open’ habitats that will inevitably be colonised by pioneer plant and animal species. While this is part of a natural process of regeneration, which would ultimately lead to the re-establishment of a secondary vegetation cover, it also favours the establishment of undesirable species in the area. Once established, these species are typically very difficult to eradicate and may then pose a threat to the neighbouring ecosystem. This impact is likely to be exacerbated by careless management of the site and its facilities, e.g. inadequate monitoring. Many such species are, however, remarkably tenacious once they have become established. Impact 8: Fragmentation of communities and edge effects Cause and Comment The development occurs within a fragmented landscape with the N2 on one side of the property and the R67 running along another boundary. In addition, the area has been invaded by alien plant species, further fragmenting the project area. Although the development will further increase fragmentation it is not considered to be significant given the current land use. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Vegetation clearing should be kept to a minimum in areas of natural vegetation;

Where feasible, building of housing units should be avoided near the streams and dams;


Where feasible, the building footprint should be minimised;

Alien invasive trees should be actively cleared during the construction and operation phases.

Significance statement Project: Fragmentation of communities and edge effects will probably occur and will have a slight, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be MODERATE NEGATIVE. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be LOW NEGATIVE

Impact

Effect Risk or


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Long term Study Area Moderate Probable MODERATE-

With mitigation Long term Study area Slight Probable LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight (Beneficial)

Probable LOW -

Impact 9: Disturbance to wildlife in the surrounding area Cause and Comment Construction phase activities are associated with an increase in noise levels, vehicular movements and dust levels. Noise pollution can depress local populations of sensitive faunal groups. Animals differ in the degree to which they tolerate such disturbance, and can be expected to have potentially negative and positive impacts on various faunal groups. For example, large breeding birds are sensitive to noise and increased noise and motor vibrations in the nearby streams may impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of noise (Branch, pers. comm.). Noise pollution will occur during construction and mitigation measures will need to be applied. Some dust may be generated as a result of construction activities and, in particular, where there is exposed ground. Specific activities that may contribute to release of fugitive dust include offloading and stockpiling of building materials such as sand, excavation, storage of excavated materials and movement of heavy vehicles. The generation of dust may be higher during windy, dry periods. Dust may also be deposited on the surface of the water within the adjacent riparian areas, potentially resulting in an increased turbidity of water. In certain contexts, this may reduce light penetration and, subsequently have negative impacts on aquatic plants, fish and amphibians. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:


Dust

Employ dust suppression measures such as wetting of the project area during dry, windy periods;

Limit the height of stockpiles;

Where practical, do not leave large cleared areas exposed for longer than necessary;

The area of disturbance must be kept to a minimum at all times and no unnecessary clearing of vegetation, digging or scraping should occur;

Road speeds in sensitive regions e.g. near the dam and streams, and during extreme dry climatic conditions, should be limited to curtail dust production; and

Vehicle speed should be limited to the lowest possible, and should not exceed 40km/h.

Noise

Mitigation of this impact is difficult, but noise reduction measures should be implemented in all sensitive areas (e.g. adjacent to the streams) at sensitive times (e.g. at night).

No construction activities may take place between sunset and sunrise;

Machinery that generates noise must be regularly maintained in order to ensure that no unnecessary additional noise is produced;

Significance statement Project: Dust and noise will definitely be generated and will have a Moderate, Short Term impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be MODERATE NEGATIVE. This will be reduced to LOW NEGATIVE if mitigation measures are implemented. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be positive since no increase in dust and noise generation will occur. Significance statement

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Slight May occur LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Moderate (beneficial)

Probable LOW +

7.3. Impacts Associated with the Operation Phase Impact 10: Invasion of alien species Cause and Comment


As with all building operations, the introduction of alien and invader species is inevitable; with environmental disturbance comes the influx of aliens. Alien invasive species such as Lantana camara, Acacia mearnsii and Acaica longifolia were found throughout the project area in varying abundance. These species are likely to increase if no mitigation measures are implemented. Alien invasive species have negative impacts on the biodiversity as they compete with natural vegetation and reduce water availability. Studies show that almost all seven terrestrial biomes in South Africa have alien invasive species. Due to the disturbance of the proposed Fairewood ERD, it is important that eradication of these species and proper management strategies are put in place to ensure the control of these species. Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Eradication of the already established alien invasive species on site, this should be done during both the construction and operation phase.

Active management of alien species throughout both the construction and operation phases to prevent their spread into areas where they have not already been established;

A rehabilitation plan must be designed and implemented;

During the rehabilitation of the area, measures should be put in place to prevent accidental or unintended introduction of alien species from occurring; and

An Alien Invasive Control Programme must be implemented. Significance statement Project: The introduction of alien invasive species will definitely occur and will have a Moderate, Permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact will be HIGH NEGATIVE. This will be reduced to LOW POSITIVE if mitigation measures are implemented since existing alien species will be removed from the site. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site the overall impact would be HIGH NEGATIVE since the existing alien invasive species will continue to increase in numbers in the project area due to the current land-use. Invasion of alien species

Impact

Effect Risk or


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Operation phase

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Severe Probable MODERATE-

With mitigation

Long Term Localised Moderately (beneficial)

Probable LOW+

No-Go

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Moderate Probable HIGH -

7.4. Cumulative Impacts Sadler (1996) defines cumulative impacts as the “the net result of environmental impact from a number of projects and activities”, The impact of the proposed Fairewood ERD may not be significant or be a serious threat to the environment, but a large number of projects in one


area, or occurring in the same vegetation type may have significant impacts (DEAT, 2004). This section attempts to identify the cumulative impacts associated with other development that are taking place in similar vegetation type in this area. Even though the possible extent of the cumulative impacts cannot be determined due to not knowing the number of projects that will be accepted, it is still important to try and identify the negative and positive impacts which may arise in the long term and this includes looking at this project in conjunction with other projects in the area. Currently there are no other developments that are occurring near the proposed development. Impact 11: Loss of the Grassland vegetation Cause and Comment This Suurberg Quartzite fynbos is listed as Least Threatened, the grassland vegetation found in this area is not a good representative of this vegetation type, having only a few of the Important Plant Taxa on the site and none of the Endemic Taxa (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Thus on its own, this project does not seem to pose a huge threat on this vegetation type, but one must consider the impacts that are presently posing a threat on the vegetation and other proposed developments in this area. According to Palmer (2004) a number of impacts have been identified as threats to the vegetation found in the Makana area, these are; intense grazing by domestic livestock, the clearing of land for cultivation, alien invasion and the collection of plants for medicinal purposes. The vegetation found in the Makana region may be affected by a number of factors. The clearing of the vegetation in the proposed Fairewood ERD will likely have a low cumulative impact, this is because no known similar development is occurring in the area and the vegetation is in poor condition and non-existant in some areas of the project area Impact 12: Loss of SCC Cause and Comment The proposed Fairewood ERD will have an impact on SCC found to occur in both the Grassland and the Riparian vegetation. SCC are species which need to be conserved as they are threatened by various factorssuch as habitat destruction, habitat loss and the harvesting or poaching of species. Anthropogenic activities such as urban settlement and development are some of the causes which result in the above factors. A number of SCC were found to occur in the project area, thus the cumulative impact of the Loss of SCC needs to be assessed. The extent of the loss of SCC can only be predicted and therefore a precautionary approach has been adopted. The cumulative impact associated with the proposed Fairewood ERD is likely to be moderate.


8. IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. Current status The vegetation on the study site is generally in a transformed state with small areas being in moderate to good condition. The most important and long term impact is likely to be the introduction and infestation of alien plant species.

8.2. Comparison of impacts The impacts associated with the Fairewood ERD with and without mitigation measures have been assessed. In addition, the no-go alternative has also been assessed. Due to this being a housing development of 104 housing units, more than half of the property portion will be affected in addition to laydown and turning areas required during construction. It is suspected that many of the impacts will be reduced with effective management of the site as well as the utilization of rehabilitation after construction. It is essential that the riparian areas are avoided. Any extra land needed for the construction phase of the development that will not be used during the operation phase of the development should be rehabilitated after construction is completed. For the plant species of conservation concern, it is recommended that these species are identified and rescued before construction commences and placed in a nursery to be used in the rehabilitation of laydown and construction areas that will not be required during the operational phase. Permits will be required before any plant SCC can be removed. Impacts associated with the Operation Phase are associated with impacts on faunal groups and the infestation of alien species. Alien invasive species should be managed effectively to prevent further impacts on the study area. Overall, the impacts of the overall development will be negative, mainly due to a loss of vegetation. This loss of vegetation is also important for fauna as it constitutes habitat loss. Positive impacts include the active management of the alien vegetation on the site.

The no go alternative, which is the scenario if the development did not occur and the project area was left to continue as it currently is, indicates that the current land-use in the area may result in more degradation of the area and the increase in alien invasive species. The current state of the area shows that leaving it at its current state is not beneficial. This scenario does not imply that the development should go on.

Table 8-1: Summary table of all ten impacts identified in the Fairewood ERD project.

Impacts Without

mitigation With Mitigation No-Go

Impact 1: Loss of Grassland vegetation

LOW - LOW - LOW -

Impact 2: Loss of unnatural forest (Alien stands)

LOW + MOD + HIGH -

Impact 3: Loss of Riparian vegetation

MOD- LOW- LOW-

Impact 4: Loss of plant SCC MOD - LOW- LOW -

Impact 5: Loss of animal SCC MOD- LOW- LOW -


Impact 6: Loss of Biodiversity LOW - LOW - LOW -

Impact 7a: Pollution :Debris and Fill

MOD- LOW - LOW+

Impact 7b: Pollution: Pollution: Concrete, Fuel and oil

HIGH- MOD- MOD+

Impact 8: Fragmentation of vegetation and edge effects

MOD - LOW - LOW -

Impact 9: Dust generation and noise generation

MOD - LOW - LOW +

Impact 10: Invasion of alien species

MOD- LOW + HIGH -

8.3. Plant removal\rehabilitation

It is recommended that a botanist/ecologist is on site to determine if any of the species of special concern or protected species occurs where the housing units and associated infrastructure will be positioned. Before the clearing of the site is authorised, the appropriate permission must be obtained from the relevant authorities should any species of special concern need to be removed or replanted. These permits may be subject to certain conditions, for example allowing various nurseries to collect plants before vegetation clearance commences; the removal of certain species for rehabilitation purposes. The plants can also be removed and placed in a nursery for use for rehabilitation purposes. If a species is identified for relocation, individuals of the species will need to be located within the proposed site, before vegetation clearing commences, and carefully uprooted and removed by a skilled horticulturist. Prior to removal, however, suitable relocation areas need to be identified, either within the site or in other disturbed areas on the property. Individual plants that cannot be relocated at the time of removal should be moved to the nursery. It should be noted that many critical SCC are plants that will not be able to be successfully uprooted and replanted at all (Phillipson, 2002), or at best may have a low survival rate. In all cases the species will require very careful treatment to give them the best chances of survival, and specialist horticultural knowledge will be needed.

8.4. Invasion of alien species Any form of disturbance to the natural vegetation provides a gateway for alien species to invade the site of disturbance. The area is already infested with alien invasive species throughout the project area, thus after construction a strict monitoring plan should be implemented to prevent the additional spread and the continued removal of alien species such as Lantana camara, Acacia longifolia and Acacia mearnsii which are already present on site.

8.5. Operational phase recommendations The following operational phase management measures are recommended:

Continued monitoring of the site for potential alien invasion, especially of plant species already

Maintenance of areas set aside within the site for conservation to make sure these are not being impacted further in any way.


REFERENCES Alexander, G. And Marais, J. 2010. A Guide to Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Animal Demography Unit, Department Of Zoology, University Of Cape Town. 2012. Summary Data Of The Frogs Of South Africa, Lesotho And Swaziland. Downloaded From: Http://Adu.Org.Za/Frog_Atlas.Php; Accessed On 2/02/2013. Berliner, D. and Desmet, P. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town. Branch, W.R. 1998. Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. In: A Field Guide to the Eastern Cape Coast, R. A. Lubke, F. W. Gess and M. N. Bruton (eds.), Grahamstown Centre for the Wildlife Soc. S. Afr., 251-264. DEAT, 2004. Cumulative Effects Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 7, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria. Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K., & Strauss, T. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. www.sanbi.org Du Preez, L. And Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide To Frogs Of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town IUCN (2012). Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Palmer, T. 2004. Vegetation of Makana. Makana LEAP: Comprehensive Environmental Audit: Vegetation of Makana. Sadler (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating practice to Improve Performance. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report. International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, Canada. SANBI. 2014. Statistics: Red List of South African Plants version 2014.1. Downloaded from Redlist.sanbi.org on Stuart, C and Stuart, T. 2007. A field guide to the mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


TABLE A-1: PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE (VOS, 2009)

FAMILY Scientific Name SANBI IUCN PNCO NEMBA Protected Trees

FABACEAE Acacia karoo Least Concern - - - -

FABACEAE Acacia longifolia Not Evaluated - - - -

FABACEAE Acacia mearnsii Not Evaluated - - - -

AGAVACEAE Agave sisalana Not Evaluated - - - -

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe ferox Least Concern - - - -

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe pluridens Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

POACEAE Andropogon eucomus Least Concern - - - -

RUBIACEAE Anthospermum aethiopicum Least Concern - - - -

ICACINACEAE Apodytes dimidiate Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Arctotis arctotoides Least Concern - - - -

IRIDACEAE Aristea abysssinica Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

IRIDACEAE Aristea schizolaena Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus racemosus Least Concern - - - -

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus setaceous Least Concern - - - -

IRIDACEAE Bobartia orientalis Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

POACEAE Briza minor Not Evaluated - - - -

CRASSULACEAE Bryophyllum delagoensis Not Evaluated - - - -

RUBIACEAE Burchellia bubaline Least Concern - - - -

RUBIACEAE Canthium inerme Least Concern - - - -

APOCYNACEAE Carissa bispinosa Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus deliciosus Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

CELASTRACEAE Cassine tetragona Least Concern - - - -

APIACEAE Centella asiatica Least Concern Least Concern

- - -

SINOPTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes viridis Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides Not Evaluated - - - -



monolifera

ASTERACEAE Cineraria pinnata Near Threatened

- - - -

RUTACEAE Citrus limon - - - - -

RUTACEAE Citrus sinensis - - - - -

ROSACEAE Cliffortia linearifolia Least Concern - - - -

RUBIACEAE Coddia rudis Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Cortaderia selloana Not Evaluated - - - -

CRASSULACEAE Crassula orbicularis Least Concern - - - -

CRASSULACEAE Crassula perforata Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Cynodon dactylon Least Concern - - - -

CYPERACEAE Cyperus sp. - - - - -

POACEAE Digitaria eriantha Least Concern - - - -

EBENACEAE Diospyros dichrophylla Least Concern - - - -

EBENACEAE Diospyros scabrida Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis curvula Least Concern - - - -

ROSACEAE Eriobotrya japonica - - - - -

ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus ericoides Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Erythrina lysistemon Least Concern - - - -

FABACEAE Euclea crispa Least Concern - - - -

FABACEAE Euclea natalensis Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Euryops spathaceous - - - - -

EBENACEAE Flueggea verrucosa Least Concern - - - -

EBENACEAE Gerbera piloselloides Least Concern - - - -

EBENACEAE Grammatotheca bergiana Least Concern - - - -

EBENACEAE Grevillea robusta Not Evaluated - - - -

PHYLLANTHACEAE Gymnosporia buxifolia Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Haemanthus albiflos Least Concern - - - -



LOBELIACEAE Halleria lucida Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Harpephyllum caffrum Least Concern - - - -

PROTEACEAE Helichrysum foetidum Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

CELASTRACEAE Helichrysum odoratissimum Least Concern - - - -

AMARYLLIDACEAE Hippobromus pauciflorus Least Concern - - - -

HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis haemerocallida Declining - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Jacaranda mimosifolia Not Evaluated - - - -

SAPINDACEAE Kalanchoe crenata Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Lactuca sp. - - - - -

BIGNONIACEAE Lantana camara Not Evaluated - - - -

CRASSULACEAE Lantana rugosa Least Concern - - - -

VERBENACEAE Leonotis leonurus Least Concern - - - -

OLEACEAE Ligustrum lucidum - - - - -

MELIACEAE Melia azaderach Not Evaluated - - - -

VERBENACEAE Melinis repens Least Concern - - - -

LAMIACEAE Monopsis unidentata Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Montinia caryophyllacea Least Concern - - - -

MORACEAE Morus australis - - - - -

LOBELIACEAE Ochna natalitia Least Concern - - - -

MONTINIACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica Not Evaluated - - - -

HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum juncifolium Critically Rare - - - -

HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum longibracteatum

- - - - -

SANTALACEAE Osyris compressa Least Concern - - - -

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis smithii Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Paspalum dilatatum Not Evaluated - - - -

PASSIFLORACEAE Passiflora caerula Not Evaluated - - - -

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium alchemilloides Least Concern - - - -

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium peltatum Least Concern - - - -



GERANIACEAE Pennisetum clandestinum Not Evaluated - - - -

GERANIACEAE Phoenix reclinata Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Phragmites australis Least Concern - - - -

ARECACEAE Pinus pinaster Not Evaluated - - - -

SALICACEAE Populus canescens Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Psidium guajava Not Evaluated - - - -

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium aquilinum Least Concern - - - -

CELASTRACEAE Pterocellastris tricuspidatus Least Concern - - - -

FAGACEAE Quercus robur Not Evaluated - - - -

VITACEAE Rhiocissus tridentata Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Rhus chirindensis Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Rhus lucida Not Evaluated - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Rhus pyroides Least Concern - - - -

EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis Not Evaluated - - - -

ROSACEAE Rubus pinnatus Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Schinus molle Not Evaluated - - - -

RHAMNACEAE Scutia myrtina Least Concern - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago corymbosa Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Senecio inaequidens Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Senecio linearis - - - - -

FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Setaria incrassata Least Concern - - - -

MALVACEAE Sida dregei Least Concern - - - -

SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum Not Evaluated - - - -

SOLANACEAE Solanum rigescens Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Sporobolus africanus Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Taraxacum officinale Not Evaluated - - - -

ASTERACEAE Tarchonanthus camphorates Least Concern - - - -

TYPHACEAE Typha capensis Least Concern - - - -



RUTACEAE Vepris lanceolata Least Concern - - - -

RUTACEAE Verbena crenosa Least Concern - - - -

ARACEAE Zantedeschia aethiopica Least Concern - - - -


TABLE A-2: PLANT SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE (2015)

Family Scientific Name Red List IUCN PNCO Protected Tree

NEMBA

FABACEAE Acacia longifolia Not Evaluated - - - -

FABACEAE Acacia Mearnsii Not Evaluated - - - -

AMARANTHACEAE Achyranthes aspera Not Evaluated - - - -

RUBIACEAE Afrocanthium mundianum

Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Agrostis lachnantha Least Concern - - - -

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe sp. - Schedule 4 - -

IRIDACEAE Aristea ecklonii Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

ASTERACEAE Bidens bipinnata Not Evaluated - - - -

ASTERACEAE Bidens pilosa Not Evaluated - - - -

BLECHNACEAE Blechnum capense Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Brachiaria serrata Least Concern - - - -

CYPERACEAE Bulbostylis humilis Least Concern - - - -

APOCYNACEAE Carrisa bispinosa Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

APIACEAE Centella asiatica Least Concern Least Concern - - -

SINOPTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes viridis Least Concern - - - -

CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium carinatum Not Evaluated - - - -

ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Not Evaluated - - - -

APIACEAE Ciclospermum leptophyllum

Not Evaluated

ASTERACEAE Cirsium vulgare Not Evaluated - - - -

EUPHORBIACEAE Clutia daphnoides Least Concern - - - -

FABACEAE Coddia rudus Not Evaluated - - - -

COMMELINACEAE Commelina africana Least Concern - - - -

COMMELINACEAE Commelina Bengelensis Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Conyza bonariensis Not Evaluated - - - -


APOCYNACEAE Cynanchum natalitium Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

POACEAE Cynodon dactylon Least Concern - - - -

CYPERACEAE Cyperus difformis Least Concern Least Concern - - -

CYPERACEAE Cyperus esculentis Least Concern - - - -

CYPERACEAE Cyperus sp - - - - -

EBENACEAE Diospyros dichrophylla Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Ehrharta calycina Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis curvula Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis tef Not Evaluated - - - -

ERICACEAE Erica caffra Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

EBENACEAE Euclea crispa Least Concern - - - -

CYPERACEAE Fimbristylis hispidula Least Concern - - - -

RUBIACEAE Galopina circaeoides Least Concern - - - -

IRIDACEAE Gladiolus sp. - - Schedule 4 - -

LOBELIACEAE Grammatotheca bergiana Least Concern - - - -

MALVACEAE Grewia occidentalis Least Concern - - - -

CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia buxifolia Least Concern - - - -

CELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia nemorosa Least Concern - - - -

PROTEACEAE Hakea sp. - - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Halleria lucida Least Concern - Schedule 4 - -

ANACARDIACEAE Harpephyllum caffrum Least Concern - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Hebenstretia integrifolia Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum aureum Vulnerable - - - -

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum cymosum Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum ouderitism Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Helictotrichon turgidulum Least Concern - - - -

HYPERICACEAE Hypericum sp - - - - -

ASTERACEAE Hypochaeris radicata Not Evaluated - - - -

HYPOXIDACEAE Hypoxis cf haemerocallida

Declining - - - -

JUNCACEAE Jancus sp - - - - -


CYPERACEAE Kyllinga erecta Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Lactuca capensis Least Concern - - - -

VERBENACEAE Lantana Camara Not Evaluated - - - -

VERBENACEAE Lantana rugosa Least Concern - - - -

CELASTRACEAE Lauridia tetragona Least Concern - - - -

LAMIACEAE Leonotis leonurus Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Melinis repens Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Miscanthus capensis Least Concern Least Concern - - -

LOBELIACEAE Monopsis unidentata Least Concern - - - -

OCHNACEAE Ochna Serrulata Least Concern - - - -

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis corniculata Not Evaluated

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis latifolia Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Panicum aequinerve Least Concern Least Concern - - -

POACEAE Panicum coloratum Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Panicum maximum Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Paspalum dilatatum Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Paspalum urvillei Not Evaluated - - - -

PASSIFLORACEAE Passiflora coerulea Not Evaluated - - - -

SINOPTERIDACEAE Pellaea calomelanos Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Pennisetum clandestinum

Not Evaluated - - - -

SOLANACEAE Physalis peruviana Not Evaluated - - - -

PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata Least Concern - - - -

POLYGONACEAE Polygonium sp. - - - - -

ASTERACEAE Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum

- - - - -

MYRTACEAE Psidium cattlelanum Not Evaluated - - - -

MYRTACEAE Psidium guajava Not Evaluated - - - -

MYRTACEAE Psidium littorale - - - - -

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Pteridium aquilinum Least Concern - - - -

PTERIDACEAE Pteris dentata Least Concern - - - -


CYPERACEAE Pycreus polystachyos Least Concern Least Concern - - -

VITACEAE Rhoicissus tridentata Least Concern - - - -

RUBIACEAE Richardsonia brasiliensis Not Evaluated - - - -

ROSACEAE Rubus fruticosa Not Evaluated - - - -

POLYGONACEAE Runex acetocalla - -

CYPERACEAE Schoenoplectus paludicola

Least Concern Least Concern - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia chirindensis Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia dentata Least Concern - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lucida Not Evaluated - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pyroides Least Concern - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago corymbosa Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Senecio chrysocoma Least Concern - - - -

ASTERACEAE Senecio pterophorus Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Setaria sphacelata Not Evaluated - - - -

MALVACEAE Sida rhombifolia Least Concern - - - -

SOLANACEAE Solanum rigescens Not Evaluated - - - -

POACEAE Sporobolus africanus Least Concern - - - -

POACEAE Stenotaphrum secundatum

Least Concern - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Sutera cordata Least Concern

ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta Not Evaluated - - - -

TYPHACEAE Typha capensis Least Concern Least Concern - - -

RUTACEAE Vepris lanceolata Least Concern - - - -

CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia undulata Least Concern - - - -

ARACEAE Zanthedesia aethiopica Least Concern - - - -

RUTACEAE Zanthoxylum capense Least Concern - - - -


TABLE A-3 BIRD SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE

Common name Scientific name NEMBA IUCN

1 Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash - Least Concern

2 Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus - Least Concern

3 Buzzard, Steppe Buteo vulpinus - Least Concern

4 Oriole, Black-headed

Oriolus larvatus - Least Concern

5 Sunbird, Southern Double-collared

Cinnyris chalyneus - Least Concern

6 White-eye, Cape Zosterops virens - Least Concern

7 Waxbill, Common Estrilda astrild - Least Concern

8 Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis - Least Concern

9 Sunbird, Amethyst Chalcomitra amethystine - Least Concern

10 Turtle-Dove, Cape Streptopelia capicola - Least Concern

11 Dove, Laughing

Streptopelia senegalensis

- Least Concern

12 Fiscal, Common Lanius collaris - Least Concern

13 Mousebird, Speckled

Colius striatus - Least Concern

14 Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus - Least Concern

15 Prinia, Tawny-flanked

Prinia subflava - Least Concern

16 Robin-Chat, Cape Cossypha caffra - Least Concern

17 Bulbul, Dark-capped

Pycnonotus tricolor - Least Concern

18 Flycatcher, African Dusky

Muscicapa adusta - Least Concern

19 Starling, Red-winged

Onychognathus morio - Least Concern

20 Rock-Thrush, Cape

Monticola rupestris - Least Concern

21 Fish-Eagle, African Haliaeetus vocifer - Least Concern

22 Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus - Least Concern

23 Warbler, Willow Phylloscopus trochilus - Least Concern

24 Drongo, Fork-tailed Dicrurus adsimilis - Least Concern

25 Martin, Brown-throated

Riparia paludicola - Least Concern

26 House-Martin, Common

Delichon urbicum - Least Concern

27 Peacock, Common Pavo cristatus - Least Concern


TABLE A-4 MAMMAL SPECIES THAT OCCURRED ON THE SITE

Common name Scientific name NEMBA IUCN

1 European Fallow Deer

Cervus dama - Least Concern

2 Common Duiker Sylvicarpa grimmia - Least Concern

3 Blesbok

Damaliscus pygargus Dorcas

- Least Concern

4 Red Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus - Least Concern

5 Four-Striped Grass Mouse

Rhabdomys pumilio - Least Concern

6 Impala Aepyceros melampus - Least Concern

7 Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis - Least Concern

8 Plains Zebra Equus quagga - Least Concern

9 Common Eland Tragelaphus oryx - Least Concern

fairewood estate residential development ... fairewood estate...port alfred rd (r67), stones hill...

Documents