ecological impact assessment report: proposed …...this ecological specialist assessment report...

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT:

PROPOSED UMSINDE EMOYENI WIND ENERGY FACILITY

WESTERN CAPE AND NORTHERN CAPE

Prepared for Arcus Consultancy Services

On behalf of

EMOYENI WIND FARM PROJECT (PTY) LIMITED

By

OCTOBER 2015

UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA

2

Contents

Declaration of Consultants’ Independence ......................................................................... 4

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development ..................................................................... 7

2 Study Approach ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Scope of Study .................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Assessment Approach & Philosophy ....................................................................... 10

2.3 Data Sourcing and Review .......................................................................................... 13

2.4 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.5 Sensitivity Mapping ....................................................................................................... 15

3 Baseline Environment ........................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Types .................................................................................. 16

3.2 Habitat Types ................................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Plant Species of Conservation Concern ................................................................. 22

3.4 Faunal Communities ...................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas ........................................................................................... 25

3.6 Site Sensitivity Assessment ....................................................................................... 27

4 Identification & Nature of Impacts .................................................................................. 29

4.1 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................ 30

4.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Decommissioning Phase .............................................................................................. 32

4.4 Cumulative impacts ....................................................................................................... 32

5 Assessment of Impacts ........................................................................................................ 33

5.1 Planning & Construction Phase ................................................................................. 33

5.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 35

5.3 Decommissioning Phase .............................................................................................. 37

5.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 38

5.5 Summary Assessment .................................................................................................. 38

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 39

7 References ................................................................................................................................ 41

8 Annex 1 List of Plants ........................................................................................................... 42

9 Annex 2. List of Mammals................................................................................................... 48


3

10 Annex 3. List of Reptiles .................................................................................................. 52

11 Annex 4 List of Amphibians ............................................................................................ 54


4

Declaration of Consultants’ Independence

I Simon Todd, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:

act/ed as the independent specialist in this application;

regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist

input/study to be true and correct, and

do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the

activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific

environmental management Act;

have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;

have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material

information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the

competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in

terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and

any specific environmental management Act;

am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of

regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act,

and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in

disqualification;

have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my

disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the

applicant or not; and

am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN

No. R. 543.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached.

Simon Todd Pr.Sci.Nat 400425/11.

October 2015


5

Executive Summary

Emoyeni Wind Farm Project Proprietary Limited (EFWP) proposes the development of the

UmSinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility (WEF), located near the town of Murraysburg in

the Western Cape Province, with a small portion of the proposed site extending into the

Northern Cape Province. The development would consist of two phases with up to 98

turbines each, as well as on-site substations, a grid connection and access roads.

This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development, and details the ecological

characteristics of the site and provides an assessment of the likely ecological impacts

associated with the development of the wind energy facility at the site. Impacts are

assessed for the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases

of the development.

A desktop review of the available ecological information as well as a site visit and field

assessment of the proposed development area was conducted in order to identify and

characterise the ecological features of the site and develop an ecological sensitivity map

for the site which is illustrated below.

Although the abundance of plant and

animal species of conservation concern at

the site is relatively low, the environment

is considered moderately sensitive with

areas of higher sensitivity distributed

across the site. The site is rugged with a

high diversity of landscape units which

includes numerous mountains, hills,

gorges and valleys and streams spread

across the study area. As a result, open

plains of lower sensitivity most suitable for

development are fragmented across the

site. Under the assessed layouts there a

number of turbines within areas

considered sensitive, which should be

relocated in order to reduce the overall

impact of the development. This is especially applicable to turbines within area of plains

wash which are highly sensitive to disturbance as well as those within the dolerite

outcrops which are foci of diversity and faunal activity.

Phase 2 is considered to have a greater impact than Phase 1 because it is more

dispersed and would generate an impact across a greater area and there are also more

turbines within sensitive habitats. Phase 1 is more compact and would generate a less

extensive but more intense impact.


6

Although the extent of direct habitat loss resulting from both phases of the development

would be less than 200ha, the actual extent of habitat loss experienced by many species

will be significantly larger than this. For fauna which avoid human activity or which

avoid the proximity of turbines due to noise or other impact, the total effective footprint

of the development would be closer to 150km2 (15 000ha). This is considered significant

in the local context, but when considered at a broader regional scale, this represents a

small proportion of the landscape. As a result, the development would have the greatest

impact at an intermediate scale, affecting species movement and presence within the

greater Trouberg region but not the wider Sneeuberg as a whole.

Overall the development will have a moderate impact after mitigation and some kind of

on-site conservation management is recommended to mitigate the negative impacts of

the development on ecological processes in the area.


7

1 INTRODUCTION

Emoyeni Wind Farm Project Proprietary Limited (EFWP) proposes the development of the

UmSinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility (WEF), located near the town of Murraysburg in

the Western Cape Province, with a small portion of the proposed site extending into the

Northern Cape Province. The development would consist of two phases with up to 98

turbines each, as well as on-site substations, a grid connection and access roads. Arcus

Consulting Services are conducting the legally required EIA process for the development.

Anchor Environmental Consultants, working in collaboration with Simon Todd Consulting,

were commissioned to provide the terrestrial ecological input for the EIA process.

As part of the above EIA process, this ecological specialist study details the ecological

characteristics of the site and provides an assessment of the likely ecological impacts

associated with the development of a wind energy facility at the site. Impacts are

assessed for the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases

of the development. A variety of avoidance and mitigation measures associated with

each identified impact are recommended to reduce the likely impact of the development,

which should be included in the EMPr for the development. The full scope of study is

detailed in Section 2 below.

1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development

The proposed development is described in full in the main report and is not repeated in

full here. It is however important to note the following details:

The overall development will consist of two phases, resulting in four different EIA

applications as follows:

Umsinde Emoyeni WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape: Phase 1;

Umsinde Emoyeni WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape: Phase 2; and

Electrical Grid Connection and Associated Infrastructure for Umsinde Emoyeni

WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape (Phase 1)

Electrical Grid Connection and Associated Infrastructure for Umsinde Emoyeni

WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape (Phase 2).

As each of the above is a different application, the impacts associated with each

application component will be assessed separately at the EIA phase.

Each phase will comprise up to 98 wind turbines which will each have a capacity to

generate between 1.5 and 4.5 megawatts (MW) of power. Each turbine will have a

maximum height to the tip of 185 m. Each Phase of the WEF will have a contracted

capacity of up to 140 MW, with an installed capacity of up to 147 MW in line with the

Renewable Energy Independent Producers Procurement Programme.

Infrastructure associated with the development will include access tracks within the site,

turbine foundations, platforms and lay-down areas for construction machinery such as

cranes, and component storage areas. The access tracks will be up to 9 m wide during

construction, but will be reduced to 6 m during operation. Existing farm access tracks


8

will be upgraded where possible. Some aggregate for the construction of these tracks

may be sourced from borrow pits within the development site.

The electricity from the turbines will be transferred via a 33 kV electrical network to an

33/132kV onsite substation. The substation will house electrical infrastructure such as

transformers and switch gear to enable the energy to be transferred into the Eskom grid.

The substation will be placed on a concrete foundation with the substation compound

occupying an area of up to 200 m x 250 m. There will be an on-site office compound of

up to 150 m x 80 m, including site offices, parking and an operation and maintenance

facility.

The grid connection for the development will consist of up to 80 km of above-ground

electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure to connect the proposed Umsinde

Emoyeni Wind Energy to the Eskom national grid network. The power line will start from

the onsite substation from which electricity will be transferred via a (up to three) double

circuit 132 kV overhead lines to the existing Eskom Gamma substation west of the N1.

As the area to the west of the site falls within the Ishwati Emoyeni WEF, an assessment

and sensitivity map of this area has already been conducted.

Figure 1. Satellite image showing the layout of Umsinde Phase 1 in red and Umsinde

Phase 2 in yellow.


9

2 STUDY APPROACH

2.1 Scope of Study

The scope of the study includes the following activities

a description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the

manner in which the environ mint may be affected by the proposed project

a description and evaluation of environmental issues and potential impacts (incl.

using direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) that have been identified

a statement regarding the potential significance of the identified issues based on

the evaluation of the issues/impacts

an indication of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential

environmental impacts

an assessment of the significance of direct indirect and cumulative impacts in

terms of the following criteria :

o the nature of the impact, which shall include a description of what causes

the effect, what will be affected and how it will be affected

o the extent of the impact, indicating whether the impact will be local

(limited to the immediate area or site of development), regional, national

or international

o the duration of the impact, indicating whether the lifetime of the impact

will be of a short-term duration (0-5 years), medium-term (5- 15 years),

long-term (> 15 years, where the impact will cease after the operational

life of the activity) or permanent

o the probability of the impact, describing the likelihood of the impact

actually occurring, indicated as improbable (low likelihood) probable

(distinct possibility), highly probable (most likely), or definite (Impact will

occur regardless of any preventable measures)

o the severity/beneficial scale indicating whether the impact will be very

severe/beneficial (a permanent change which cannot be

mitigated/permanent and significant benefit with no real alternative to

achieving this benefit) severe/beneficial (long-term impact that could be

mitigated/long-term benefit) moderately severe/beneficial (medium- to

long-term impact that could be mitigated/ medium- to long-term benefit),

slight or have no effect

o the significance which shall be determined through a synthesis of the

characteristics described above and can be assessed as low medium or

high

o the status which will be described as either positive, negative or neutral

o the degree to which the impact can be reversed

o the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources

o the degree to which the impact can be mitigated

a description and comparative assessment of all alternatives


10

recommendations regarding practical mitigation measures for potentially

significant impacts, for inclusion in the Environmental Management Programme

(EMPr)

an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressed by the adoption

of mitigation measures

a description of any assumptions uncertainties and gaps in knowledge

an environmental impact statement which contains :

o a summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment;

o an assessment of the positive and negative implications of the proposed

activity;

o a comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of

identified alternatives

General Considerations:

Disclose any gaps in information or assumptions made.

Identify recommendations for mitigatory measures to minimise impacts.

Outline additional management guidelines.

Provide monitoring requirements, mitigation measures and recommendations in a

table format as input into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for faunal

related issues.

A description of the potential impacts of the development and recommended mitigation

measures are to be provided which will be separated into the following project phases:

Preconstruction

Construction

Operational Phase

Decommissioning

2.2 Assessment Approach & Philosophy

The assessment will be conducted according to the EIA Regulations, published by the

Department of Environmental Affairs (2014) as well as within the best-practice

guidelines and principles for biodiversity assessment as outlined by Brownlie (2005) and

De Villiers et al. (2005).

This includes adherence to the following broad principles:

That a precautionary and risk-averse approach be adopted towards projects which

may result in substantial detrimental impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems,

especially the irreversible loss of habitat and ecological functioning in threatened

ecosystems or designated sensitive areas: i.e. Critical Biodiversity Areas (as

identified by systematic conservation plans, Biodiversity Sector Plans or Bioregional

Plans) and Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas.


11

Demonstrate how the proponent intends complying with the principles contained in

section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of

1998), as amended (NEMA), which, amongst other things, indicates that

environmental management should.

In order of priority aim to: avoid, minimise or remedy disturbance of

ecosystems and loss of biodiversity;

Avoid degradation of the environment;

Avoid jeopardising ecosystem integrity;

Pursue the best practicable environmental option by means of integrated

environmental management;

Protect the environment as the people’s common heritage;

Control and minimise environmental damage; and

Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining

to sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.

These principles serve as guidelines for all decision-making concerning matters that may

affect the environment. As such, it is incumbent upon the proponent to show how

proposed activities would comply with these principles and thereby contribute towards

the achievement of sustainable development as defined by the NEMA.

In order to adhere to the above principles and best-practice guidelines, the following

approach forms the basis for the study approach and assessment philosophy:

The study will include data searches, desktop studies, site walkovers / field survey of the

property and baseline data collection, describing:

A description of the broad ecological characteristics of the site and its surrounds

in terms of any mapped spatial components of ecological processes and/or

patchiness, patch size, relative isolation of patches, connectivity, corridors,

disturbance regimes, ecotones, buffering, viability, etc.

In terms of pattern, the following will be identified or described:

Community and ecosystem level

The main vegetation type, its aerial extent and interaction with

neighbouring types, soils or topography;

Threatened or vulnerable ecosystems (cf. SA vegetation map/National

Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, fine-scale systematic conservation plans,

etc).

Species level

Red Data Book species (giving location if possible using GPS)

The viability of an estimated population size of the RDB species that are

present (include the degree of confidence in prediction based on

availability of information and specialist knowledge, i.e. High=70-100%

confident, Medium 40-70% confident, low 0-40% confident)


12

The likelihood of other RDB species, or species of conservation concern,

occurring in the vicinity (include degree of confidence).

Fauna

Describe and assess the terrestrial fauna present in the area that will be

affected by the proposed development.

Conduct a faunal assessment that can be integrated into the ecological

study.

Describe the existing impacts of current land use as they affect the fauna.

Clarify species of special concern (SSC) and that are known to be:

endemic to the region;

that are considered to be of conservational concern;

that are in commercial trade (CITES listed species);

or, are of cultural significance.

Provide monitoring requirements as input into the Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) for faunal related issues.

Other pattern issues

Any significant landscape features or rare or important vegetation

associations such as seasonal wetlands, alluvium, seeps, quartz patches or

salt marshes in the vicinity.

The extent of alien plant cover of the site, and whether the infestation is

the result of prior soil disturbance such as ploughing or quarrying (alien

cover resulting from disturbance is generally more difficult to restore than

infestation of undisturbed sites).

The condition of the site in terms of current or previous land uses.

In terms of process, the following will be identified or described:

The key ecological “drivers” of ecosystems on the site and in the vicinity, such as

fire.

Any mapped spatial component of an ecological process that may occur at the

site or in its vicinity (i.e. corridors such as watercourses, upland-lowland

gradients, migration routes, coastal linkages or inland-trending dunes, and

vegetation boundaries such as edaphic interfaces, upland-lowland interfaces or

biome boundaries)

Any possible changes in key processes, e.g. increased fire frequency or

drainage/artificial recharge of aquatic systems.

Furthermore, any further studies that may be required during or after the EIA

process will be outlined.

All relevant legislation, permits and standards that would apply to the

development will be identified.


13

The opportunities and constraints for development will be described and shown

graphically on an aerial photograph, satellite image or map delineated at an

appropriate level of spatial accuracy.

2.3 Data Sourcing and Review

Data sources from the literature consulted and used where necessary in the study

includes the following:

Vegetation:

Vegetation types and their conservation status were extracted from the South

African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006) as well as the

National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011), where relevant.

The site lies largely within the planning domain of the Biodiversity Assessment

of the Central Karoo District Municipality (Skowno, Holness & Desmet. 2009),

which defines Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for the

CKDM. However, no Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) mapping or systematic

conservation planning has been conducted for that part of the site which falls

within the Northern Cape, with the result that no detailed conservation priority

area information is available for that area.

Information on plant and animal species recorded for the Quarter Degree

Square (QDS) (QDS) 3123 DB, DD and 3124 CA and CC was extracted from

the SABIF/SIBIS database hosted by SANBI. This is a considerably larger

area than the study area, but this is necessary to ensure a conservative

approach as well as counter the fact that the site itself has probably not been

well sampled in the past.

The IUCN conservation status of the species in the list was also extracted

from the database and is based on the Threatened Species Programme, Red

List of South African Plants (2013).

Freshwater and wetland information was extracted from the National

Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment, NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011).

Important catchments and protected areas expansion areas were extracted

from the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2008 (NPAES).

Fauna

Lists of mammals, reptiles and amphibians which are likely to occur at the site

were derived based on distribution records from the literature and various spatial

databases (SANBI’s SIBIS and BGIS databases).


14

Literature consulted includes Branch (1988) and Alexander and Marais (2007) for

reptiles, Du Preez and Carruthers (2009) for amphibians, Friedmann and Daly

(2004) and Skinner and Chimimba (2005) for mammals.

Apart from the literature sources, additional information on reptiles were

extracted from the SARCA web portal, hosted by the ADU,

http://vmus.adu.org.za. As most groups have been poorly sampled the sample

area was expanded to include the whole degree squares 3123 and 3124.

The faunal species lists provided are based on species which are known to occur

in the broad geographical area, as well as a preliminary assessment of the

availability and quality of suitable habitat at the site.

The conservation status of each species is also listed, based on the IUCN Red List

Categories and Criteria version 3.1 (2013) (See Figure below) and where species

have not been assessed under these criteria, the CITES status is reported where

possible. These lists are adequate for mammals and amphibians, the majority of

which have been assessed, however the majority of reptiles have not been

assessed and therefore, it is not adequate to assess the potential impact of the

development on reptiles, based on those with a listed conservation status alone.

In order to address this shortcoming, the distribution of reptiles was also taken

into account such that any narrow endemics or species with highly specialized

habitat requirements occurring at the site were noted.

Schematic representation of the South African Red List categories. Taken from

http://redlist.sanbi.org/redcat.php

http://vmus.adu.org.za/

http://redlist.sanbi.org/redcat.php


15

2.4 Site Visit

A site visit to the area was conducted from the 3rd-5th July 2013. During the site visit,

the different biodiversity features, habitat, and landscape units present at the site were

identified and mapped in the field. Specific features visible on the satellite imagery of

the site were also marked for field inspection and were verified and assessed during the

site visit. This included features such as wetlands or unusual edaphic and landscape

features that were not visible from the access roads of the site and might have otherwise

been missed. Walk-through-surveys were conducted within representative areas across

the different habitats units identified and all plant and animal species observed were

recorded. Active searches for reptiles and amphibians were also conducted within

habitats likely to harbour or be important for such species. The presence of sensitive

habitats such as wetlands or pans and unique edaphic environments such as rocky

outcrops or quartz patches were noted in the field if present and recorded on a GPS and

mapped onto satellite imagery of the site.

2.5 Sensitivity Mapping

An ecological sensitivity map of the site was produced by integrating the available

ecological and biodiversity information available in the literature and various spatial

databases as described above. As a starting point, mapped sensitive features such as

wetlands, drainage lines and water bodies were collated and buffered where appropriate

to comply with legislative requirements or ecological considerations. Additional sensitive

areas where then identified and mapped from the satellite imagery of the site as well as

from the results of the site visit and field assessment. All the different layers created

were then merged to create a single coverage. Features that were specifically captured

in the sensitivity map include drainage features, wetlands and dams, as well as rocky

outcrops and steep slopes. The ecological sensitivity of the different units identified in

the mapping procedure was rated according to the following scale:

Low – Units with a low sensitivity where there is likely to be a low impact on

ecological processes and terrestrial biodiversity. This category represents

transformed or natural areas where the impact of development is likely to be local

in nature and of low significance with standard mitigation measures.

Medium- Areas of natural or previously transformed land where the impacts are

likely to be largely local and the risk of secondary impact such as erosion low.

Development within these areas can proceed with relatively little ecological

impact provided that appropriate mitigation measures are taken.

High – Areas of natural or transformed land where a high impact is anticipated

due to the high biodiversity value, sensitivity or important ecological role of the

area. Development within these areas is undesirable and should only proceed

with caution as it may not be possible to mitigate all impacts appropriately.


16

Very High – Critical and unique habitats that serve as habitat for

rare/endangered species or perform critical ecological roles. These areas are

essentially no-go areas from a developmental perspective and should be avoided

as much as possible.

In some situations, areas where also categorized between the above categories,

such as Medium-High, where an area appeared to be of intermediate sensitivity

with respect to the two defining categories.

3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Types

According to the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), only three

different vegetation types occur within the study area, Upper Karoo Hardeveld, Eastern

Upper Karoo and Southern Karoo Riviere (Figure 2). The site is dominated by Eastern

Upper Karoo, which at 49 821 km2 is the most extensive vegetation type in South Africa

and forms a large proportion of the central and eastern Nama Karoo Biome. This

vegetation type is classified as Least Threatened, and about 2% of the original extent

has been transformed largely for intensive agriculture. The vegetation type is however

poorly protected and less than 1% of the 21% target has been formally conserved.

Mucina & Rutherford (2006) list eight endemic species for this vegetation type, which

considering that it is the most extensive unit in the country, is not very high. Dominant

species within the study area include Pentzia incana, Rosenia humilis, Pteronia sordida,

Zygophyllum lichtensteinii, Eriocephalus ericoides, Salsola calluna, Osteospermum

leptolobum and Ruschia intricata with a variable grass layer often including Fingerhuthia

africana, Eragrostis bergiana, Tragus koeleroides and Eragrostis lehmanniana. There

may be occasional areas of deeper sands present, usually of aeolian nature, blown up

against hills which are dominated by grass species such as Stipagrostis ciliata, S.obtusa

and Eragrostis lehmanniana with occasional scattered shrubs such as Lycium cinereum,

Gnidia polycephala, Rosenia oppositifolia and Melolobium candicans.

The Upper Karoo Hardeveld vegetation type is associated with 11 734 km2 of the steep

slopes of koppies, butts mesas and parts of the Great Escarpment covered with large

boulders and stones. The vegetation type occurs as discrete areas associated with

slopes and ridges from Middelpos in the west and Strydenburg, Richmond and Nieu-

Bethesda in the east, as well as most south-facing slopes and crests of the Great

Escarpment between Teekloofpas and eastwards to Graaff-Reinet. Altitude varies from

1000-1900m. Mucina & Rutherford (2006) list 17 species known to be endemic to the

vegetation type. This is a high number given the wide distribution of most Nama karoo

species and illustrates the relative sensitivity of this vegetation type compared to the

surrounding Eastern Upper Karoo. Typical and dominant species characteristic of these

areas includes grasses such as Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus, Enneapogon

scaber, Digitaria eriantha, Erogrostis lehmanniana and Aristida diffusa subsp. burkei;

shrubs such as Felicia filifolia, Pentzia globosa, Hermannia filifolia, H.munitiflora,


17

Melolobium candicans, Nenax microphylla, Eriocephalus ericoides, Asparagus suaveolens

and Chrysocoma ciliata and low trees and large shrubs such as Searsia burchellii, Ehretia

rigida and Lycium oxycarpum, Cadaba aphylla, Melianthus comosus and Buddleja

glomerata.

The Southern Karoo Riviere vegetation type is associated with the rivers of the central

karoo such as the Buffels, Bloed, Dwyka, Gamka, Sout, Kariega and Sundays Rivers.

About 12% has been transformed as a result of intensive agriculture and the

construction of dams. Although it is classified as Least Threatened, it is associated with

rivers and drainage lines and those areas classified under this vegetation type should be

considered sensitive. Within the site, dominant and typical species within this vegetation

type includes Acacia karoo which is usually dominant along the larger water courses, as

well as Olea europea subsp. africana, Searsia lancea and Diospyros lycioides. On the

open plains large woody species are less conspicuous the systems often anastomise with

extensive alluvial floodplains dominated by species such as Salsola aphylla, Salsola

rabieana and Atriplex vestita var. appendiculata, Aridaria noctiflora subsp straminea,

Drosanthemum lique and Lycium cinereum.

Compared to the other vegetation types, this is the only vegetation type at the site

which contains a significant amount of trees. The other vegetation types at the site are

dominated by low shrubs and grasses with occasional larger shrubs. The extent of this

vegetation type is not well mapped and is much more extensive along the larger

drainage systems of the site than has been mapped. This vegetation type is present all

along the Buffels, Bakensklip and other large drainage lines of the site. These areas are

also ecologically important because they function as ecological corridors for the

movement of fauna about the landscape and also represent key resource areas for many

fauna.


18

Figure 2. Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the UmSinde Emoyeni

study area. The vegetation map is an extract of the national vegetation map as

produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006), and also includes rivers delineated by the

National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (Nel et al. 2011).

3.2 Habitat Types

It is clear from Figure 2 above, that the vegetation types at the site have been mapped

at a very coarse scale. In particular, the Southern Karoo Riviere vegetation type has

been mapped only along the larger rivers, when this vegetation type occurs along most

of medium-sized rivers in the study area. In practice, the vegetation of the site, is

relatively homogenous at a broad scale, but is repetitively patterned within the site at a

fairly fine scale, related primarily to soil texture, depth and landscape position. Within

the UmSinde Emoyeni site, the main driver of vegetation composition is elevation.

Elevation is a key driver of vegetation pattern as it has a dominant influence on rainfall

as well as on temperature. Soils in the area are relatively homogenous and determined


19

by landscape position, with significant soils accumulated only on the low-lying areas, and

the majority of the site typically has gravelly clay soils or exposed weathered shale

gravels with little or no soil. There are some areas of dolerite outcrops at the site

associated with the Upper Karoo Hardeveld vegetation type and these areas contain

significantly greater plant and animal species richness than the surrounding areas on

shale-derived soils.

The different habitats encountered within the affected section of UmSinde Emoyeni are

mapped below in Figure 3. The landscape diversity and rugged topography of the area is

reflected in the map, which illustrates the varied nature of the site with hills, drainage

features and more flat areas repeatedly interspersed across the site. The majority of

turbines are located on the flatter open plains of the site, which is considered the least

sensitive habitat. However, there are also a number of turbines located on steeper

slopes especially within dolerite outcrops and within the plains wash habitat. On the

steeper slopes, access roads and turbines will generate a significant erosion risk and

there are also sensitive features present in these areas including localised habitats such

as rock fields and densely-vegetated south-facing slopes. The dolerite outcrops are

considered sensitive as these habitats contain high diversity of fauna and flora compared

to the adjacent areas and are considered vulnerable to human impact and disturbance.

The washes of the site are sometimes very broad and difficult to avoid and in many

cases, these are anthropogenic features resulting from the loss of vegetation cover due

to livestock grazing and concomitant increase in runoff and development of incipient

erosion. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and specific precautions will need to

be taken in these areas to ensure that the development does not trigger or exacerbate

erosion problems in these areas. The proper regulation of runoff and water flow is a key

factor in these areas and mitigation should aim to slow the flow of water and thereby

reduce it energy and erosion potential as much as possible.

Apart from the drainage areas, other sensitive habitats present at the site include a

number of wetlands, which may occur in association with the drainage lines, or more

generally within lowland environments where saturated soils persist for several months

each wet season. Within the higher-lying areas, there are some rock fields present

which also contain succulent and geophyte species not found elsewhere at the site.

Many of these are small and would only be located during a walk-through of the facility,

should either phase become a preferred bidder under the REIPPP.


20

Figure 3. Habitat features of the UmSinde Emoyeni site, illustrating the diverse rugged

topography of the site


21

Figure 4. The larger drainage systems of the site such as Buffels and Snyderskraal Rivers are

important habitats for amphibians but are also key habitats and movement corridors for mammals.

Figure 5. Typical karoo dwarf shrubland vegetation which occupies the plains and gentle slopes

of the site especially within the Phase 1 development area. These are generally considered lower

sensitivity and are the most favourable areas for development at the site.

Figure 6. Dolerite outcrops are scattered across

the site and are considered sensitive habitats

because they contain greater floral and faunal

diversity than the surrounding areas.


22

Figure 7. Rock pavements and debris

fields are usually of limited extent, but

occur scattered across the site.

Although these areas may appear devoid

of life, they contain an abundance of

dwarf succulents and geophytes not

found elsewhere.

3.3 Plant Species of Conservation Concern

In terms of the presence of species of conservation concern within the site, the

abundance of such species is fairly low. According to the SIBIS database, only five such

species are known from the area. However an additional species Gethyllis longistyla

which is classified as Rare was observed in a rockfield near one of the wind measuring

masts near the eastern margin of the site. The other listed species are not likely to

impose a significant constraint on the development as several are associated with mesic

areas such as vleis and, as these areas are intrinsically sensitive, such areas would need

to be avoided in any case. Some other listed species are relatively widespread species

whose local populations are not likely to be compromised by the relatively low footprint

of the wind farm. It is, however, likely that additional listed species occur at the site as

it has not been well sampled in the past.

3.4 Faunal Communities

Mammals

The site falls within the distribution range of approximately 53 terrestrial mammals,

indicating that the mammalian diversity at the site is potentially high. The site is

extensive and topographically diverse, suggesting that a large proportion of these

species are likely to occur at the site. Species observed during the site visit to UmSinde

Emoyeni or to the adjacent Ishwati Emoyeni site include Greater Kudu Tragelaphus

strepsiceros, Aardvark Orycteropus afer, Rock Hyrax Procavia capensis, Springbok

Antidorcas marsupialis, Steenbok Raphicerus campestris, Cape Hare Lepus capensis,

South African Ground Squirrel Xerus inauris, Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillata, Bat-

eared Fox Otocyon megalotis, Namaqua Rock Mouse Aethomys namaquensis, Bush Vlei

Rat Otomys unisulcatus and Cape Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis. Three listed species

potentially occur at the site, the Black-footed Cat Felis nigripes (Vulnerable), Leopard

Panthera pardus (Near Threatened) and Honey Badger Mellivora capensis (SARDB

Endangered).


23

In terms of the listed mammals, it is possible that there are Leopard in the area given

the rugged topography of the site, while the Black-footed Cat and Honey Badger

probably also occur at the site at a low density as is typical for these species within arid

environments. Although some impact on these species may occur as a result of

development in the area, they are widespread species and this would not be likely to

compromise the local or regional populations of these species. It is not considered likely

that the Riverine Rabbit Bunolagus monticularis occurs at the site. This species is

associated with silty floodplains and if it were to occur anywhere at the site, it would be

on the lowland floodplains of the major rivers. As these areas would be avoided by the

development, the possibility of impact on this species can be discounted.

Some concern was raised during the scoping phase of the development around the

potential impact of the development on predator distribution at the site and the potential

for predators to move out of the development area and into the wider area. This was

partly based on a premise that the wind farm development may deter natural prey

species from the area and secondly that predators themselves would move out of the

area due to the wind turbines. During the construction phase, there will be a lot of noise

and disturbance at the site and it is reasonable to expect that some movement of

sensitive faunal species out of the affected area will occur. However, many species such

as small mammals, hares, dassies and small antelope are likely to remain in the area

and as these are the dominant prey species, it is not likely that prey abundance will

decline significantly. In the operational phase there is no evidence that turbines scare

animals away, which usually quickly become habituated to their presence. In addition,

turbines may attract some predators which learn that there may be dead birds and bats

beneath the turbines and a variety of studies have shown that such carcases are quickly

removed by predators, which is often a confounding factor in bird and bat mortality

studies. Therefore, any impacts on predator-prey dynamics are likely to occur during

the construction phase and would be transient and in the long-term predator prey

dynamics in the area is unlikely to be affected and the wind farm site would not be

source area for predators more than is currently the case. Any changes to the

management of the area or changes in livestock and predator management would have

an overwhelming influence compared to any potential impact of the development

infrastructure itself.

Reptiles

According to the SARCA database, 23 reptiles have been recorded from the half degree

squares 3123D and 3124C, but this rises to 50 species when the area of interest is

expanded to the whole of 3123 and 3124. The latter is a much bigger area than the

study site and probably includes a variety of habitats that are not present within the

study area, but sampling density across the karoo is generally very low and so a

conservative approach is necessary to ensure that all potential species present at the

site are captured. However, even within the larger dataset, there are few listed reptiles

that are likely to be present at the site.


24

The only listed species known from the area according to the SARCA database is the

Karoo Padloper, Homopus boulengeri, which is a karoo endemic restricted to the Nama

Karoo in the Eastern, Western and Northern Cape. The distribution of this species is

however fairly large and the site is not within an area of known significance for this

species which appears to favour lowland habitats over mountainous terrain.

It is possible that the Plain Mountain Adder Bitis inornata occurs within the high-lying

parts of the site, above 1600m. This little-known species is found in the Sneeuberge

and may occur at the site as well. It is currently listed as Endangered and has

apparently declined significantly in recent times. Although it has not been recorded from

the site, the area has not been well investigated and there is a reasonable probability

that it occurs at the site. Although the presence of this species would not constitute a

fatal flaw, it nevertheless highlights that areas above 1600m may have additional high-

elevation species present and should be considered higher sensitivity as a result.

The main impacts on amphibians would result from habitat loss, poaching risk and

disruption of landscape connectivity. The presence of roads and turbine service areas

would cause some habitat loss but this is not considered highly significant in context of

the landscape which is still largely intact and the loss of less than 200ha of habitat

across the site would generate low impacts on most species. However, there may be

some species which are vulnerable to habitat disruption due to roads as this can disrupt

the connectivity of landscape for subterranean species which are blocked by roads or for

slow-moving species such as some snakes and tortoises which are vulnerable predation

while crossing roads. During the construction phase species such as padlopers and tent

tortoises will also be vulnerable to illegal collection as these smaller species are often

picked up and kept or sold as pets. These latter impacts are considered of greater

concern than the direct impacts of habitat loss on reptiles. Previous studies on the

impacts of wind farm development on reptiles, have also shown that tortoises at least

are not significantly impacted by the presence of wind turbines (Lovich et al. 2011,

Ennen et al. 2012).

Amphibians

Amphibian diversity in the study area is low, with only 11 species known from the area.

This is however not surprising given the aridity of the area and low abundance of

favourable amphibian habitats. Clearly the larger river systems, the Buffels and

Bakensklip would be the most important areas for amphibians as these rivers contain

permanent pools which would be home to species such as Platanna, Cape River Frog and

Clicking Stream Frog. The smaller drainage lines and ephemeral pans are likely to be

used by less water-dependent species such as Common Caco and Karoo Toad. The only

listed species known from the area is the Giant Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus which is

associated with ephemeral pans and is not likely to be common in the area and is only

sporadically encountered in the Karoo.

In terms of impacts on amphibians, the large number of river crossings is a concern as

disturbance leading to erosion and silt input are a threat to amphibians on the site.

Many of the drainage lines are currently little impacted by direct human influences and


25

the large amount of disturbance at the site during construction would certainly be likely

to lead to a decline in water quality in the area due to increased turbidity and potentially

pollution as well. With the appropriate mitigation and avoidance, impact to drainage

systems, erosion and hence impact on amphibians can be kept to a minimum and in the

long-term impacts on amphibians are likely to be low.

3.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas

The site falls within the planning domain of the Critical Biodiversity Areas map for the

Central Karoo District Municipality. The map below (Figure 8) indicates the CBA status

of the area, as well as the underlying reasons that certain areas were designated as CBA

or ESA. In many areas there may however be several reasons that an area is a CBA or

ESA and so it is not possible to illustrate all the possible combinations, but the dominant

or most relevant reason has been illustrated.

A large proportion of the southern part of the site is CBA, while a large part of the

eastern section of the site is an ESA, based on the site falling within an area classified as

part of a priority catchment identified under the NFEPA. Although Phase 1 is in close

proximity to the CBA, it largely avoids the CBAs but under the current layout 57 turbines

are located within the Ecological Support Area. In terms of Phase 2, 64 turbines are

within the ESA and a small extent of new access road is within a CBA. Therefore, the

overall direct impact of the development on CBAs is low, but the potential impact on the

ESA is relatively high as the majority of the development footprint is located within the

ESA.


26

Figure 8. Critical Biodiversity Areas map of the UmSinde Emoyeni study area, based on

the CBA map for the Central Karoo District Municipality, produced by Skowno et al.

(2009). The map indicates the underlying reason each area is classified as a CBA or

ESA. The areas classified as CBA are stippled, whereas the remaining coded areas are

classified as ESAs.

In terms of the development contributing to cumulative impacts, the map of renewable

energy developments in the area is illustrated below in Figure 9. There are a number of

other proposed facilities in the broader area, especially to the west of the site near the

N1. These are however within a different environment from the current site and would

not contribute directly to the cumulative loss of similar habitat. The current low levels of

transformation of the affected habitat types indicates that the development is not likely

to pose a significant threat in terms of the extent of transformation that it would involve


27

or compromise the countries’ ability to meet national conservation targets. However,

impacts on broad-scale impacts are likely to result from noise generated by the facility

as well as human presence which may deter shy species from the area as well as disrupt

the connectivity of the landscape for such species. The density of the development is

high for a wind farm development, which on the one hand reduces the overall extent of

impact, but increases the intensity of impact within the affected area. Consequently,

reducing the number of turbines would ultimately reduce the impact of the development

as the turbines would be further apart and there would be less noise and other

disturbance at the site. Given the current low levels of disturbance at the site, the

development of two large wind energy developments at the site would significantly

increase disturbance and human presence at the site.

Figure 9. Map of renewable energy applications listed with DEA as at March 2015. Blue

polygons are wind energy applications, red are solar and blue with red borders are mixed

wind and solar developments. At this stage, it is only the Noblesfontein Wind Energy

facility in the furthest southwest of the map which has actually been built.

3.6 Site Sensitivity Assessment

The sensitivity map for the affected parts of the site is illustrated below in Figure 10.

The majority of the Phase 1 turbines are located within the open plains habitat which is

considered to be of Moderate sensitivity. However, 13 turbines are located within

dolerite outcrops which are considered high sensitivity on account of their high diversity

and an additional 7 turbines are located on slopes considered to be vulnerable to erosion

Umsinde


28

impact. In terms of Phase 2, 5 turbines are located within the dolerite outcrops and an

additional 20 on steep slopes and 5 within areas classified as High sensitivity as they are

within washes. The turbines within the washes should be moved out of these areas as

the washes are sensitive areas vulnerable to disturbance. Similarly, the number of

turbines within the dolerite outcrops should be reduced as much as possible.

Phase 2 is considered to have a greater impact than Phase 1 because it is more

dispersed and would generate an impact across a greater area and there are also more

turbines within sensitive habitats. Phase 1 is more compact and would generate a less

extensive but more intense impact. Under the assessed layout, most turbines are less

than 500m apart, meaning that any point within the turbine field is likely to be less than

250m from a wind turbine. Noise levels generated by turbines are relatively high within

the context of a natural environment with little other background noise pollution and

many species may find the wind farm environment unfavourable as a result. Therefore,

for many fauna, the footprint of the development should not be considered equivalent to

the extent of transformation, but rather to the full occupied extent of the wind farm

which is approximately 50km2 for Phase 1 and as much as 100km2 for Phase 2. Such

potential habitat loss and disruption of landscape connectivity is considered one of the

major impacts of the development.


29

Figure 10. Ecological sensitivity map of that part of the UmSinde Emoyeni site affected

by Phase 1 and Phase 2 infrastructure.

4 IDENTIFICATION & NATURE OF IMPACTS

In this section, the potential impacts and associated risk factors that are likely to be

generated by the development are identified. In order to ensure that the impacts

identified are broadly applicable and inclusive, all the likely or potential impacts that may

be associated with the development are listed. The relevance and applicability of each

potential impact to the current situation are then examined in more detail in the next

section.


30

4.1 Construction Phase

Impacts on vegetation and protected plant species

Site clearing for roads, turbines and other infrastructure would result in the loss of

currently intact vegetation. This may include protected and red-listed plant

species as well as their habitats. This impact is highly likely to occur in all areas

where development takes place and as such will be assessed for the facility as

well as the power line servitude.

Alien Plant Invasion Risk

The large amount of disturbance created during construction will leave the site

vulnerable to alien plant invasion. Although, this impact is generated during

construction, it is only expressed during operation and is therefore assessed for

the operational phase and not for construction. Some invasion of short lived

weedy species may occur during construction; however, their control would occur

largely during the operational phase after the completion of the site.

Increased erosion risk

Increased erosion risk would result from soil disturbance and the loss of plant

cover within cleared and disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and

includes quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact.

There are also a lot of drainage lines present that would be disturbed by the

construction of the facility and the risk of erosion problems would therefore be

high. As the larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the

NFEPA, erosion leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly

undesirable.

Due to the extensive disturbance likely to be created by construction within the

facility, this impact is most likely to occur within the facility, but could potentially

occur along the power line route as well if suitable avoidance and mitigation

measures were not implemented during construction.

Direct Faunal impacts

Increased levels of noise, pollution, disturbance and human presence will be

detrimental to fauna. Sensitive and shy fauna would move away from the area

during the construction phase as a result of the noise and human activities

present, while some slow-moving species would not be able to avoid the

construction activities and might be killed. Some mammals and reptiles such as

tortoises would be vulnerable to illegal collection or poaching during the

construction phase as a result of the large number of construction personnel that

are likely to be present. There are also some mammals of conservation concern

which occur in the area and impacts on these species would be undesirable.

Some habitat loss for these species is likely to occur, but would not be of high


31

significance given the scale of the development relative to the distribution extent

of these species.

Due to the large amount of activity and equipment operating within the facility

during construction, faunal impacts are highly likely within the facility, but less

likely along the power line route as construction activity will be localised and of

short duration. Consequently faunal impacts will be assessed for the facility, but

not the power line corridor.

4.2 Operational Phase


The large amount of disturbance created during construction will leave the site

vulnerable to alien plant invasion. This would be a particular concern if it resulted

in the spread of large woody species such as Prosopis which can have ecosystem-

level consequences for hydrology as well as biodiversity and the delivery of

ecosystem services.

This impact is likely to occur where extensive or recurrent disturbance takes place

and as such is most likely to occur within the facility. Disturbance along the

power line would be limited and of much shorter duration. As such this impact is

likely to be a significant problem only within the facility and is not considered a

likely impact associated with the power line corridor.



cover within cleared and disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and

includes quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact.

There are also a lot of drainage lines present that would be disturbed by the

construction of the facility and the risk of erosion problems would therefore be

high. As the larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the

NFEPA, erosion leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly

undesirable. This impact is likely to be initiated during construction, but the risk

is likely to persist into the operational phase and it is likely that long-term erosion

monitoring and control at the site would be necessary.

Due to the extensive disturbance likely to be created by construction within the

facility, this impact is most likely to occur within the facility, but could potentially

occur along the power line route as well if suitable avoidance and mitigation

measures were not implemented during construction.

Direct Faunal impacts

Increased levels of noise, disturbance and human presence during operation may

be detrimental to fauna. Noise generated by the turbines may have some impact

on sensitive fauna, while other species may avoid the area on account of the

increased levels of activity in the area. Many species would however become


32

habituated to the turbines and would return to normal activity after some time.

Direct faunal impacts during operation are likely to be limited to the facility and

significant interaction is not expected along the power line corridor. Faunal

impacts during operation are possible within the facility, but unlikely along the

power line corridor due to the low activity and limited scope for interaction of the

infrastructure with fauna.

Loss of landscape connectivity and disruption of broad-scale ecological processes

The presence of the facility and associated infrastructure could potentially

contribute to the disruption of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal,

migration or the ability of fauna to respond to fluctuations in climate or other

conditions. Many fauna avoid crossing open areas or are vulnerable to predation

when doing so and so the extensive road network which would be required for the

facility would contribute to this impact on a long-term cumulative basis. This

impact is considered significant only for the facility and it is highly unlikely that

the power line corridor would contribute significantly to this impact.

4.3 Decommissioning Phase


The large amount of disturbance created during decommissioning will leave the

site vulnerable to alien plant invasion. This would be a particular concern if it

resulted in the spread of large woody species such as Prosopis which could have

ecosystem-level consequences for hydrology as well as biodiversity and the

delivery of ecosystem services. This impact is likely within the facility, and

unlikely along the power line corridor.



cover within disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and includes

quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact. As the

larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the NFEPA, erosion

leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly undesirable. This

risk would be restricted to the facility and is not considered likely along the power

line route or substation.

4.4 Cumulative impacts

Impact on Critical Biodiversity Areas and cumulative disruption of broad-scale

ecological processes

Transformation within CBAs would potentially disrupt the functioning of the CBA

or result in biodiversity loss. In addition, the presence of the facility and

associated infrastructure could potentially contribute to the cumulative disruption

of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal, migration or the ability of


33

fauna to respond to fluctuations in climate or other conditions. There are a

number of other renewable energy facilities in the broad area and the cumulative

impact of these on habitat loss and the broad scale disruption of landscape

connectivity is a potential concern. This impact results from the facility itself and

the power line is not considered a significant contributor.

5 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

5.1 Planning & Construction Phase

Impact 1. Impacts on vegetation and listed or protected plant species resulting from

construction activities

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 High

3 Long-term

3

High

7 Probable HIGH – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 High

3 Long-term

3

High

7 Probable HIGH – ve High

Essential mitigation measures:

Preconstruction walk-through of the facility in order to locate species of conservation concern that can be avoided or

translocated as well as comply with the provincial permit conditions.

Vegetation clearing to commence only after walk through has been conducted and necessary permits obtained.

Preconstruction environmental induction for all construction staff on site to ensure that basic environmental principles

are adhered to. This includes awareness as to no littering, appropriate handling of pollution and chemical spills,

avoiding fire hazards, minimizing wildlife interactions, remaining within demarcated construction areas etc.

ECO to provide supervision and oversight of vegetation clearing activities within sensitive areas such as near drainage

areas.

Vegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum. No unnecessary vegetation to be cleared.

All construction vehicles should adhere to clearly defined and demarcated roads. No off-road driving to be allowed

outside of the construction area.

Temporary lay-down areas should be located within previously transformed areas or areas that have been identified as

being of low sensitivity. These areas should be rehabilitated after use.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6

Probable MEDIUM – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6


Impact 2. Alien Plant Invasion Risk


Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6



34


Wherever excavation is necessary, topsoil should be set aside and replaced after construction to encourage natural

regeneration of the local indigenous species.

The recovery of the indigenous grass layer should be encouraged through leaving some areas intact through the

construction phase to create a seed source for adjacent cleared areas.

Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure, alien plant

species are likely to be a long-term problem at the site and a long-term control plan will need to be implemented.

Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint as well as adjacent areas which receive runoff from

the facility as there are also likely to be prone to invasion problems.

Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of

herbicides should be avoided as far as possible.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Short-term

1

Very Low 4

Probable Low – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Short-term

3

Very Low 4


Impact 3. Increased Erosion Risk


Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6



Dust suppression and erosion management should be an integrated component of the construction approach.

Disturbance near to drainage lines or the pan should be avoided and sensitive drainage areas near to the construction

activities should demarcated as no-go areas.

Regular monitoring for erosion problems along the access roads and other cleared areas.

Erosion problems should be rectified on a regular basis.

Sediment traps may be necessary to prevent erosion and soil movement if there are topsoil or other waste heaps

present during the wet season.

A low cover of vegetation should be left wherever possible within the construction footprint to bind the soil, prevent

erosion and promote post-disturbance recovery of an indigenous ground cover.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Low

1 Med-term

2

V Low

4 Probable V Low – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Low

1 Med-term

2

V Low 4

Probable V Low – ve High

Impact 4. Direct Faunal Impacts


Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 High

3 Medium

2

Medium 6


Phase 2 Local

1 High

3 Medium

2

Medium 6



35


All personnel should undergo environmental induction with regards to fauna and in particular awareness about not

harming or collecting species such as snakes, tortoises and owls which are often persecuted out of superstition.

Any fauna threatened by the construction activities should be removed to safety by the ECO or appropriately qualified

environmental officer.

All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes

and tortoises.

All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any

accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related

to the nature of the spill.

If trenches need to be dug for water pipelines or electrical cabling, these should not be left open for extended periods

of time as fauna may fall in and become trapped in them. Trenches which are standing open should have places

where there are soil ramps allowing fauna to escape the trench.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Medium

2

Low

5 Probable LOW – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Medium

2

Low

5 Probable LOW – ve High

5.2 Operational Phase



Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium

6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium



Wherever excavation is necessary, topsoil should be set aside and replaced after construction to encourage natural

regeneration of the local indigenous species.

The recovery of the indigenous shrub/grass layer should be encouraged through leaving some areas intact through the

construction phase to create a seed source for adjacent cleared areas.

Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure, alien plant

species are likely to be a long-term problem at the site and a long-term control plan will need to be implemented.

Problem woody species such as Prosopis are already present in the area and are likely to increase rapidly if not

controlled.

Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint as well as adjacent areas which receive runoff from

the facility as there are also likely to be prone to invasion problems.

Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of

herbicides should be avoided as far as possible.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5


Phase 2 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5



36



Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium



All roads and other hardened surfaces should have runoff control features which redirect water flow and dissipate any

energy in the water which may pose an erosion risk.

Regular monitoring for erosion after construction to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the

disturbance.

All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures

and revegetation techniques.

All cleared areas should be revegetated with indigenous perennial grasses from the local area. These can be cut

when dry and placed on the cleared areas if natural recovery is slow.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5


Phase 2 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5


Impact 3. Direct Faunal Impacts


Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium

6 Probable MEDIUM – ve High

Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium

6 Probable MEDIUM – ve High


No unauthorized persons should be allowed onto the site.

Any potentially dangerous fauna such snakes or fauna threatened by the maintenance and operational activities

should be removed to a safe location.

The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden.

If the site must be lit at night for security purposes, this should be done with downward-directed low-UV type lights

(such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects.

All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any

accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related

to the nature of the spill.

All vehicles accessing the site should adhere to a low speed limit (30km/h max) to avoid collisions with susceptible

species such as snakes and tortoises.

If parts of the facility are to be fenced, then no electrified strands should be placed within 30cm of the ground as some

species such as tortoises are susceptible to electrocution from electric fences as they do not move away when

electrocuted but rather adopt defensive behaviour and are killed by repeated shocks. Alternatively, the electrified

strands should be placed on the inside of the fence and not the outside.


37

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium 6


5.3 Decommissioning Phase



Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium



Rehabilitation of all cleared and disturbed areas with local species.

Post-decommissioning monitoring and control of alien species for at least 3 years after decommissioning.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5


Phase 2 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5




Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium


Phase 2 Local

1 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium



Removal of all infrastructure components from the site.

Rehabilitation of all cleared and disturbed areas with local species.

Off-site disposal of all facility components such as cabling, turbine parts etc.

Monitoring programme for at least three years after decommissioning to document vegetation recovery across the site.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5


Phase 2 Local

1 Low

1 Long-term

3

Low 5



38

5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Impact 1. Impact on CBAs and Broad-Scale Ecological Processes


Without Mitigation

Phase 1 Regional

2 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium

7 Probable High – ve High

Phase 2 Regional

2 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium



The development footprint should be kept to a minimum and natural vegetation should be encouraged to return to

disturbed areas.

An open space management plan should be developed for the site, which should include management of biodiversity

within the affected areas, as well as that in the adjacent rangeland.

Avoid impact to potential corridors such as the riparian corridors associated with the larger drainage lines within the

facility area.

With Mitigation

Phase 1 Regional

2 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium


Phase 2 Regional

2 Medium

2 Long-term

3

Medium


5.5 Summary Assessment

A summary of the different impacts associated with the Umsinde Emoyeni wind farm

development, is provided below in Table 1. Although, there are differences in the Phase

1 and Phase 2 impacts as discussed in the text, these are not apparent in the

assessment, which has a coarse resolution due to the limited number of possible

categories of significance. Although many of the impacts associated with the

development can be mitigated to a low level, there are several impacts such as the loss

of habitat and presence of the facility which may impact broad-scale ecological processes

which cannot be effectively mitigated.

Table 1. Summary assessment of impacts associated with the Umsinde Emoyeni wind farm

development. Impacts are applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development.

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Planning & Construction Phase

Impact 1: Impacts on vegetation

and listed or protected plant species

resulting from construction activities

Before Mitigation High Probable High – ve High

After Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High

Impact 2: Alien Plant Invasion Risk

Before Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High

After Mitigation Very Low Probable Low – ve High


39

Impact 3: Increased Erosion Risk


After Mitigation V Low Probable V Low – ve High

Impact 4. Direct faunal impacts

during construction


After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High

Operational Phase

Impact 1. Alien plant invasion risk

Before Mitigation Medium Definite Medium – ve High


Impact 2. Increased erosion risk



Impact 3 Faunal impacts during

operation


After Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High

Decommissioning Phase

Impact 1. Alien plant invasion risk



Impact 2. Increased erosion risk



Cumulative Impacts

Impact 1. Impact on CBAs and

Broad-Scale Ecological Processes

Before Mitigation Medium Probable High – ve High

After Mitigation Medium Probable High – ve High

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Umsinde Emoyeni site is fair rugged and topographically diverse with the result that

there are numerous mountains, hills, gorges and valleys and streams present within the

study area. As several of these landscape features and habitats are considered

sensitive, the areas of lower sensitivity most suitable for development are fragmented

across the site and restricting the development footprint to these areas represents a

challenge for the developer. However, under the assessed layouts there are number of

turbines within areas considered sensitive, which should be relocated in order to reduce

the overall impact of the development. This is especially applicable to turbines within

area of plains wash which are highly sensitive to disturbance as well as those within the

dolerite outcrops which are foci of diversity and faunal activity.

Although the total footprint resulting from both phases of the development in terms of

transformation is less than 200ha, the actual extent of habitat loss experienced by many

species will be significantly larger than this and for fauna which avoid human activity or


40

which avoid the proximity of turbines due to noise or other impact, the total effective

footprint of the development would be closer to 150km2 (15 000ha). Although this is

significant in the local context, when considered at a broader regional scale, this is still a

small proportion of the landscape. As the levels of transformation in the area are low,

the development of the site would not prevent broad-scale movement for most species

and would have the greatest impact at an intermediate scale, affecting species

movement and presence within the Trouberg region.

As the wind energy developments represent an additional rather than an alternative

landuse, it is recommended that some sort of conservation management be

implemented across the development site in order to promote biodiversity and reduce

the overall impact of the development. This could include stewardship agreements or

the formation of a conservancy among the affected landowners to implement biodiversity

orientated management interventions at the site. Activities such as alien clearing or

erosion control should be partly funded by the wind farm development as these would

contribute directly to meeting the environmental management obligations of the wind

farm owner/operator.


41

7 REFERENCES

Alexander, G. & Marais, J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik

Nature, Cape Town.

Branch W.R. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik,

Cape Town.

Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa.

Struik Nature., Cape Town.

IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2.

<www.iucnredlist.org>.

Ennen, J. R., Lovich, J. E., Meyer, K. P., Bjurlin, C., & Arundel, T. R. (2012). Nesting

ecology of a population of Gopherus agassizii at a utility-scale wind energy facility in

southern California. Copeia, 2012(2), 222-228.

Lovich, J. E., Ennen, J. R., Madrak, S., Meyer, K., Loughran, C., Bjurlin, C. U. R. T. I. S.,

... & Groenendaal, G. M. (2011). Effects of wind energy production on growth,

demography and survivorship of a desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) population in

southern California with comparisons to natural populations. Herpetological Conservation

and Biology, 6(2), 161-174.

Marais, J. 2004. Complete Guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape

Town.

Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van

Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L.

and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem

Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Mucina L. & Rutherford M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. 2005. The mammals of the Southern African Subregion.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Skowno, A.L. Holness S.D and P. Desmet. 2009. Biodiversity Assessment of the Central

Karoo District Municipality. DEAP Report EADP05/2008, 52 pages.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


42

8 ANNEX 1 LIST OF PLANTS

List of plant species known from the area around the UmSinde site, based on the SANBI SIBIS

database. IUCN status is from the South African Red List of Plants (2015).

Family Species IUCN Family Species IUCN

ACANTHACEAE Monechma incanum LC AIZOACEAE Galenia papulosa LC

AIZOACEAE Galenia procumbens LC AIZOACEAE Galenia pubescens LC

AIZOACEAE Galenia sarcophylla LC AIZOACEAE Plinthus karooicus LC

AIZOACEAE Tetragonia arbuscula LC AIZOACEAE Tetragonia echinata LC

AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus capensis subsp. capensis

LC AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus thunbergii LC

AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha Declining AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia radulosa LC

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lancea LC APIACEAE Berula erecta subsp. thunbergii LC

APIACEAE Bupleurum mundii LC APIACEAE Chamarea longipedicellata LC

APIACEAE Conium chaerophylloides LC APIACEAE Deverra denudata subsp. aphylla

LC

APIACEAE Peucedanum caffrum LC APOCYNACEAE Duvalia maculata LC

APOCYNACEAE Huernia barbata subsp. barbata LC APOCYNACEAE Microloma armatum var. armatum

LC

APOCYNACEAE Tridentea virescens LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus acocksii LC

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus aethiopicus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus burchellii LC

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus capensis var. capensis

LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus concinnus LC

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus cooperi LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus denudatus LC

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus mucronatus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus racemosus LC

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus retrofractus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus striatus LC

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe aristata LC ASPHODELACEAE Aloe broomii var. broomii LC

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe variegata LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine asphodeloides LC

ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine narcissifolia LC ASPHODELACEAE Haworthia venosa subsp. tessellata

LC

ASPHODELACEAE Kniphofia ensifolia subsp. autumnalis

EN ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra acocksii LC

ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium cordatum LC ASTERACEAE Amphiglossa triflora LC

ASTERACEAE Arctotheca calendula LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis adpressa LC

ASTERACEAE Arctotis erosa LC ASTERACEAE Artemisia afra var. afra LC

ASTERACEAE Berkheya annectens LC ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. subcanescens

LC

ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata LC ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma coma-aurea LC

ASTERACEAE Cineraria aspera LC ASTERACEAE Cineraria lyratiformis LC

ASTERACEAE Conyza podocephala LC ASTERACEAE Conyza scabrida LC

ASTERACEAE Cotula coronopifolia LC ASTERACEAE Cotula microglossa LC

ASTERACEAE Denekia capensis LC ASTERACEAE Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis LC

ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca cuneata LC ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca zeyheri LC

ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus africanus var. africanus

LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus decussatus LC

ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus ericoides subsp. ericoides

LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus eximius LC

ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus punctulatus LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus spinescens LC

ASTERACEAE Eumorphia dregeana LC ASTERACEAE Euryops annae LC

ASTERACEAE Euryops empetrifolius LC ASTERACEAE Euryops lateriflorus LC

ASTERACEAE Felicia filifolia subsp. filifolia LC ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata subsp. cinerascens

LC

ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata subsp. muricata LC ASTERACEAE Felicia ovata LC


43

ASTERACEAE Felicia zeyheri subsp. zeyheri LC ASTERACEAE Garuleum latifolium LC

ASTERACEAE Garuleum pinnatifidum LC ASTERACEAE Gazania krebsiana subsp. krebsiana

LC

ASTERACEAE Gazania linearis var. linearis LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum albo-brunneum LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum asperum var. albidulum

LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum dregeanum LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum hamulosum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum lineare LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum lucilioides LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum nudifolium var. nudifolium

LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum pentzioides LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum rosum var. arcuatum

LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum splendidum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum stoloniferum LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum tinctum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum tysonii LC

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum zeyheri LC ASTERACEAE Hertia cluytiifolia LC

ASTERACEAE Lactuca dregeana LC ASTERACEAE Lasiopogon glomerulatus LC

ASTERACEAE Lasiospermum bipinnatum LC ASTERACEAE Leysera tenella LC

ASTERACEAE Osteospermum leptolobum LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum spinescens LC

ASTERACEAE Othonna auriculifolia LC ASTERACEAE Othonna coronopifolia LC

ASTERACEAE Othonna pavonia LC ASTERACEAE Pegolettia retrofracta LC

ASTERACEAE Pentzia dentata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia globosa LC

ASTERACEAE Pentzia lanata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia pinnatisecta LC

ASTERACEAE Pentzia punctata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia sphaerocephala LC

ASTERACEAE Phymaspermum aciculare LC ASTERACEAE Phymaspermum parvifolium LC

ASTERACEAE Pseudognaphalium undulatum LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia adenocarpa LC

ASTERACEAE Pteronia erythrochaeta LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia glauca LC

ASTERACEAE Pteronia glaucescens LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia glomerata LC

ASTERACEAE Pteronia membranacea LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia sordida LC

ASTERACEAE Pulicaria scabra LC ASTERACEAE Rosenia humilis LC

ASTERACEAE Rosenia oppositifolia LC ASTERACEAE Rosenia spinescens LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio achilleifolius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio angustifolius LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio asperulus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio burchellii LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio consanguineus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio hastatus LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio hieracioides LC ASTERACEAE Senecio incomptus LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio leptophyllus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio niveus LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio radicans LC ASTERACEAE Senecio reptans LC

ASTERACEAE Senecio ruwenzoriensis LC ASTERACEAE Tarchonanthus camphoratus LC

ASTERACEAE Trichogyne paronychioides LC ASTERACEAE Tripteris aghillana var. aghillana

LC

ASTERACEAE Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia

LC ASTERACEAE Tripteris sinuata var. linearis LC

ASTERACEAE Tripteris sinuata var. sinuata LC ASTERACEAE Troglophyton capillaceum subsp. capillaceum

LC

ASTERACEAE Ursinia nana subsp. leptophylla LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia nana subsp. nana LC

BLECHNACEAE Blechnum australe subsp. australe

LC BORAGINACEAE Anchusa riparia LC

BORAGINACEAE Lithospermum affine LC BRASSICACEAE Erucastrum strigosum LC

BRASSICACEAE Heliophila cornuta var. squamata

LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila suavissima LC

BRASSICACEAE Lepidium africanum subsp. africanum

LC BRASSICACEAE Lepidium africanum subsp. divaricatum

LC

BRASSICACEAE Lepidium desertorum LC BRASSICACEAE Lepidium ecklonii LC

BRASSICACEAE Matthiola torulosa LC BRASSICACEAE Sisymbrium capense LC

BUDDLEJACEAE Buddleja glomerata LC BUDDLEJACEAE Gomphostigma virgatum LC

CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia albens LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia androsacea LC


44

CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia nodosa LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia tenella var. tenella

LC

CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia thunbergiana LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia undulata LC

CAPPARACEAE Cadaba aphylla LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Dianthus caespitosus subsp. caespitosus

LC

CARYOPHYLLACEAE Pollichia campestris LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene undulata LC

CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex semibaccata var. appendiculata

LC CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex suberecta LC

CHENOPODIACEAE Bassia salsoloides LC CHENOPODIACEAE Exomis microphylla var. axyrioides

LC

CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola aphylla LC CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola calluna LC

CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola rabieana LC CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus sagittatus LC

CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata var. dactylopsis

LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula capitella subsp. thyrsiflora

LC

CRASSULACEAE Crassula corallina subsp. corallina

LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula lanceolata subsp. lanceolata

LC

CRASSULACEAE Crassula lanuginosa var. lanuginosa

LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula muscosa var. muscosa LC

CRASSULACEAE Crassula natans var. minus LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula tetragona subsp. acutifolia

LC

CUCURBITACEAE Cucumis myriocarpus subsp. leptodermis

LC CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis africana LC

CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis capensis LC CYPERACEAE Carex glomerabilis LC

CYPERACEAE Cyperus laevigatus LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus longus var. longus LC

CYPERACEAE Cyperus marginatus LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus usitatus LC

CYPERACEAE Pseudoschoenus inanis LC CYPERACEAE Schoenoplectus paludicola LC

CYPERACEAE Scirpoides dioecus LC DIPSACACEAE Scabiosa columbaria LC

DRYOPTERIDACEAE Dryopteris antarctica LC EBENACEAE Diospyros austro-africana var. microphylla

LC

EBENACEAE Diospyros austro-africana var. rubriflora

LC EBENACEAE Diospyros lycioides subsp. lycioides

LC

EBENACEAE Diospyros pallens LC ERICACEAE Erica woodii var. woodii LC

EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia aggregata var. aggregata

LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia clavarioides var. clavarioides

LC

EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia epicyparissias LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia inaequilatera var. inaequilatera

LC

EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia rectirama LC FABACEAE Argyrolobium collinum LC

FABACEAE Cullen tomentosum LC FABACEAE Indigofera alternans var. alternans

LC

FABACEAE Indigofera sessilifolia LC FABACEAE Lessertia diffusa LC

FABACEAE Lessertia pauciflora var. pauciflora

LC FABACEAE Lessertia spinescens LC

FABACEAE Lotononis calycina LC FABACEAE Lotononis platycarpa LC

FABACEAE Melolobium calycinum LC FABACEAE Melolobium candicans LC

FABACEAE Melolobium microphyllum LC FABACEAE Sutherlandia frutescens LC

FABACEAE Trifolium burchellianum subsp. burchellianum

LC GERANIACEAE Geranium ornithopodioides EN

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium abrotanifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium alchemilloides LC

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium dichondrifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium glutinosum LC

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium minimum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium proliferum LC

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium ramosissimum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium sidoides Declining

GERANIACEAE Pelargonium tragacanthoides LC GERANIACEAE Sarcocaulon patersonii LC

GISEKIACEAE Gisekia pharnacioides var. pharnacioides

LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca setosa LC

HYACINTHACEAE Drimia intricata LC HYACINTHACEAE Drimia physodes LC

HYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria undulata LC HYACINTHACEAE Massonia depressa LC

HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum juncifolium var. juncifolium

LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum tenuifolium subsp. tenuifolium

LC

HYPOXIDACEAE Empodium gloriosum LC HYPOXIDACEAE Empodium plicatum LC

IRIDACEAE Babiana bainesii LC IRIDACEAE Dierama pendulum LC


45

IRIDACEAE Hesperantha longituba LC IRIDACEAE Moraea pallida LC

IRIDACEAE Moraea polystachya LC IRIDACEAE Romulea macowanii var. alticola

LC

IRIDACEAE Romulea triflora LC IRIDACEAE Tritonia karooica LC

IRIDACEAE Tritonia laxifolia LC JUNCACEAE Juncus inflexus LC

JUNCACEAE Juncus rigidus LC LAMIACEAE Ballota africana LC

LAMIACEAE Mentha longifolia subsp. capensis

LC LAMIACEAE Salvia disermas LC

LAMIACEAE Salvia repens var. keiensis DDD LAMIACEAE Salvia verbenaca LC

LAMIACEAE Stachys aethiopica LC LAMIACEAE Stachys hyssopoides LC

LAMIACEAE Stachys rugosa LC LINACEAE Linum aethiopicum LC

LOBELIACEAE Lobelia dregeana LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia thermalis LC

LORANTHACEAE Septulina glauca LC LORANTHACEAE Tapinanthus oleifolius LC

MALVACEAE Anisodontea capensis LC MALVACEAE Hermannia abrotanoides LC

MALVACEAE Hermannia coccocarpa LC MALVACEAE Hermannia cuneifolia var. cuneifolia

LC

MALVACEAE Hermannia cuneifolia var. glabrescens

LC MALVACEAE Hermannia filifolia var. filifolia LC

MALVACEAE Hermannia grandiflora LC MALVACEAE Hermannia jacobeifolia LC

MALVACEAE Hermannia linearifolia LC MALVACEAE Hermannia multiflora LC

MALVACEAE Hermannia pulchella LC MALVACEAE Hermannia vestita LC

MARSILEACEAE Marsilea macrocarpa LC MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus comosus LC

MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus dregeanus subsp. dregeanus

LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Aridaria noctiflora subsp. straminea

LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Chasmatophyllum musculinum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Delosperma multiflorum LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum lique LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum aitonis LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum crystallinum

LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum excavatum

LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Psilocaulon articulatum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Psilocaulon coriarium LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Rabiea difformis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia grisea LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Stomatium peersii LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Stomatium ryderae LC

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Trichodiadema barbatum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Trichodiadema pomeridianum LC

MOLLUGINACEAE Limeum fenestratum var. fenestratum

LC MOLLUGINACEAE Limeum humifusum LC

MOLLUGINACEAE Mollugo cerviana var. cerviana LC MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum dichotomum LC

OROBANCHACEAE Hyobanche sanguinea LC OSMUNDACEAE Todea barbara LC

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis bifurca var. angustiloba LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis depressa LC

OXALIDACEAE Oxalis smithiana LC PAPAVERACEAE Papaver aculeatum LC

PEDALIACEAE Sesamum capense LC PHYTOLACCACEAE Phytolacca heptandra LC

PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago crassifolia var. crassifolia

LC PLUMBAGINACEAE Limonium dregeanum LC

POACEAE Agrostis lachnantha var. lachnantha

LC POACEAE Aristida adscensionis LC

POACEAE Aristida congesta subsp. barbicollis

LC POACEAE Aristida congesta subsp. congesta

LC

POACEAE Aristida diffusa subsp. burkei LC POACEAE Aristida diffusa subsp. diffusa LC

POACEAE Bromus pectinatus LC POACEAE Cenchrus ciliaris LC

POACEAE Chaetobromus involucratus subsp. dregeanus

LC POACEAE Chloris virgata LC

POACEAE Cymbopogon prolixus LC POACEAE Cynodon incompletus LC

POACEAE Digitaria argyrograpta LC POACEAE Digitaria eriantha LC

POACEAE Echinochloa crus-galli LC POACEAE Ehrharta calycina LC

POACEAE Ehrharta erecta var. erecta LC POACEAE Ehrharta pusilla LC

POACEAE Eleusine coracana subsp. africana

LC POACEAE Enneapogon desvauxii LC

POACEAE Enneapogon scoparius LC POACEAE Eragrostis bicolor LC


46

POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas LC POACEAE Eragrostis curvula LC

POACEAE Eragrostis lehmanniana var. chaunantha

LC POACEAE Eragrostis obtusa LC

POACEAE Eragrostis procumbens LC POACEAE Eragrostis rotifer LC

POACEAE Eragrostis truncata LC POACEAE Eustachys paspaloides LC

POACEAE Festuca scabra LC POACEAE Fingerhuthia africana LC

POACEAE Fingerhuthia sesleriiformis LC POACEAE Helictotrichon capense LC

POACEAE Helictotrichon turgidulum LC POACEAE Heteropogon contortus LC

POACEAE Hordeum capense LC POACEAE Hyparrhenia hirta LC

POACEAE Hyparrhenia poecilotricha LC POACEAE Karroochloa purpurea LC

POACEAE Koeleria capensis LC POACEAE Leptochloa fusca LC

POACEAE Melica decumbens LC POACEAE Melica racemosa LC

POACEAE Merxmuellera disticha LC POACEAE Merxmuellera stricta LC

POACEAE Miscanthus capensis LC POACEAE Oropetium capense LC

POACEAE Panicum coloratum var. coloratum

LC POACEAE Panicum stapfianum LC

POACEAE Pentaschistis airoides subsp. airoides

LC POACEAE Pentaschistis cirrhulosa LC

POACEAE Phragmites australis LC POACEAE Schismus inermis LC

POACEAE Setaria verticillata LC POACEAE Sporobolus fimbriatus LC

POACEAE Sporobolus ioclados LC POACEAE Sporobolus tenellus LC

POACEAE Stipa dregeana var. dregeana LC POACEAE Stipagrostis ciliata var. capensis LC

POACEAE Stipagrostis namaquensis LC POACEAE Stipagrostis obtusa LC

POACEAE Tetrachne dregei LC POACEAE Themeda triandra LC

POACEAE Tragus berteronianus LC POACEAE Tragus koelerioides LC

POACEAE Tragus racemosus LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia alticola LC

POLYGALACEAE Polygala seminuda LC POLYGALACEAE Polygala virgata var. decora LC

POLYGONACEAE Polygonum plebeium LC POLYGONACEAE Rumex lanceolatus LC

POLYGONACEAE Rumex steudelii LC POLYPODIACEAE Polypodium vulgare LC

PORTULACACEAE Anacampseros arachnoides LC PORTULACACEAE Anacampseros filamentosa subsp. filamentosa

LC

PORTULACACEAE Talinum arnotii LC PTERIDACEAE Adiantum capillus-veneris LC

PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes bergiana LC PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes eckloniana LC

PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes induta LC PTERIDACEAE Pellaea calomelanos var. calomelanos

LC

ROSACEAE Cliffortia ramosissima LC ROSACEAE Rubus ludwigii subsp. ludwigii LC

ROSACEAE Rubus rigidus LC RUBIACEAE Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum

LC

RUBIACEAE Anthospermum spathulatum subsp. spathulatum

LC RUBIACEAE Galium capense subsp. capense LC

RUBIACEAE Galium capense subsp. garipense var. garipense

LC RUBIACEAE Galium tomentosum LC

RUBIACEAE Nenax microphylla LC RUBIACEAE Rubia petiolaris LC

SANTALACEAE Thesium burchellii LC SANTALACEAE Thesium flexuosum LC

SANTALACEAE Thesium hystrix LC SANTALACEAE Thesium lineatum LC

SANTALACEAE Thesium namaquense LC SANTALACEAE Thesium triflorum LC

SANTALACEAE Thesium zeyheri LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Aptosimum elongatum LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma macrosiphon LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma rotundifolium LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia alonsooides LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia capsularis LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Jamesbrittenia atropurpurea subsp. atropurpurea

LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Limosella grandiflora LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia cynanchifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia fruticans LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago acocksii LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago albida LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago crassifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago geniculata LC


47

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago saxatilis LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Veronica anagallis-aquatica LC

SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya karrooica LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya peduncularis LC

SOLANACEAE Lycium afrum LC SOLANACEAE Lycium cinereum LC

SOLANACEAE Lycium oxycarpum LC SOLANACEAE Solanum capense LC

SOLANACEAE Solanum tomentosum var. tomentosum

LC SOLANACEAE Withania somnifera LC

THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia microphylla LC THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia polycephala LC

THYMELAEACEAE Passerina montana LC TYPHACEAE Typha capensis LC

URTICACEAE Urtica lobulata LC VERBENACEAE Chascanum incisum LC

VERBENACEAE Chascanum pumilum LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Tribulus terrestris LC


48

9 ANNEX 2. LIST OF MAMMALS

List of mammals which are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Ephraim Sun site. Habitat notes

and distribution records are based on Skinner & Chimimba (2005), while conservation status is

from the IUCN Red Lists 2014.2 and South African Red Data Book for Mammals (Friedmann &

Daly 2004).

Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Likelihood

Afrosoricida (Golden Moles):

Chlorotalpa sclateri Sclater’s Golden Mole LC Montane grasslands, scrub and forested kloofs of the Nama Karoo and grassland biomes

High

Macroscledidea (Elephant Shrews):

Macroscelides proboscideus Round-eared Elephant Shrew

LC

Species of open country, with preference for shrub bush and sparse grass cover, also occur on hard gravel plains with sparse boulders for shelter, and on loose sandy soil provided there is some bush cover

High

Elephantulus rupestris Western Rock Elephant Shrew

LC Rocky koppies, rocky outcrops or piles of boulders where these offer sufficient holes and crannies for refuge.

High

Elephantulus edwardii Cape Rock Elephant Shrew LC From rocky slopes, with or without vegetation, from hard sandy ground bearing little vegetation, quite small rocky outcrops

High

Tubulentata:

Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC Wide habitat tolerance, being found in open woodland, scrub and grassland, especially associated with sandy soil

Confirmed

Hyracoidea (Hyraxes)

Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC Outcrops of rocks, especially granite formations and dolomite intrusions in the Karoo. Also erosion gullies

Confirmed

Lagomorpha (Hares and Rabbits):

Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC Dry, open regions, with palatable bush and grass

High

Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC Common in agriculturally developed areas, especially in crop-growing areas or in fallow lands where there is some bush development.

High

Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Hare LC Closely confined to rocky koppies, rocky kloofs and gorges.

Confirmed

Rodentia (Rodents):

Cryptomys hottentotus African Mole Rat LC Wide diversity of substrates, from sandy soils to heavier compact substrates such as decomposed schists and stony soils

High

Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC Catholic in habitat requirements. Confirmed

Pedetes capensis Springhare LC Occur widely on open sandy ground or sandy scrub, on overgrazed grassland, on the fringes of vleis and dry river beds.

Confirmed


49

Xerus inauris South African Ground Squirrel

LC Open terrain with a sparse bush cover and a hard substrate

Confirmed

Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled Dormouse LC Associated with sandstones of Cape Fold mountains, which have many vertical and horizontal crevices.

High

Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse LC Essentially a grassland species, occurs in wide variety of habitats where there is good grass cover.

High

Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC Wide habitat tolerance High

Mastomys coucha Southern Multimammate Mouse

LC Wide habitat tolerance. High

Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse LC

Catholic in their habitat requirements, but where there are rocky koppies, outcrops or boulder-strewn hillsides they use these preferentially

Confirmed

Aethomys granti Grant’s Rock Mouse LC Restricted to the karoo where they are associated with rocky terrain.

High

Parotomys littledalei Littledale’s Whistling Rat LC Riverine associations or associated with Lycium bushes or Psilocaulon absimile

Low

Otomys unisulcatus Bush Vlei Rat LC

Shrub and fynbos associations in areas with rocky outcrops Tend to avoid damp situations but exploit the semi-arid Karoo through behavioural adaptation.

High

Desmodillus auricularis Cape Short-tailed Gerbil LC Tend to occur on hard ground, unlike other gerbil species, with some cover of grass or karroid bush

High

Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed Gerbil LC Gerbils associated with Nama and Succulent Karoo preferring sandy soil or sandy alluvium with a grass, scrub or light woodland cover

High

Malacothrix typica Gerbil Mouse LC Found predominantly in Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes, in areas with a mean annual rainfall of 150-500 mm.

High

Primates:

Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon LC Can exploit fynbos, montane grasslands, riverine courses in deserts, and simply need water and access to refuges.

Confirmed

Cercopithecus mitis Vervet Monkey LC Most abundant in and near riparian vegetation of savannahs

Confirmed

Eulipotyphla (Shrews):

Myosorex varius Forest Shrew LC Prefers moist, densely vegetated habitat High

Crocidura cyanea Reddish-Grey Musk Shrew LC

Occurs in relatively dry terrain, with a mean annual rainfall of less than 500 mm. Occur in karroid scrub and in fynbos often in association with rocks.

High

Erinaceomorpha (Hedgehog)

Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog LC Generally found in semi-arid and subtemperate environments with ample ground cover

Low

Carnivora:


50

Proteles cristata Aardwolf LC Common in the 100-600mm rainfall range of country, Nama-Karoo, Succulent Karoo Grassland and Savanna biomes

High

Caracal caracal Caracal LC Caracals tolerate arid regions, occur in semi-desert and karroid conditions

Confirmed

Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC Wide habitat tolerance. High

Panthera pardus Leopard NT Wide habitat tolerance, associated with areas of rocky koppies and hills, mountain ranges and forest

Moderate

Felis nigripes Black-footed cat VU

Associated with arid country with MAR 100-500 mm, particularly areas with open habitat that provides some cover in the form of tall stands of grass or scrub.

High

Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet LC Occur in open arid associations High

Suricata suricatta Meerkat LC Open arid country where substrate is hard and stony. Occur in Nama and Succulent Karoo but also fynbos

High

Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC Semi-arid country on a sandy substrate Confirmed

Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose LC Wide habitat tolerance Confirmed

Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC Associated with open country, open grassland, grassland with scattered thickets and coastal or semi-desert scrub

High

Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal LC Wide habitat tolerance, more common in drier areas.

Confirmed

Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC Open country with mean annual rainfall of 100-600 mm

Confirmed

Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel LC Primarily a savanna species that have an annual rainfall of more than 600 mm, although they have been recorded from drier areas.

Moderate

Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC Widely distributed throughout the sub-region Confirmed

Mellivora capensis Ratel/Honey Badger IUCN LC/SA RDB EN

Catholic habitat requirements High

Rumanantia (Antelope):

Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu LC Broken, rocky terrain with a cover of woodland and a nearby water supply.

Confirmed

Tragelaphus oryx Eland LC Wide habitat tolerance, absent from a large proportion of former range

Low

Oryx gazella Gemsbok LC Open arid country Low

Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC Presence of bushes is essential Confirmed

Redunca fulvorufula Mountain Reedbuck LC Dry grass-covered stony slopes hills and mountains.

High

Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok LC Associated with rocky hills, rocky mountainsides, mountain plateaux with good grass cover.

Confirmed

Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok LC Arid regions and open grassland. Confirmed

Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC Inhabits open country, Confirmed

Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer LC Closely confined to rocky habitat. Confirmed


51


52

10 ANNEX 3. LIST OF REPTILES

List of reptiles which are likely to occur at the UmSinde site, based on the SARCA database for

the immediate area (3123D, 3124C) as well as wider area (3123, 3124). Conservation status of

from Bates et al. (2014).

Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name Red list

category No.

records Area

Agamidae Agama aculeata aculeata Common Ground Agama

Least Concern 5 3123, 3124

Colubridae Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3128

Colubridae Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater


Colubridae Dipsina multimaculata Dwarf Beaked Snake


Colubridae Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern 3 3123, 3131

Colubridae Telescopus beetzii Beetz's Tiger Snake


Cordylidae Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard


Elapidae Aspidelaps lubricus lubricus Coral Shield Cobra

Not listed 3 3123, 3138

Gekkonidae Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern 2 3123, 3141

Gekkonidae Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Gecko Least Concern 6 3123, 3143

Lacertidae Pedioplanis laticeps Karoo Sand Lizard Least Concern 1 3123, 3148

Lacertidae Pedioplanis namaquensis Namaqua Sand Lizard


Lamprophiidae Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake


Lamprophiidae Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater


Lamprophiidae Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake


Lamprophiidae Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3156

Lamprophiidae Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake


Lamprophiidae Psammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake


Lamprophiidae Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3160

Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa subrufa Central Marsh Terrapin


Scincidae Acontias breviceps Short-headed Legless Skink


Scincidae Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern 1 3123, 3164

Scincidae Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern 1 3123, 3165

Scincidae Trachylepis sulcata sulcata Western Rock Skink


Testudinidae Homopus boulengeri Karoo Padloper Near Threatened

1 3123, 3168


53

Testudinidae Psammobates tentorius verroxii Verrox's Tent Tortoise

Not listed 2 3123, 3170

Testudinidae Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern 20 3123, 3171

Typhlopidae Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake


Gekkonidae Afroedura karroica Karoo Flat Gecko Least Concern 8 3123D, 3124C

Gekkonidae Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Gecko Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Gekkonidae Pachydactylus oculatus Golden Spotted Gecko

Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C

Varanidae Varanus albigularis albigularis Rock Monitor Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C

Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion gutturale Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon


Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion ventrale Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon


Agamidae Agama atra Southern Rock Agama


Lacertidae Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard


Lacertidae Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Common Sand Lizard


Scincidae Trachylepis variegata Variegated Skink Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C

Cordylidae Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard


Cordylidae Karusasaurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard


Cordylidae Pseudocordylus microlepidotus fasciatus Karoo Crag Lizard Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Gerrhosauridae Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps


Lamprophiidae Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake


Lamprophiidae Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House Snake


Lamprophiidae Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Elapidae Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Viperidae Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C

Testudinidae Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern 6 3123D, 3124C

Testudinidae Homopus femoralis Greater Padloper Least Concern 4 3123D, 3124C

Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa galeata South African Marsh Terrapin

Not evaluated 1 3123D, 3124C


54

11 ANNEX 4 LIST OF AMPHIBIANS

List of amphibians which are likely to occur in the vicinity of the UmSinde site. Habitat notes

and distribution records are based on Du Preez and Carruthers (2009), while conservation status

is from the IUCN Red Lists 2014 and Minter et al. (2004).

Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name Red list category No.

records Area

Bufonidae Vandijkophrynus gariepensis gariepensis Karoo Toad (subsp. gariepensis)

Not listed 10 3123D, 3124C

Bufonidae Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Bufonidae Poyntonophrynus vertebralis Southern Pygmy Toad Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C

Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco Least Concern 4 3123D, 3124C

Hyperoliidae Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C

Pyxicephalidae Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bull Frog Near Threatened 1

Pyxicephalidae Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog Least Concern 14 3123D, 3124C

Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog Least Concern 5 3123D, 3124C

Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog Least Concern 1

Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog Least Concern 7 3123D, 3124C

Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Least Concern 5 3123D, 3124C

ecological impact assessment report: proposed …...this ecological specialist assessment report...

Documents