strategic environmental assessment for the greater ... · the “ecosystem guideline for...

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the

Greater Saldanha Bay Region

Natural Capital Theme: Terrestrial Biodiversity and Ecosystems

Luanita Snyman-van der Walt1

with inputs from Ryan Blanchard2

Reviewed by: Alana Duffel-Canham3

1 CSIR, SMART Places, Environmental Management Services

2 CSIR, SMART Places, Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services

3 CapeNature, Land-use & Conservation Planning

July 2019

2

Summary

The Saldanha Bay Municipality (SBM) is mainly situated in the highly diverse Fynbos biome with Cape

Seashore vegetation found along the coast. Freshwater aquatic ecosystems are not abundant and mostly

ephemeral (§1.1).

Nearly half of the terrestrial surface of the SBM has been transformed or modified by agricultural activities

and infrastructure development. As such, most of the remaining ecosystems are threatened have been

identified as Critical Biodiversity Areas through systematic conservation planning processes (§1.1).

The terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems of the SBM deliver critical ecosystem services to the region.

Notably it provides nature-based ecotourism and recreation, land for agriculture, buffering against storm

surges, and habitat for various species (§1.2).

Within the SBM the degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems are driven, to varying

degrees, by agriculture, the mining and minerals sector, urban and industrial development, strategic

infrastructure, ports and harbours, and tourism activities (§2).

Key environmental sensitivities have been identified as threatened ecosystems and areas prioritised

through established conservation and biodiversity offsetting plans (§3).

Agriculture, urban development, ports and harbours and mining (drivers) have been found to pose the

greatest risk to terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the SBM, mainly through direct loss of natural

habitat and species, landscape fragmentation, and the establishment and spread of invasive alien plants

(pressures) (§3).

Key recommended best practice mitigation and monitoring actions include (§5):

- Avoidance of highly sensitive environmental features, especially last remaining fragments of

threatened ecosystems;

- Measures to reduce disturbance footprints, including utilising existing disturbance corridors, and

development densification instead of expansion;

- Development of a Strategic Offset Plan, especially for potential future mining activities where

avoidance cannot be achieved. The plan should consider the identification of appropriate offset

receiving areas, as well as financial mechanisms to secure effective and long-term management of

offset receiving areas;

- Sustainable agricultural practices, including appropriate fire and erosion management; and

- Environmental monitoring following established and most recent available guidelines (for example

the “Ecosystem Guideline for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape”).

Limits of acceptable change for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems are linked to the ability to meet

biodiversity targets for ecological processes which underpin biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem

services (§6), which include:

Any further loss of remaining Critically Endangered ecosystems;

Any loss of threatened species and key habitat patches required for their survival; and

Land-uses identified as being incompatible with priority biodiversity areas established in

conservation plans.

3

Contents 1. Key environmental attributes and sensitivities ..............................................................................................................................4 1.1 Ecosystems, flora and fauna ..........................................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Ecosystem services .........................................................................................................................................................................9 2. Drivers and Pressures ...................................................................................................................................................................10 3. Sensitivity analysis........................................................................................................................................................................13 4. Risk Assessment ...........................................................................................................................................................................13 5. Best practice mitigation and monitoring ......................................................................................................................................20 6. Limits of Acceptable Change ........................................................................................................................................................22 7. References ...................................................................................................................................................................................22

List of abbreviations CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CR Critically Endangered EN Endangered ESA Ecological Support Area IAP Invasive Alien Plant IDZ Industrial Development Zone LC Least Concern LT Least Threatened MP Moderately Protected; NBA National Biodiversity Assessment NEM:BA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10/2004) NP Not Protected ONA Other Natural Area PP Poorly Protected SBM Saldanha Bay Municipality VU Vulnerable WCBSP Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan WfW Working for Water WP Well Protected

List of tables Table 1: Key characteristics of the vegetation types found in the SBM (Rebelo et al., 2006). ...........................................................4 Table 2: Threatened status and calculated extent of modification / transformation of vegetation types calculated for the SBM. ..7 Table 3: Key ecosystem services provided by terrestrial ecosystems in the SBM. .............................................................................9 Table 4: Overview of potential impacts on terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the GSB municipality associated with relevant

drivers and pressures. .........................................................................................................................................................11 Table 5: Selected strategic sensitivity indicators ratings for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems ..............................................13 Table 6: Consequence levels used for assessing the risk of degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the

SBM. ....................................................................................................................................................................................15 Table 7: Risk assessment of the potential degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems by key impact drivers in

the SBM. .............................................................................................................................................................................16 Table 8: Summary risk assessment of the potential degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems by key impact

drivers in the SBM. ..............................................................................................................................................................19 Table 9: Best practice mitigation and suitable monitoring system for degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and

ecosystems in the GSB region. ............................................................................................................................................20

List of figures Figure 1: Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the SBM (Data: CSIR, 2011; SANBI, 2018). ...............................................................5 Figure 2: Ecosystem threat status of vegetation types found in the SBM, overlaid by modified / transformed land cover (Data:

CapeNature, 2016; SANBI, 2017; 2019). ...............................................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Conservation planning units for the SBM, overlaid by modified / transformed land cover (Data: CapeNature, 2017; SANBI,

2017). ....................................................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4: Recommended management actions for conservation planning units in the SBM (Pool-Stanvliet et al., 2017). .................8 Figure 5: Conceptual illustration of key sectors, and associated activities and developments, and the pressures to which these may

contribute in terrestrial ecosystems. ..................................................................................................................................10 Figure 6: Sensitivity of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the SBM. .....................................................................................14

4

1. Key environmental attributes and sensitivities

1.1 Ecosystems, flora and fauna

The Saldanha Bay Municipality (SBM) is situated entirely in the Fynbos biome (apart from a confirmed patch

of Succulent Karoo approximately 6 km North of Hopefield) with Cape Seashore vegetation found along the

coast (Table 1; Figure 1).

Table 1: Key characteristics of the vegetation types found in the SBM (Rebelo et al., 2006).

BIOME VEGETATION TYPE DESCRIPTION

Fynbos

Hopefield Sand Fynbos

Flat - undulating coastal and localised inland dunes. Moderately tall shrubland with dense herbaceous layer. Main transformation drivers: agricultural cultivation, and alien invasive plants.

Langebaan Dune Strandveld

Flat - slightly undulating old coastal dune systems and stabilised inland duneveld supports closed evergreen shrubland with annual herbaceous layer (spring flowers). Main transformation drivers: urban sprawl, agricultural cultivation, and alien invasive plants.

Saldanha Flats Strandveld

Sparse moderately tall shrubland with a succulent shrub undergrowth. Geophytes and annual herbaceous layer (spring flowers). Main transformation drivers: urban sprawl, road network development, agricultural cultivation, and alien invasive plants.

Saldanha Granite Strandveld

Rounded granite sheets interspersed with low - medium shrubland, some succulent, grassy and herb-rich spots with many geophytic flora. Main transformation drivers: urban development, coastal development, agricultural cultivation, grazing pressure, and alien invasive plants.

Saldanha Limestone Strandveld

Very limited distribution on slightly undulating limestone ridges and steeper coastal slopes supporting low shrublands including succulent-leaved dwarf shrubs and annual or geophytic herbs in cracks or shallow depressions in the exposed limestone. Main transformation drivers: coastal settlements, agricultural cultivation, grazing pressure, and alien invasive plants.

Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld

Riverine plains and bottomlands support low – moderately tall grassy shrublands. Main transformation drivers: cultivation, and woody alien invasive plants.

Swartland Shale Renosterveld

Moderately undulating plains and valleys with low to moderately tall shrubland. Heuweltjies are a prominent landscape feature. Main transformation drivers: nearly completely transformed by agricultural cultivation. Isolated remnants found on steeper terrain. Infestation by various alien invasive trees, grasses and herbs.

Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld

Moderately undulating lowlands, often on elevated areas. Open, low – moderately tall shrubland contains many succulents. Main transformation drivers: nearly completely transformed by agricultural cultivation and road network development. Remnants are under pressure from overgrazing, fire protection, and herbicide and pesticide application. Infestation by woody alien invasive plants.

Succulent Karoo

Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland

Low shrubland dominated by sturdy succulents and vygies (especially in depressions). Higher elevations with deeper soils support dense shrubland. Often protected by biodiversity stewards.

Azonal Vegetation

Cape Seashore Vegetation

Beaches, coastal dunes, dune slacks and coastal cliffs of open grassy, herbaceous and dwarf, often succulent, shrubland. Largely protected in coastal protected areas. Main transformation driver: urban development.

5

Figure 1: Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the SBM (Data: CSIR, 2011; SANBI, 2018).

The Fynbos Biome, forming part of the Cape Floristic Region “biodiversity hotspot”, is known for its highly

diverse plant life consisting of approximately 7 500 species, 69 % of which are endemic (Bergh et al., 2014;

Rebelo et al., 2006) and approximately 25 % are listed as threatened (Turner, 2017).

Although freshwater aquatic features are not very abundant in the SBM (Figure 1) the watercourses and

wetlands that are present act as key landscape linkages, and have been widely classified as Critical

Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) (DEA&DP, 2017) (see Figure 3). The Bok, Berg and Sout rivers are the main rivers,

whilst the Berg River (mostly within the adjacent Berg River Municipality only bordering the SBM wards to

eastern side of the municipal area) is the only perennial river present.

Key areas and habitats of biodiversity importance in the Greater Saldanha Bay region (Maree & Vromans,

2010; DEA&DP, 2017):

St. Helena Bay Koppies: series of hills supporting various rare species, including Blou viooltjie

(Lachenalia viridiflora) (Critically Endangered (CR)).

SAS Saldanha: Military-owned area, largely untransformed endemic habitat due to restricted access.

Saldanha Limestone Strandveld – high endemic plant diversity found on exposed limestones.

Hopefield: Soil and climate transitional zone resulting in unique habitats and seasonal wetlands

supporting endemic and threatened species.

Beaches and sheltered islands are important for sea birds.

6

Key species of the Greater Saldanha Bay region (Maree & Vromans, 2010; DEA&DP, 2017):

Birds:

o Black Harrier (Circus maurus) (Endangered (EN)) (BirdLife International, 2017);

o Ludwig's bustard (Neotis ludwigii) (EN) (BirdLife International, 2018);

o Karoo chat (Cercomela schlegelii) (Least Concern (LC)) (BirdLife International, 2016);

Mammals:

o Van Zyl’s Golden Mole (Cryptochloris zyli) (EN) (Bronner, 2015);

o Cape Dune Molerat (Batyergus suillus) (LC) (Maree et al., 2017);

o Cape Gerbil (Tatera afra) (LC) (Cassola, 2016);

o Grant’s Golden Mole (Eremitalpa granti) (LC) (Maree, 2015);

o Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) (LC) (Do Linh San et al., 2016);

o Cape Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus capensis) (LC) (Jacobs & Monadjem, 2017);

o White-tailed Mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) (Vulnerable (VU)) (Avenant et al., 2019).

Reptiles:

o Geometric Tortoise (Psammobatus geometricus) (CR) (Hofmeyr & Baard, 2018);

o Armadillo girdled lizard (Cordylus cataphractus) (LC) (Bates et al., 2018);

o Cape Girdled Lizard (Cordylus cordylus niger ) (LC) (Bates & Mouton, 2018);

o Cape Sand Snake (Psammophis leightoni) (LC) (Maritz, 2018).

Insects:

o High diversity of insects linked to the high diversity of plants (Picker, 2012);

o Endemic darkling beetles (Tenebrionid family), including toktokkies.

The majority of the vegetation types present in the SBM are classified as threatened ecosystems (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Ecosystem threat status of vegetation types found in the SBM, overlaid by modified / transformed land cover (Data: CapeNature, 2016; SANBI, 2017; 2019).

7

Overall, approximately 48 % of the terrestrial surface of the SBM has been transformed1 by anthropogenic activities, with the greatest extent of modification having

affected the Swartland Renosterveld, and Saldanha Flats Strandveld and Saldanha Granite Strandveld vegetation types (Table 2).

Table 2: Threatened status and calculated extent of modification / transformation of vegetation types calculated for the SBM.

BIOME VEGETATION TYPE (SANBI, 2018)

STATUS PROTECTION LEVEL

(Skowno et al., 2019)

APPROXIMATE MODIFIED / TRANSFORMED

(% OF SBM AREA) 1

APPROXIMATE MODIFIED / TRANSFORMED (% NATIONALLY)

(RSA, 2011)

Current legislation (CapeNature, 2016)

(Skowno et al., 2019)

Fynbos

Hopefield Sand Fynbos2 VU LT PP 20 % 50 %

Langebaan Dune Strandveld LT LT WP 10 % -

Saldanha Flats Strandveld EN EN PP 61 % 50 %

Saldanha Granite Strandveld EN CR PP 71 % 43 %

Saldanha Limestone Strandveld LT CR MP 18 % -

Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld VU VU NP 67 % 49 %

Swartland Shale Renosterveld CR CR NP 91 % 92 %

Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld CR CR NP 90 % 92 %

Succulent Karoo

Piketberg Quartz Succulent Shrubland CR CR NP 16 % 40 %

Azonal Vegetation

Cape Seashore Vegetation LT LT WP 4 % -

SBM: Saldanha Bay Municipality; CR: Critically Endangered; EN: Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; LT: Least Threatened; NP: Not Protected; PP: Poorly Protected; MP: Moderately Protected; WP: Well Protected.

Given the extent of transformation in the SBM, the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan has identified most of the remaining areas as CBAs or Ecological Support

Areas (ESAs) (Figure 3) of which the desired management actions are the maintenance of natural / near-natural ecological and functional state and restoration of

degraded areas where possible (Figure 4).

1 Municipal extent = 201 537 ha, landscape modification 96 487 ha (calculation based on SANBI Habitat Modification Layer (2017)).

2 Based on the draft NBA 2018 (Skowno et al., 2019) Hopefield Sand Fynbos is on the LT-VU threshold. However, it is likely that the assessment is an underestimate of the risk of ecosystem collapse for Hopefield Sand Fynbos, and currently there are motivations being developed to reassess this ecosystem (Duffel-Canham & Skowno, 2019, pers comm.).

8

Figure 3: Conservation planning units for the SBM, overlaid by modified / transformed land cover (Data: CapeNature, 2017; SANBI, 2017).

Figure 4: Recommended management actions for conservation planning units in the SBM (Pool-Stanvliet et al., 2017).

Protected areas•Maintain natural state.

•Management plan focussed on maintaining / improving biodiversity.

Critical Biodiversity Area 1

•Maintain natural / near-natural state.

•Rehabilitate degraded areas.

•Allow low-impact, biodiversity-sensitive land use where appropriate.

Critical Biodiversity Area 2

•Maintain functional natural / near-natural state.

•No fruther loss of natural habitat.

•Rehabilitate.

Ecological Support Area 1

•Maintain functional near-natural state.

•Some habitat loss is acceptable if undelying ecological function and biodversity objectives are not compromised.

•Maintain critical ecological connectivity.

Ecological Support Area 2•Restore.

•Minimise impact to ecological functioning - especially soil and water related services.

Other Natural Area•Minise loss of species and habitat.

•Ensure ecosystem function through strategic planning.

9

1.2 Ecosystem services

Table 3: Key ecosystem services provided by terrestrial ecosystems in the SBM.

CATEGORY ECOSYSTEM SERVICE

Provisioning

Grazing (contributing to food provision/security and livelihoods).

Commercial crop production (contributing to food provision/security and livelihoods).

Irrigation (via groundwater infiltration and recharge).

Drinking water (via groundwater infiltration and recharge).

Regulating

Coastal dunes support vegetation that buffer environmental pressures: o Sandy shoreline erosion and migration; o Coastal inundation during storm surges; o Desiccating effect of summertime south-easterlies and wind-borne spray.

Insect and animal pollination (important to agricultural crops).

Soil and sediment stabilization.

Ground water infiltration and recharge.

Supporting Soils and vegetation supporting agricultural activities.

Habitat provision.

Cultural

Nature-based ecotourism and recreation: o Spring wild flower watching; o West Coast National Park and other protected areas; o West Coast Fossil Park.

Heritage (early human activities).

10

2. Drivers and Pressures

Figure 5: Conceptual illustration of key sectors, and associated activities and developments, and the pressures to which these may contribute in terrestrial ecosystems.

11

Table 4: Overview of potential impacts on terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the GSB municipality associated with relevant drivers and pressures.

IMPACT DRIVER PRESSURE HOW DO THE DRIVERS, PRESSURES AND IMPACTS INTERACT D

EGR

AD

ATI

ON

AN

D L

OSS

OF

TER

RES

TRIA

L E

CO

SYST

EMS

Agriculture

Soil degradation

Livestock & game:

Trampling by livestock can cause irreversible modification to silcrete, ferricrete and quartz Renosterveld patches (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

The introduction of ostriches and other introduced/extralimital species alters natural grazing regimes and causes trampling of the biogenic soil surface (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Dryland agriculture

Soil erosion is linked to ploughed lands (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Application of fertilizers (even at the catchment scale) alters nutrient status of soils (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Loss of natural habitat and species

Livestock & game

Trampling by livestock can cause irreversible modification to silcrete, ferricrete and quartz Renosterveld patches (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

The introduction of ostriches and other extralimital species alters natural grazing regimes and causes trampling of the biogenic soil surface (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Dryland agriculture:

Large-scale conversion of natural habitat is converted for agricultural cultivation of monoculture crops (e.g. potatoes, rooibos, onions, buchu, honeybush tea, protea orchards) (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Landscape fragmentation Dryland agriculture

Large-scale conversion of natural habitat is converted for agricultural cultivation of monoculture crops (e.g. potatoes, rooibos, onions, buchu, protea orchards) (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Invasive Alien Plants

Dryland agriculture:

Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) alters natural fire regimes (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

IAP infestation is liked to decreased surface water yield (e.g. Cullis et al., 2007 Dzikiti et al., 2016).

Other industry Soil degradation Heavy / hazardous industry:

Contamination of soil in the event of chemical spills.

Strategic Infrastructure


Road & rail:

Vegetation clearance along roadsides often stimulates IAP establishment (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

IAPs alters natural fire regimes (Fynbos Forum, 2016).


Landscape fragmentation

Road & rail:

Linear infrastructure fragments landscapes often resulting in isolated ecosystem patches with compromised ecological function (e.g. Coffin, 2007).

Renewable energy (wind):

Linear infrastructure (roads connecting wind turbines) fragments landscapes often resulting in isolated ecosystem patches with compromised ecological function (e.g. Coffin, 2007).

Electricity grid:



Road & rail:

Natural habitat cleared for the construction of various kinds of infrastructure.

Roads impede beach-dune mobility along the shoreline (Fynbos Forum, 2016).



Electricity grid:


Faunal disturbance and mortality


Avifauna (bird and bat) collision result in injury or death (e.g. Doty & Martin, 2013).

12

IMPACT DRIVER PRESSURE HOW DO THE DRIVERS, PRESSURES AND IMPACTS INTERACT

Urban development


Landfill & WWTW:


Bulk water supply system:


Longterm influx of people:

Urban expansion, especially in the vicinity of Hopefiled (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Altered natural fire regimes, which causes colonisation by thicket vegetation (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Hunting of species such as porcupine and antelope in the vicinity of settlements (Fynbos Forum, 2016).


Bulk water supply system:


Longterm influx of people:

New urban, peri-urban, settlement and resort development results in habitat fragmentation (Fynbos Forum, 2016);

Landscape fragmentation has implications for species movement, including bird migration corridors (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Ports & Harbours


Cargo handling & storage:


Iron ore dust can alter plant species diversity and composition (e.g. Kuki et al., 2008).

Port infrastructure, operations, maintenance and expansion:


Landscape fragmentation Port infrastructure, operations, maintenance and expansion:



Port infrastructure, operations, maintenance and expansion:

Port activities entails people, machinery, and vehicles on site and in the bay that generate movement, dust, noise and light.

Tourism activities Loss of natural habitat and species

Hospitality, ecotourism, festivals:

Illegal off-road driving and pets on the beach may disturb sensitive beach fauna – particularly breeding feeding and roosting sites of birds and mammals (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Minerals


Mineral extraction:

Mining for heavy mineral sands on the West Coast is one of the greatest threats to Strandveld ecosystems (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Sand mining, and mining for rare earths from dunes requires removal of vast quantities of sand (Fynbos Forum, 2016).


Mineral extraction:

Areas disturbed by mining activities are susceptible to IAP establishment and spread.

IAPs alters natural fire regimes (Fynbos Forum, 2016).


Soil degradation Mineral extraction:

Areas disturbed by mining activities are susceptible to soil erosion.


Mineral extraction:

Minerals extraction activities includes people, machinery, and vehicles on site that generate movement, dust, noise and light.

Mineral transport:

Road kills caused by large trucks transporting minerals.

Mineral processing & beneficiation:

Minerals processing and beneficiation activities includes people, machinery, and vehicles on site that generate movement, dust, noise and light.

13

3. Sensitivity Analysis

Table 5: Selected strategic sensitivity indicators ratings for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems

SENSITIVITY INDICATOR SENSITIVITY

CLASS BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Eco

logi

cal s

en

siti

vity

Threatened Ecosystems

CR Very high Ecosystems under threat of extinction to prevent further degradation and loss of structure, function and composition of threatened ecosystems (RSA, 2011)*.

CR: Extremely high risk of extinction;

EN: Very high risk of extinction;

VU: High risk of extinction;

LC: Does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened.

* The status of threatened ecosystems, as developed by the National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) 2018 process (Skowno et al., 2019), has not yet been promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA). Spatial data source: SANBI, 2019.

EN High

VU Moderate

LT Low

Conservation planning

Protected Areas Very high

The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (WCBSP) is the product of a systematic biodiversity planning assessment delineates CBAs and ESAs which require safeguarding to ensure the continued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems, including the delivery of ecosystem services (Pool-Stanvliet et al., 2017). Spatial data source: CapeNature, 2017a.

CBA 1 Very high

CBA 2 High

ESA 1 : Species and ecological processes

High

ESA 1 : Species only Moderate

ESA2 Moderate

ONA Moderate

Offset planning (IDZ)

Core Corridor: Industrial Zone – Not developable

Very high Identified offset receiving areas to compensate for the potential loss of biodiversity features in the proposed Saldanha Bay IDZ (Hollness, 2017):

Core corridor: Irreplaceable CBA feature with no feasible alternatives for this landscape connectivity exist in the area. Also a key climate change adaption corridors identified in the province (Pence, 2009);

Offset area: Strategic offset approach;

No offset area: Transformed and Least Threatened ecosystems outside the CBA network.

Spatial data source: CapeNature, 2017b.

Offset Required Moderate

No Offset Required Low

Other land cover

Modified and transformed land

Low

Modified and transformed land cover classes based on the 2013/14 National Land Cover, and as augmented by the SANBI habitat modification layer. This layer is overlaid on top of other sensitivity layers to act as a transformed / modified habitat “mask”. Spatial data source: Geoterraimage, 2015; SANBI, 2017.

CR: Critically Endangered; EN: Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; LT: Least Threatened; CBA: Critical Biodiversity Area; ESA: Ecological Support Area; ONA: Other Natural Area.

The results from the sensitivity analysis (Table 5) can be translated into a sensitvity map (Figure 6), using the

maximum rule (i.e. highest sensitivity displays “on top”) and a modified land cover mask (Low).

14

Figure 6: Sensitivity of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the SBM.

15

4. Risk Assessment

The following consequence levels (Table 6) have been used to conduct a strategic assessment of the risk of degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity by the key

drivers and pressures in the SBM (Table 7).

Table 6: Consequence levels used for assessing the risk of degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the SBM.

CONSEQUENCE RATNG GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Slight

Very limited modification to terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Ecosystem attributes largely unmodified and little influence on other uses.

Degree of IAP infestation in catchment of footprint = < 0.5 %.

Small changes in natural habitats and biota, but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.

Natural conditions and the resilience and adaptability of biota are not compromised.

Moderate

Slight modification in sensitive zones.

Moderate modification in non-sensitive zones.

Degree of IAP infestation in catchment of footprint = 0.5 - 2 %.

A loss and change of natural habitat and biota occurs, but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged.

Moderate modification of the abiotic template and exceedance of the resource base occurs.

Substantial

Moderate modification in sensitive zones.

Substantial modification in non-sensitive zones.

Degree of IAP infestation in catchment of footprint = 2 - 5 %.

A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions occurs, with risk of modifying the abiotic template and exceeding the resource base.

Loss of well-being and survival of intolerant biota. Associated increase in the abundance of tolerant species does not assume pest proportions.

Severe

Substantial modification in sensitive zones.

Severe modification in non-sensitive zones.

Degree of IAP infestation in catchment of footprint = 5 - 10%.

A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions occurs, with risk of modifying the abiotic template and exceeding the resource base.

Loss of well-being and survival of biota. Associated increase in the abundance of tolerant species starting to assume pest proportions.

Extreme Severe modification in sensitive zones.

Degree of IAP infestation in catchment footprint > 10 %.

Seriously and critically modified with loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions.

16

Table 7: Risk assessment of the potential degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems by key impact drivers in the SBM.

DRIVER PRESSURE SENSITIVITY

CLASS3 WITHOUT MANAGEMENT ACTION WITH BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ACTION

LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE4 RISK LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK

Agriculture

Soil degradation

Low Likely Substantial Moderate Likely Moderate Very low

Moderate Likely Moderate Moderate Not likely Moderate Low

High Not likely Severe High Unlikely Substantial Moderate

Very high Not likely Severe High Very unlikely

(avoid) Substantial Low

Loss of natural habitat and species5

Low Very unlikely Moderate Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low


High Likely Severe High Unlikely Severe Moderate

Very high Likely Extreme Very high Very unlikely

(avoid) Extreme Moderate

Landscape fragmentation6

Low Likely Moderate Moderate Likely Moderate Very low


High Likely Substantial High Unlikely Substantial Moderate

Very high Likely Severe High Unlikely Substantial Moderate


Low Very likely Substantial High Very likely Slight Low

Moderate Likely Substantial Moderate Likely Slight Low

High Likely Substantial Moderate Likely Moderate Moderate

Very high Likely Severe High Likely Moderate Moderate

Other heavy/hazardous industry

Soil degradation7

Low Likely Severe High Very unlikely Moderate Very low

Moderate Likely Severe High Very unlikely Moderate Very low

High Very unlikely Severe Moderate Very unlikely Substantial Low

Very high Very unlikely Severe Moderate Very unlikely Substantial Low



Low Likely Moderate Moderate Likely Slight Low

Moderate Not likely Substantial Moderate Not likely Slight Low

High Not likely Substantial Moderate Not likely Moderate Low

Very high Not likely Severe Moderate Not likely Moderate Low

3 See Section 3: Sensitivity Analysis.

4 See Table 6 for consequence levels.

5 Fynbos vegetation does not rehabilitate / recover well after disturbance. Any transformation into agricultural fields (specifically crop cultivation) will most likely result in permanent loss. Heavy and unsustainable grazing practices may also result in irreversible transformation.

6 Even if highly sensitive areas are avoided, edge effects from adjacent landscape fragmentation may still impact on sensitive areas.

7 Currently hazardous / heavy industry is situated in industrial areas (i.e. lower sensitivity areas), chemical spills leading to soil contamination and degradation is unlikely in the higher sensitivity areas.

17


CLASS3

WITHOUT MANAGEMENT ACTION WITH BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ACTION









Low Very unlikely Slight Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low

Moderate Likely Slight Moderate Not likely Slight Low

High Very likely Moderate Moderate Not likely Substantial Moderate

Very high Very likely Substantial High Not likely Substantial Moderate

Faunal disturbance and mortality (specifically relating to wind farm impacts to avifauna)

Low Not likely Extreme High Not likely Substantial Moderate

Moderate Likely Extreme High Unlikely Substantial Moderate

High Likely Extreme Very high Unlikely Substantial High

Very high Likely Extreme Very high Unlikely Substantial High

Urban development




High Very likely Substantial High Not likely Substantial Moderate

Very high Very likely Severe Very high Very unlikely



Low Very likely Moderate Moderate Likely Moderate Very low

Moderate Very likely Moderate Moderate Not likely Moderate Low


Very high Very likely Severe Very high Not likely Substantial Moderate

Ports & Harbours










High Not likely Substantial Moderate Unlikely Substantial Moderate

Very high Not likely Severe High Unlikely Substantial Moderate


Low Not likely Slight Very low Not likely Slight Very low

Moderate Not likely Moderate Moderate Unlikely Moderate Very low

High Not likely Substantial Moderate Unlikely Substantial Low

Very high Not likely Substantial Moderate Unlikely Substantial Low

8 Urban development is usually a “sprawling” type of development, with residential and business areas expanding outward and new centres of activities being established.

9 Ports and harbours are typically not a “sprawling” type of development and is usually concentrated along established port & harbour centres.

18


CLASS3

WITHOUT MANAGEMENT ACTION WITH BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ACTION


Tourism activities Loss of natural habitat and species

Low Very unlikely Slight Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low

Moderate Very unlikely Slight Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low

High Not likely Moderate Low Not likely Moderate Low

Very high Not likely Substantial Moderate Not likely Moderate Low

Minerals10





Very high Very likely Severe Very high Likely Severe High





Very high Very likely Severe Very high Likely Substantial High

Soil degradation

Low Likely Substantial Moderate Likely Moderate Very low


High Likely Severe High Unlikely Substantial Moderate



Low Not likely Slight Very low Not likely Slight Very low

Moderate Not likely Moderate Moderate Unlikely Moderate Very low

High Likely Substantial High Not likely Substantial Moderate

Very high Likely Substantial High Not likely Substantial Moderate

10 Fynbos vegetation does not rehabilitate / recover well after disturbance. Any transformation / disturbance from minerals extraction will most likely result in permanent loss.

19

Table 8: Summary risk assessment of the potential degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems by key impact drivers in the SBM.

DRIVER SENSITIVITY

CLASS

WITHOUT MANAGEMENT ACTION WITH BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

ACTION

LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE RISK

Agriculture

Low Very

unlikely Moderate Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low


High Likely Severe High Unlikely Severe Moderate

Very high Likely Extreme Very high Very unlikely

(avoid) Extreme Moderate

Other heavy/ hazardous industry

Low Likely Severe High Very unlikely Moderate Very low

Moderate Likely Severe High Very unlikely Moderate Very low

High Very

unlikely Severe Moderate Very unlikely Substantial Low

Very high Very

unlikely Severe Moderate Very unlikely Substantial Low

Strategic Infrastructure11





Urban development

Low Very






Ports & Harbours

Low Very






Tourism activities

Low Very

unlikely Slight Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low

Moderate Very

unlikely Slight Very low Very unlikely Slight Very low

High Not likely Moderate Low Not likely Moderate Low

Very high Not likely Substantial Moderate Not likely Moderate Low

Minerals

Low Very




Very high Very likely Severe Very high Likely Severe High

11 Risk for avifauna impacts from wind energy facilities are very high (before mitigation) and high (after mitigation) in high and very high sensitivity areas.

20

5. Best practice mitigation and monitoring

Actions to mitigate and monitor pressures to terrestrial ecosystems in the SBM and Fynbos biome are available in documents, including, but not limited to, the

Western Cape Ecosystems Guidelines for Environmental Assessment (Fynbos Forum, 2016), the WfW (Working for Water) IAP control norms (WfW, 2007) and land-

use recommendations in the WCBSP (Pool-Stanvliet et al., 2017). Some key aspects from these available documents are extracted in Table 9 below, and are

recommended in addition to other established standard environmental best practice mitigation, management and monitoring actions. The mitigation hierarchy –

avoid; minimise / mitigate / manage; rehabilitate / restore; offset – must always be implemented to negate or minimise negative impacts, and maximise positive

impacts of infrastructure development and other anthropogenic activities.

Table 9: Best practice mitigation and suitable monitoring system for degradation and loss of terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems in the GSB region.

PRESSURE BEST PRACTICE MITIGATION BEST VARIABLES AND SUITABLE SYSTEMS FOR MONITORING

Loss of natural habitat and species Driven by: - Urban development - Mining and mineral industry

- Ports & Harbours - Agriculture - Strategic infrastructure - Tourism activities

Avoid sensitive habitats (such as sandy beaches and dune systems).

Minimise development footprints.

Target existing disturbed land for development.

Municipal planning decisions should include phased retreat of infrastructure along the coast, where possible (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Avoid remnant threatened ecosystems, especially CR ecosystems.

Plan for urban densification rather than expansion to reduce urban sprawl.

Biodiversity Offsets: o Consider biodiversity offsets where high sensitivity areas cannot be

avoided (often the case where mining resources are located) and there is significant habitat loss in these areas.

o Develop a Strategic Offset Plan for the SBM which includes the identification of appropriate offset receiving areas, as well as financial mechanisms to secure effective and long-term management of offset receiving areas.

o at the project level an offset study should be undertaken which includes an assessment of the degree to which the offset would be able to compensate for the assessed impacts, and to ascertain whether an offset is an appropriate mechanism to offset the impact on the high sensitivity area.

Strandveld vegetation types

Presence of rare and endemic plant species that appear to be reproducing.

Presence of indigenous fauna such as caracal, aardvark, mongoose, genets, porcupines and small antelope, and the presence and number of birds (frugivores and nectarivores in particular).

Beaches and dune systems

Establish and monitor changes in shoreline profile and beach width (can also be done with satellite imagery verified with reference photography on the ground).

Shore bird diversity and breeding health. Fynbos

Indigenous plant cover (its type, age and ecological condition), species richness, and the presence of key guilds of species (such as serotinous shrubs that only release their seeds in response to an environmental trigger such as fire; or woody, perennial shrubs, and winter annuals).

Renosterveld:

Indigenous plant cover and species richness, especially of bulbs, grasses (both exotic and indigenous), palatable species, healthy populations of longer-lived re-seeders and understorey bulbs and herbs.

Presence of indigenous fauna such as aardvark, bat-eared fox, duiker and porcupine.

(Fynbos Forum, 2016)

21

PRESSURE BEST PRACTICE MITIGATION BEST VARIABLES AND SUITABLE SYSTEMS FOR MONITORING

Soil degradation Driven by: - Mining and mineral industry

- Agriculture - Other heavy / hazardous industry

Appropriately applied, timed and maintained fire regimes.

Reduce erosion through sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. Meadows, 2003): o Establish ‘soil-building’ rotations (e.g. nitrogen-fixing lupin crops). o tillage and mulching of surfaces. o Reclamation of gully erosion areas (e.g. rock and rubble fill). o contour ploughing and the construction of contour walls / berms. o construct check dams.

Ensure that hazardous materials are always handled and stored on bunded / impervious surfaces, and disposed of properly and safely.

Intact soil crusts and lichens

Vegetation composition (in agricultural fields) – senescence of indigenous vegetation in strip-ploughed lands indicates that burns are too infrequent; invasion by grasses and weedy species such as slangbos (Stoebe spp.) and Aspalathus spp. indicates burns that are applied in the wrong season or too frequent.

(Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Landscape fragmentation Driven by: - Urban development - Strategic infrastructure - Agriculture - Ports & Harbours

In addition to measures to avoid and mitigate the loss of natural habitat and species: o Target existing disturbed land for development. o Establish ecological corridors of intact indigenous vegetation for new

development.

Ensure appropriate servitude management: o Only cut/mow taller vegetation under powerlines as required. o Create and utilise jeep tracks as far as possible, instead of wider clearance

for gravel roads.

See monitoring for loss of natural habitat and species.

Invasive Alien Plants Driven by: - Mining and mineral industry

- Agriculture - Strategic infrastructure

IAP control and clearance in accordance with most recently available operating standards (e.g. WfW, 2007).

IAP control and clearance plan using best available and appropriate measures and methodologies.

Monitor implementation of IAP control and clearance against IAP control and clearance plan. Common pitfalls include (Kraaij et al., 2017):

Inaccurate / incomplete estimation of IAP cover.

Non-comprehensive treatment application.

Incorrect treatments and application for target IAP species.

The density of invasive alien species, assessed using percentage canopy cover or stem density (per m2). Healthy ecosystems not contain dense stands of invasive alien species, isolated plants of invasive species should be controlled, and biocontrols should be present (Fynbos Forum, 2016).

Faunal disturbance and mortality Driven by: - Strategic infrastructure - Mining and mineral industry

- Ports & Harbours

Avoid known bird and bat flight corridors (vertical infrastructure), roosts and nesting sites.

Environmental awareness and education (tourists).

Access and activity control (without impinging on public access rights).

Best practice animal-friendly infrastructure design– e.g. bird flight diverters on powerlines and other measures to reduce electrocution risk.

Technology, design and operational practices to reduce the risks that wind energy facilities pose to avifauna (e.g. BirdLife International, n.d.).

Appropriate night lighting at infrastructure.

Dust suppression.

Awareness and education on safe and alert driving to reduce risk of road kills (truck drivers).

Minimise night driving.

Bird and bat monitoring for wind energy facilities (e.g. BirdLife SA & EWT, 2015).

Road kill surveys;

Indigenous fauna species presence (monitoring for loss of natural habitat and species).

22

6. Limits of Acceptable Change

Limits of acceptable change are linked to the ability to meet biodiversity targets for ecological processes

which underpin biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services, which include:

Any further loss of remaining CR ecosystems, especially Swartland Shale Renosterveld and

Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld of which only ~ 10 % remains within the SBM.

Any loss of threatened species and key habitat patches required for their survival.

Land-use recommendations set out in the WCBSP (Pool-Stanvliet et al., 2017) – broadly, the

following land uses are unsuitable in Protected Areas, CBAs and ESAs:

o Intensive agriculture and associated infrastructure.

o High-impact tourism and recreations facilities.

o Urban development and expansion (incl. community facilities and institutions).

o Business and industrial development.

Furthermore, High and Very High risk, after mitigation, may be interpreted as approaching limits of

acceptable and manageable environmental risk (Schreiner & Snyman-van der Walt, 2018). This may be the

case in the SBM with regards to mining activities, where avoidance of highly sensitive areas are not always

an option due to the location of the mineral resources (Table 8).

7. References

Avenant, N., Wilson, B., Power, J., Palmer, G. & Child, M.F. 2019. Mystromys albicaudatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

2019: e.T14262A22237378. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS.T14262A22237378.en. Date accessed: 14 May,

2019.

Bates, M.F. & Mouton, P.L.F.N. 2018. Cordylus cordylus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T110159331A115674365.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T110159331A115674365.en. Date accessed: 14 May, 2019.

Bates, M.F., Tolley, K. & Mouton, P.L.F.N. 2018. Ouroborus cataphractus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:

e.T5333A115650102. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T5333A115650102.en. Date accessed: 14 May, 2019.

Bergh, N.G., Verboom, G.A., Rouget, M., Cowling, R.M., 2014. Vegetation types of the Greater Cape Floristic Region. In: Allsopp, N.,

Colville, J.F., Verboom, G.A. (Eds.), Fynbos: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation of a Megadiverse Region. Oxford University

Press, pp. 1–25.

BirdLife International 2016. Emarginata schlegelii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:

e.T22710359A94243283.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20163.RLTS.T22710359A94243283.en. Date accessed: 14 May,

2019.

BirdLife International 2017. Circus maurus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22695379A118433168.


BirdLife International 2018. Neotis ludwigii (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:

e.T22691910A129456278.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22691910A129 456278.en. Date accessed: 14 May,

2019.

BirdLife International. n.d. Technology design & Shut down on demand. [url] https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/policy/technology-

design-shut-down-demand. Date accessed:23 May 2019.

Birdlife SA (South Africa) & EWT (Endangered Wildlife Trust). 2015. Birds and Wind Energy Best Practice Guidelines: Best Practice

for assessing and monitoring the impact of wind energy facilities on birds in southern Africa. Avilable at:

http://www.birdlife.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Birds-and-Wind-BestPractice-guidelines_2015_final-2.pdf.

Bronner, G. 2015. Cryptochloris zyli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T5749A21286235.


CapeNature. 2016. [spatial data] Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan: Ecosystem Threat Status 2016.

23

CapeNature. 2017a. [spatial data] Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan 2017.

CapeNature. 2017b. [spatial data] Offset planning categories within the proposed Saldanha Bay industrial zone.

Cassola, F. 2016. Gerbilliscus afra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T21509A22427174.


Coffin, A.W. 2007. From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads. Journal of Transport Geography, 15: 396-

406.

Cullis, J.D.S., Görgens, A.H.M. and Marais, C. 2007. A strategic study of the impact of invasive alien plants in the high rainfall

catchments and riparian zones of South Africa on total surface water yield. Water SA, 33(1): 35-42.

CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). 2011. [spatial data] 2011 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA).

DEA&DP (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning – Western Cape). 2017. Environmental Management

Framework for The Greater Saldanha Area. Report J-649D-13. Draft, April 2017.

Do Linh San, E., Begg, C., Begg, K. & Abramov, A.V. 2016. Mellivora capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:


Doty, A.C. & Martin, A.P., 2013. Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape,

South Africa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40(1): 75-80.

Duffel-Canham, A. & Skowno, S. 2019. Hopefield Sand Fynbos status. pers comm.

Dzikiti, S., Gush, M. B., Le Maitre, D. C., Maherry, A., Jovanovic, N. Z., Ramoelo, A., & Cho, M. A. 2016. Quantifying potential water

savings from clearing invasive alien Eucalyptus camaldulensis using in situ and high resolution remote sensing data in the Berg

River Catchment, Western Cape, South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management, 361: 69–80.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.009.

Fynbos Forum. 2016. Ecosystem Guideline for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape. Fynbos Forum, Cape Town.

Geoterraimage. 2015. 2013-2014 South African National Land-Cover. Department of Environmental Affairs. Geospatial Data.

https://egis.environment.gov.za/.

Hofmeyr, M.D. & Baard, E.H.W. 2018. Psammobates geometricus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:


Holness, S. 2017. Saldanha Industrial Corridor Strategic Offsets Strategy. Draft, December 2017.

Jacobs, D. & Monadjem, A. 2017. Rhinolophus capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T19529A21980883.


Kraaij, T., Baard, J.A., Rikhotso, D.R., Cole, N.S. & Van Wilgen, B.W. 2017, Assessing the effectiveness of invasive alien plant

management in a large fynbos protected area. Bothalia 47(2):a2105. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2105.

Kuki, K.N., Olivia, M.A. & Pereira, E.G. 2008. Iron Ore Industry Emissions as a Potential Ecological Risk Factor for Tropical Coastal

Vegetation. Enivironmental Management, 42(1): 111-121.

Maree, K.S. & Vromans, D.C. 2010. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Cederberg and Matzikama

Municipalities: Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas.

Produced by CapeNature as part of the C.A.P.E. Fine-scale Biodiversity Planning Project. Kirstenbosch.

Maree, S. 2015. Eremitalpa granti. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T7994A21283661.


Maree, S., Jarvis, J., Bennett, N.C. & Visser, J. 2017. Bathyergus suillus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017:


Maritz, B. 2018. Psammophis leightoni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T44979997A115671897.


Meadows, M.E. 2003. Soil erosion in the Swartland, Western Cape Province, South Africa:implications of past and present policy and

practice. Environmental Science & Policy, 6: 17-28.

Pence, G. 2009. Climate Adaptation Scenarios for the Cape Floristic Region Technical Report. Cape Town.

https://egis.environment.gov.za/

24

Picker, M. 2012. Field guide to insects of South Africa. Penguin Random House, South Africa.

Pool-Stanvliet, R., Duffell-Canham, A., Pence, G. & Smart, R. 2017. The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook.

Stellenbosch: CapeNature.

Rebelo, A.G., Boucher, C., Helme, N., Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C., Smit, W.J., Powrie, L.W., Ellis, F., Jan, J.N., Scott, L., Radloff, F.G.T.,

Steven, D., Richardson, D.M., Ward, R.A., Procheş, Ş.M., Oliver, E.G.H., Manning, J.C., Mcdonald, D.J., Janssen, J.A.M., Walton, A.,

Roux, A., Skowno, A.L., Simon, W., Hoare, D.B. 2006. Fynbos Biome. In: Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.), The Vegetation of

South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, pp. 52–219.

RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2011. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act: National list of ecosystems that are

threatened and in need of protection. Government Gazette, G 34809, GoN 1002, 9 December 2011.

SANBI (South African Biodiversity Institute). 2017. [spatial data] Habitat modification layer (improved land cover).

SANBI. 2019. [spatial data] National Biodiversity Assessment 2018.

Schreiner, G.O. & Snyman-van der Walt, L. 2018. Risk modelling of shale gas scenarios in the Central Karoo. International Journal of

Sustainable Development Planning, 13(2): 294-306. DOI: 10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-294-306.

Skowno, A.L., Matlala, M.S., Kirkwood, D. & Slingsby, J.A. 2019. Chapter 7: Ecosystem Assessments. In: Skowno, A.L., Raimondo, D.C.,

Poole, C.J., Fizzotti, B., Slingsby, J.A. (Eds). National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 Technical Report Volume 1: Terrestrial Realm.

SANBI, Pretoria.

Turner, A.A. (Ed). 2017. Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2017. CapeNature Scientific Services, Jonkershoek, Stellenbosch.

WfW (Working for Water). 2007. Project Operating Standards. Draft, version 3. Available at:

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/project_operation_standards_0.pdf.

∞

strategic environmental assessment for the greater ... · the “ecosystem guideline for...

Documents