terrestrial ecology impact assessment: expansion...

____________________________________________________________________

NICK HELME BOTANICAL SURVEYS PO Box 22652 Scarborough 7975

Ph: 021 780 1420 cell: 082 82 38350 email: [email protected]

Pri.Sci.Nat # 400045/08

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY IMPACT

ASSESSMENT: EXPANSION OF JACOBSBAAI

ABALONE FARM, SALDANHA, WESTERN CAPE.

Compiled for: PHS Consulting, Hermanus

Client: Jacobsbaai Sea Products

7 April 2016

mailto:[email protected]

Nick Helme Botanical Surveys

Terrestrial Ecology – Jacobsbaai Abalone Farm, Saldanha

ii

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

In terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998

specialists involved in Impact Assessment processes must declare their

independence and include an abbreviated Curriculum Vitae.

I, N.A. Helme, do hereby declare that I am financially and otherwise independent

of the client and their consultants, and that all opinions expressed in this

document are substantially my own, notwithstanding the fact that I have received

fair remuneration from the client for preparation of this report.

NA Helme

Abridged CV:

Contact details as per letterhead.

Surname : HELME

First names : NICHOLAS ALEXANDER

Date of birth : 29 January 1969

University of Cape Town, South Africa. BSc (Honours) – Botany (Ecology &

Systematics). 1990.

SACNASP Registration No: 400045/08 (Pri.Sci.Nat)

BEE Level Four Contributor BE # 1915.

Since 1997 I have been based in Cape Town, and have been working as a

specialist botanical consultant, specialising in the diverse flora of the south-

western Cape. Since the end of 2001 I have been working on my own and trade

as Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, and have undertaken at least 900 site

assessments during this period.

A selection of relevant work undertaken over the last few years is as follows:

Botanical site screening for proposed Sasol power station, Saldanha (ERM

2015)

Botanical site screening for proposed Globeleq power station, Saldanha

(ERM 2015)

Botanical site screening for proposed Arcelor Mittal power station,

Saldanha (ERM 2015)

Botanical assessment of Langebaan transfer station and landfill area

(AECOM 2015)



iii

Botanical assessment of proposed overnight facilities at Klein Mooimaak,

West Coast National Park (SANParks 2015)

Ecological Assessment for proposed Frontier Minerals Separation Plant,

Saldanha (Sedex 2014)

Botanical assessment of proposed Elandsfontein phosphate mine east of

Langebaan (Braaf Environmental 2014)

Botanical assessment for proposed LNG terminal, Saldanha (PetroSA

2014)

Botanical Scoping study for proposed Saldanha Municipality Desalination

Project (CSIR 2012)

Botanical inputs into proposed Saldanha IDZ (MEGA 2011)

Botanical Assessment of site on SAS Saldanha (Footprint Environmental

2011)

Fatal Flaw Analysis of Ptn of Ptn 16 of Pienaarspoort 197, Saldanha (MOGS

2011)

Scoping study of proposed Wind Energy Facility near Britannia Bay

(Savannah Environmental 2010)

Scoping and Impact Assessment study of proposed Wind Energy Facility at

Rheboksfontein, Darling (Savannah Environmental 2010)

Scoping and Impact Assessment study of proposed Wind Energy Facility

near Vredenburg (Savannah Environmental 2010)

Scoping and Impact Assessment of proposed Wind Energy Facility near

Hopefield (Savannah Environmental 2008 & 2009)

Botanical Scoping and Impact Assessment of proposed St Helena Hills

development (DJ Environmental 2009)

Botanical Impact Assessment of Portion 4 of Farm 560, Yzerfontein

(EnviroLogic 2009)

Botanical Impact Assessment of Portion 9 of Farm 957, Saldanha

(EnviroLogic 2008)

Botanical Sensitivity study of Portion 4 of Farm Yzerfontein 560 (De Villiers

family 2008)

Botanical Scoping and Impact Assessment of proposed overnight sites in

the West Coast National Park (SANParks 2008 & 2010)

Botanical Impact Assessment of proposed development on Portion 87 of

the Farm Witteklip 123, Vredenburg (CCA Environmental 2008)

Fine Scale Vegetation Mapping and Conservation Planning for Saldanha

Municipality (CapeNature & SANBI, 2006 - 2007)



iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE 2

3. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 2

4. STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL CONTEXT 4

5. OVERVIEW OF THE VEGETATION AND FAUNA 5

6. ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION VALUE 10

7. ISSUES IDENTIFIED 12

8. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 12

9. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR MITIGATION 17

10. REFERENCES 18


Terrestrial Ecology – Jacobsbaai Abalone Farm

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This botanical and terrestrial faunal assessment was commissioned in order to

help inform the planning and environmental authorisation process being

undertaken for a proposed expansion of the existing Jacobsbaai abalone farm

facilities, in the Saldanha area of the Western Cape. The required landside

infrastructure here considered (see Figures 1 & 2) is an expansion of the intake

pumpstation (20m2), additional hatchery (200m2), additional packing facility

(150m2), additional office space (300m2), conversion of 8000m2 of storage tanks

to breeding tanks, and construction of a 350m section of open canal (first section

of discharge route) and a 215m final section of discharge pipeline.

Figure 1: Map showing the study area, with new or modified facilities in green

and new discharge route in thick red line (map provided by PHS Consulting).



2

Figure 2: Satellite imagery overlaid with proposed discharge canal and pipeline

route.

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for this study were as follows:

Provide an overview of the vegetation and the terrestrial fauna (non-

marine) in the study area, and note the presence or likelihood of any plant

or faunal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC; previously known as Red

Data Book species).

Provide an ecological constraints map for the study area.

Assess the local (Saldanha) and regional (West Coast) conservation value

of the study area, referring to specialist knowledge and to the National

Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA, Rouget et al 2004) and to

CapeNature’s Fine Scale Conservation Plan for the Saldanha Municipality

(Pence 2008).

Identify and assess the likely botanical and terrestrial faunal impacts

associated with the proposed development.

Provide recommendations to mitigate the identified impacts.

Provide inputs into the project EMP.

3. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

Fieldwork for this project was undertaken on 4 April 2016. This is outside the

optimal spring season for botanical fieldwork in this strongly winter rainfall area,

and hence most of the potential bulbs and annuals were not evident. Although

worth noting, this is not considered to be a significant constraint in terms of the



3

comprehensiveness of the findings, as the habitat concerned is a relatively simple

one, with rather few annuals and bulbs likely to occur. The available Google

Earth imagery (the most recent being October 2014) is of a high resolution and is

easily interpreted. This study does not include any invertebrate data except for

butterflies, due to a general lack of readily available information on the

conservation status of this very diverse group.

The entire study area was walked, and all plant and animal species observed

were noted.

Conservation worthy habitats are those with high species diversity; those that

support rare, threatened or localised plant or animal species (Species of

Conservation Concern); those that are rare in a regional context, and those areas

where ecological processes are deemed to be important and vulnerable to

disturbance. Sufficient detail was evident in the aerial images and on previous

site visits to be able to assess the overall conservation value and botanical

sensitivity of the area, and confidence in the accuracy of the findings is high.

The study area was assumed to be within about 50m of the infrastructure shown

in Figures 1 and 2, and only the proposed infrastructure noted in the introduction

is assessed as part of this study. It is assumed that all new infrastructure shown

will eventually be essentially in the positions shown, within reasonable limits. It is

assumed that the discharge pipeline will be buried about 1m below the surface,

and that it will consist of 4 parallel pipes, each with a diameter of approximately

450mm, and the channel will be 1200mm wide by 400mm wide, and is likely to

be covered by liftable lids, which will facilitate cleaning and maintainance.

Botanical sensitivity is to a large extent used as a surrogate for terrestrial faunal

sensitivity, as in the Cape Floristic region the more sensitive faunal species are

typically found in areas of intact natural habitat, rather than in lower sensitivity,

disturbed areas. Especially in the lowland areas (such as the study area) these

habitat remnants also typically support a significant number of plant Species of

Conservation Concern, so that these areas are usually flagged as areas of high

botanical and ecological sensitivity.

Reference was made to the GIS based database of rare plant localities maintained

by CREW (Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers, based at

Kirstenbosch, updated to March 2015), to the Red List of South African plants



4

(Raimondo et al 2009), to the Fine Scale Vegetation map of the Saldanha

Municipality (Helme & Koopman 2007), and to CapeNature’s Fine Scale

Conservation Plan for the Saldanha Municipality (Pence 2008), as well as other

references noted in the text.

4. STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

The study area is part of the Fynbos biome, located within what is now known as

the Core Region of the Greater Cape Floristic Region (GCFR; Manning & Goldblatt

2012). The GCFR is one of only six Floristic Regions in the world, and is the only

one largely confined to a single country (the Succulent Karoo component extends

into southern Namibia). It is also by far the smallest floristic region, occupying

only 0.2% of the world’s land surface, and supporting about 11500 plant species,

over half of all the plant species in South Africa (on 12% of the land area). At

least 70% of all the species in the Cape region do not occur elsewhere, and many

have very small home ranges (these are known as narrow endemics). Many of

the lowland habitats are under pressure from agriculture, urbanisation and alien

plants, and thus many of the range restricted species are also under severe

threat of extinction, as habitat is reduced to extremely small fragments. Data

from the nationwide plant Red Listing project indicate that 67% of the threatened

plant species in the country occur only in the southwestern Cape, and these total

over 1800 species (Raimondo et al 2009)! It should thus be clear that the

southwestern Cape is a major national and global conservation priority, and is

quite unlike anywhere else in the country in terms of the number of threatened

plant species.

The study area is part of the greater West Coast region, and lies within what has

been termed the West Strandveld bioregion (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). This

bioregion has a fairly distinct flora, and the Saldanha Peninsula is particularly rich

in locally and regionally endemic plant species, as well as plant Species of

Conservation Concern (Helme & Koopman 2007).

The study area is within the planning domain of the Saldanha CapeNature Fine

Scale Conservation Plan (Pence 2008). This reference indicates that there are

various Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) found in the vicinity of the study area,

but not along the actual discharge route, as shown in Figure 3. Critical

Biodiversity Areas are regarded as essential areas for the achievement of regional

conservation targets, and are designed to ensure minimum land take for

maximum result (Maree & Vromans 2010). This map indicates that the discharge



5

route crosses areas of No Natural Vegetation and Other Natural Vegetation, with

the main CBA portion being the Strandveld inland of the facility.

Figure 3: Extract of the Saldanha Municipality Fine Scale Conservation Plan

(Pence 2008), showing the proposed discharge route (red line) in relation to the

CapeNature identified Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs; shaded pink).

5. OVERVIEW OF THE VEGETATION AND FAUNA

The underlying vegetation type along about 60% of the discharge route is

mapped as Langebaan Dune Strandveld (Figure 4), although I do not entirely

agree with this, and would actually classify at least part of it as Cape Estuarine

Saltmarsh (even though it is not estuarine). Langebaan Dune Strandveld is well

conserved within the West Coast National Park, and is regarded as Least

Threatened on a national basis (DEA 2011). About 65% of its original total

extent is still intact, the national conservation target is about 24% and some 27%

is protected in the WCNP.

Cape Seashore Vegetation occupies the primary dunes, and is also regarded as

Least Threatened on a national basis (DEA 2011). About 98% of its original

total extent is still intact, the national conservation target is 20% and over 90%

is protected (in the Admiralty zone; Rouget et al 2004).

Cape Estuarine Saltmarshes are regarded as Least Threatened on a national

basis (DEA 2011). About 72% of its original total extent is still intact, the

national conservation target is 24% but only 2% is protected (Rouget et al 2004).



6

Saldanha Granite Strandveld is technically present in the study area only

where the new intake pumpstation would be. This vegetation type is regarded as

Endangered on a national basis (DEA 2011). Only 31% of its original total

extent is still intact, the national conservation target is 24% and only 7% is

protected (Rouget et al 2004).

Figure 4: Extract of the SA vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2012), showing

that two primary vegetation types occur within the discharge route study area,

namely Cape Seashore Vegetation and Langebaan Dune Strandveld.

5.1 New intake pumpstation

The proposed intake pumpstation would be located immediately inland of the

existing pumpstation, and would cover only about 20m2, although undoubtedly a

larger area would be disturbed during construction, possibly as much as double

this. The smaller footprint is mostly existing parking area, with no natural

vegetation, but the larger footprint includes typical coastal rocky margin species

such as Zygophyllum morgsana, Lycium cinereum, Tetragonia fruticosa,

Mesmbryanthemum crystallinum, Bassia diffusa, Atriplex bolusii, Sarcocornia

natalensis and Oncosiphon suffruticosum.

No notable terrestrial fauna was seen in this area. Typical birds present in the

immediate surrounds are all highly mobile and not dependant on this particular



7

habitat, and they include Cape Bunting (Emberiza capensis), Cape Wagtail

(Motacilla capensis) and Familiar Chat (Cercomela familiaris).

No plant or animal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are resident in this

area, although the Endangered African Black Oystercatcher (Haemotopus

moquini) is likely to occasionally forage or roost nearby.

Botanical and faunal conservation value and sensitivity in this area is considered

Low to Medium.

Plate 1: The proposed intake pumpstation would be located approximately where

the vehicle is parked, immediately inland of the existing pumpstation.

5.2 Discharge pipeline and canal route

The initial 340m of the discharge route would be a channel, and would run east of

the Jacobsbaai Sea Products fenceline (see Plate 2). This entire area is low lying,

and is currently dominated by species tolerant of the high salinity prevalent in

this area. Plant species diversity is very low (3 species), and consists of

Sarcocornia natalensis, Salicornia meyeriana and Mesembryanthemum dinteri.

This is the vegetation that is best categorised as Cape Estuarine Saltmarsh,

rather than Langebaan Dune Strandveld. Botanical and faunal conservation value

in this area is considered to be Low.

Once the proposed route crosses the Gonnemanskraal road the vegetation

changes to true Langebaan Dune Strandveld on the inland side of the primary

dune, and to Cape Seashore vegetation on the seaward side of the dune crest.

The former is up to 1m tall and fairly dense, whereas the vegetation on the



8

seaward side of the dune crest (up to 7masl) is sparse and generally less than

25cm tall. The vegetation west of the Gonnemanskraal is in good condition and is

notably more diverse than east of the road, although still of relatively low

diversity in a regional context.

The Langebaan Dune Strandveld component includes by Osteospermum incanum,

Othonna coronopifolia, Euphorbia burmanii, Lycium cinereum, Cladoraphis

cyperoides, Ruschia macownaii, Cynanchum obtusifolium, Pteronia divaricata,

Limonium peregrinum, Tetragonia fruticosa, Searsia glauca, S. laevigata, Exomis

microphylla and Roepera flexuosa.

The Cape Seashore Vegetation component includes Lycium cinereum, Cladoraphis

cyperoides, Hebenstretia cordata, Tetragonia decumbens, Pteronia uncinata,

Dasispermum suffruticosum, Sporobolus virginicus, Psoralea repens, Thinopyrum

distichum, Limonium peregrinum, Amphibolia hutchinsonii, Osteospermum

incanum and Carpobrotus quadrifidus.

Faunal species observed in the area include Grey Mongoose (Herpestes

pulverulentus), numerous specimens of the exotic dune snail, Kelp gulls (Larus

dominicanus), tracks of tenebrionid dune beetles and tracks of steenbok

(Rhaphicerus campestris) and Common Duiker (Sylvicapra gimmea). No

evidence (e.g. surface runs) of golden moles was seen. No sign of Angulate

Tortoise (Chersina angulata) was seen, but it is fairly common in the general area

(typically slightly further inland), if not on site.

No plant or animal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are likely to be

resident in this area, although the Endangered African Black Oystercatcher

(Haemotopus moquini) is likely to occasionally forage or roost nearby. The beach

is too narrow for this species to next on, as the high spring tides regularly wash

up against the base of the primary dunes (and in fact are starting to undercut

them in places), and would destroy any nests on the beach.

Botanical and faunal conservation value in this area is considered Medium.

5.3 Main facility area

Three new buildings will be constructed, adjacent to existing buildings in the main

facility area, and the large (0.8ha), open storage ponds north of the main

buildings will be converted to breeding tanks. No significant natural vegetation or



9

faunal habitat remains in any of the proposed footprints. The storage ponds are

not favoured feedings grounds for any birds as the ponds are lined with plastic

and are slippery, and may not in fact support much in the way of prey.

No plant or animal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) is likely to be

resident in this part of the study area.

The main facility area is of Low botanical and faunal sensitivity and conservation

value.

Plate 2: View of the proposed discharge channel route, looking south along road

from Gonnemanskraal. The channel would lie left (east) of the fence.

Plate 3: View of the proposed discharge pipeline route across the primary dunes,

shown as orange line (approximate).



10

Plate 4: View of the proposed discharge area, with possible pipeline route shown

as orange line (approximate).

6. ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION VALUE

The terms conservation value and sensitivity are often used interchangeably, but

this is not strictly correct. The term “conservation value” refers to the value of the

habitat in local and regional conservation terms (i.e. answering the question how

important is it?), whilst “sensitivity” strictly means how resilient is the habitat to

disturbance. In the case of urban or industrial development any natural or partly

natural habitat would effectively be permanently lost in the development

footprint, and thus technically sensitivity would be high, irrespective of the

conservation value of the underlying habitat. In the case of a buried pipeline

through primary dunes sensitivity would be low, as this is naturally a fairly

dynamic environment, likely to be capable of passive rehabilitation.

The conservation value of a habitat is a product of species diversity, rarity of

habitat, rarity of species, ecological viability and connectivity, vulnerability to

impacts, and reversibility of threats (ease of rehabilitation). Extensive previous

work in the region has allowed the author to make conclusions regarding the

overall and relative sensitivity of the vegetation and general terrestrial ecology in

the study area (see Figure 5).

Areas that have been heavily disturbed and have negligible botanical diversity are

considered to be of Low ecological conservation value at a regional scale. These

areas are very unlikely to support regionally significant populations of any plant

or animal Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), and overall species diversity is

low.



11

Previously disturbed, or undisturbed areas with a low to moderate indigenous

plant diversity and moderate structural heterogeneity, and with up to three

recorded plant Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), of minor regional

significance, are mapped as being of Medium conservation value. The underlying

vegetation type may be regionally threatened.

High conservation value areas support relatively intact examples of a threatened

vegetation type, and usually support regionally significant populations of at least

three plant Species of Conservation Concern. These areas are often also mapped

CBAs (Critical Biodiversity Areas). Note that in some cases even degraded areas

may be of High conservation value because of their ecological connectivity value,

as they may connect two patches of High conservation value. High conservation

value areas should be considered No Go areas for development.

As can be seen from Figure 5 all of the study area is of either Low or Medium

conservation value, with the most important area being the tall primary dune.

Figure 5: Map of the ecological conservation value of the central and northern

part of the study area (only within 20m of the proposed infrastructure). Note that

the proposed intake pumpstation development area is of Low to Medium

conservation value and is not shown on this map.



12

7. ISSUES IDENTIFIED

In terms of the construction of the proposed infrastructure the following

potentially negative ecological issues have been identified:

Direct, permanent loss of Low and Low to Medium conservation value

habitat within the relatively small development footprint.

Largely temporary impact on vegetation and faunal habitat on a section of

Medium conservation value habitat just west of the Gonnemanskraal road,

at the pipeline construction phase.

No populations of plant or terrestrial animal Species of Conservation

Concern are likely to be impacted by the proposed development.

Operational phase impacts may include significant faunal mortality due to

entrapment in the open channel (if not mitigated by being covered),

increased sand mobilisation in the foredune and primary dune area, and

minor loss of ecological connectivity due to the pipeline and channel

placement across faunal movement routes.

No potentially positive ecological impacts associated with this project have been

identified.

8. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Impacts may be both direct and indirect, with the former occurring mostly at the

construction stage and the latter mostly at the operational stage.

The construction phase impacts will consist of permanent and temporary loss and

degradation of Low, Low - Medium and Medium conservation value natural

vegetation and faunal habitat within the development footprints. No plant or

animal Species of Conservation Concern are likely to be impacted by the

proposed infrastructure.

The operational phase impacts of the proposed project are likely to be potentially

important, and include significant faunal mortality due to entrapment in the open

channel (if not mitigated by being covered), increased sand mobilisation in the

foredune and primary dune area, and minor loss of ecological connectivity due to

the pipeline and channel placement across faunal movement routes.

The impacts are at the site (local) scale, and impacts are greater at the site scale

than the regional scale.



13

Loss or degradation of areas mapped as being of Low conservation value equates

to an insignificant loss of Irreplaceable botanical and/or faunal resources, and

Irreplaceability is thus low.

8.1 Construction Phase

8.1.1 Impact: Loss and degradation of Medium conservation value

natural vegetation and faunal habitat

New Infrastructure

Extent Local (site); <0.2ha in total

Duration Temporary (2-5yrs) in most of pipeline route

and disturbance areas surrounding other

infrastructure

Intensity Medium (partial cessation of ecological

functioning in footprint, but new footprint small)

Probability Definite disturbance around pipeline through

Medium conservation value dune area

Confidence High

Significance

before

mitigation

Medium negative

Significance

after mitigation

Low negative

Cumulative

impact after

mitigation

Low negative

Nature of

Cumulative impact

Loss and degradation

of <0.2ha of

vegetation and faunal

habitat

Degradation and loss of <0.2ha of two

Least Threatened habitat types

Degree to which

impact can be

reversed

Reversible in

disturbance areas

along pipeline route

Passive rehabilitation over time will partly

reverse disturbance impacts in the dune

area

Degree to which

impact may cause

irreplaceable loss

of resources

Not likely The proposed development is not likely to

cause significant irreplaceable loss of the

various vegetation types or associated

faunal habitats in this area

Degree to which

impact can be

mitigated

Can be partly

mitigated

Minimising the extent of the disturbance

caused by the pipeline construction through

the Medium conservation value dune area

could be best mitigated by pipejacking,

which would mean that no excavation is

needed in this area.

Table 1: Impact assessment table for the loss and degradation of Medium

conservation value natural vegetation and faunal habitat at the construction

phase.



14

8.1.2 Impact: Loss of Low and Low – Medium conservation value natural

vegetation and faunal habitat

New Intake Pumpstation New buildings, tanks & channel

Extent Local (site); <0.01ha Local (site); <1ha

Duration Permanent (in footprint) to

temporary (disturbance

around footprint)

Permanent (in footprint) to temporary

(adjacent disturbance)

Intensity Low (cessation of ecological

functioning in footprint, but

footprint very small)

Low (cessation of ecological functioning

in small footprint)

Probability Definite Definite (loss of habitat in footprint)

Confidence High High

Significance before

mitigation

Very Low negative Low negative

Significance after

mitigation


Cumulative impact

after mitigation


Nature of Cumulative

impact

Loss & degradation of very

small area of Saldanha

Granite Strandveld

vegetation

Loss of small areas of Cape Estuarine

Saltmarsh and Langebaan Dune

Strandveld

Degree to which impact

can be reversed

Irreversible Irreversible


may cause irreplaceable

loss of resources

Will not occur Will not occur


can be mitigated

Cannot be mitigated;

mitigation not necessary

Cannot be mitigated; mitigation not

necessary

Table 2: Impact assessment table for the loss and degradation of Low and Low –

Medium conservation value natural vegetation and faunal habitat at the

construction phase.

Overall the likely direct construction phase botanical and terrestrial faunal

impacts are likely to be of Medium negative significance, before mitigation,

and Low negative after mitigation.

8.2 Operational Phase

The new intake pumpstation, the new buildings and the new breeding tanks are

not likely to have any additional operational phase ecological impacts over and

above those that the existing facilities have.



15

The primary operational phase impacts of concern relate to the discharge channel

and pipeline. The channel could have serious negative impacts on terrestrial

fauna at the operational phase, in the form of entrapment, leading to mortality.

This could be a factor for all manner of terrestrial fauna, including reptiles

(tortoises, snakes, skinks, lizards), frogs, invertebrates (terrestrial tenebrionid

beetles in particular) and even small mammals such as mongoose and rodents.

This impact could be easy to avoid by means of ensuring that the channel is

properly covered (by an impermeable lid) at all times (except during

maintenance).

The construction of the pipeline through the primary and foredune area is likely to

destabilise the sand, due to loss of existing vegetation that binds the sand. This is

likely to be a temporary impact (2-5yrs) at the operational phase, until the

vegetation regrows and binds the sand again. Some degree of topographic

erosion is likely during this period. The best means of mitigating this impact

would be to minimise vegetation disturbance by means of pipejacking the

pipelines through the dune, and/or by using appropriate geotextile to minimise

sand mobility in any disturbed areas, and to provide a semi-stable substrate to

encourage plant establishment.

The channel, and possibly also the pipeline (if on the surface), is likely to have a

negative impact on local ecological connectivity, in that it will make it more

difficult for terrestrial fauna to cross the area. The magnitude of this is not

known, and will largely depend on how high the covered channel is above ground

level. Even if only 5cm above ground level this will pose a serious obstacle to free

movement for certain small, terrestrial animal species. The pipeline impact in this

regard can be avoided if buried, and the degree of impact depends on how much

of its length is on the surface.

Open Channel Pipeline

Extent Local (site and adjacent) Local (site and adjacent)

Duration Permanent Permanent

Intensity Medium Low

Probability Definite Likely

Confidence High High

Significance before

mitigation

Medium negative Medium negative

Significance after

mitigation

Low negative Low negative



16

Cumulative impact after

mitigation

Low negative Low negative

Nature of Cumulative

impact

Mortality of terrestrial

fauna; loss of ecological

connectivity

Erosion; loss of

ecological connectivity


can be reversed

Not reversible once built Irreversible


may cause irreplaceable

loss of resources

Possible and fairly likely Not likely


can be mitigated

Can be mitigated to a large

degree

Can be mitigated to a

large degree

Table 3: Impact table for all operational phase ecological impacts of development

on vegetation and fauna.

On balance the likely indirect operational phase botanical and terrestrial faunal

impacts are likely to be of Medium negative significance, before mitigation,

and Low negative after mitigation.

8.4 Cumulative impacts

To some extent a cumulative impact is a regional impact, rather than the local

site scale impact, i.e. if something has a regional impact it also has a cumulative

impact. The vegetation and faunal habitat in this region is under significant

pressure from agriculture and urban and industrial expansion (pers. obs.), and

these impacts are ongoing. All new developments in the region have a

cumulative impact, especially on the four vegetation types largely restricted to

the region, and on the many regionally endemic plant species. There are

significantly fewer regionally endemic terrestrial animal species, and thus

cumulative impacts are lower for this group.

On average the author believes that this development will have a Very Low

negative cumulative impact (after mitigation), and Low negative before

mitigation.

8.5 Positive Impacts

No potentially positive benefits of this project have been identified, at least not in

terms of vegetation or fauna.



17

8.6 Assessment of No Go alternative

On balance the status quo already has had some sort of negative impact on the

fauna and flora, but whether or not there is any significant ongoing impact is not

known. Presumably the loss of ecological connectivity caused by the fairly

extensive plant is an ongoing ecological impact, and is likely to be Low negative

in a regional context.

8.7 Impact statement

The proposed open channel may have a Medium negative impact on terrestrial

fauna before mitigation, occurring mainly during the operational phase, and this

could be reduced to Low negative by simply ensuring that it is covered all of the

time (except when being cleaned), with no significant issues associated with its

construction.

The proposed pipeline may have a Medium negative impact on the habitat in the

primary dune area, occurring mainly during the construction phase. This could be

reduced to Low negative by ensuring that it is buried for most of its length, and

that pipejacking is employed to get it through the main dune from the road,

rather than digging a deep trench.

The proposed intake pumpstation, new buildings and breeding tanks are likely to

have no more than a Low negative botanical and terrestrial faunal impact before

and after mitigation, with no significant issues associated with their construction.

The No Go alternative is likely to have a Low negative botanical and terrestrial

faunal impact.

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION

There are few terrestrial ecological constraints in terms of the proposed

development, with about 75% of the study area being of Low or Low –

Medium ecological sensitivity.

The proposed new intake pumpstation, new buildings and new breeding

tanks will all occur largely within existing disturbed footprints, and are

likely to have a Low negative ecological impact, with or without mitigation.

The only Medium sensitivity area in the study area is a 140m long section

through the primary dunes, but no populations of any plant or animal

Species of Conservation Concern are likely to be present here or elsewhere

within the development footprints. The recommended mitigation here is



18

that the proposed 4 parallel pipes should be buried as far as possible, that

geotextile be used to stabilise any loose sand after construction, and that

pipejacking be used to get the pipes through the primary dune ridge from

the Gonnemanskraal road. Vegetation disturbance must be minimised at

all times. Provided this mitigation is implemented the overall ecological

impact of this aspect could be reduced from Medium negative to Low

negative.

The open channel should be covered with a solid cover at all times, except

for purposes of maintenance. If not properly covered the channel will

prove to be a fatal trap for small terrestrial animals. The covered surface

of the open channel should ideally be as close to ground level as possible,

to minimise the overall barrier effect. Provided this mitigation is

implemented the overall ecological impact of this aspect could be reduced

from Medium negative to Low negative.

No additional EMP inputs are required in terms of terrestrial ecology.

The project is not likely to have any significant negative impacts on the

functionality of the mapped CBAs in the vicinity of the study area, and will

not directly impact on any CBAs.

10. REFERENCES

Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J. &

de Villiers, M. (eds.). 2014. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa,

Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute,

Pretoria.

DEA. 2011. Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems in South Africa. Government

Gazette Vol. 1002: No. 34809. National Printer, Pretoria.

De Villiers, C., Driver, A., Brownlie, S., Day, E., Euston-Brown, D., Helme, N.,

Holmes, P., Job, N., and A. Rebelo. 2005. Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines

for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape. Fynbos Forum, c/o Botanical

Society of South Africa, Conservation Unit, Kirstenbosch, Cape Town.

EWT. 2004. Little Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A

Conservation Assessment. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg.



19

Helme, N. 2011. Botanical inputs to the proposed Saldanha IDZ, Western Cape.

Unpublished report for MEGA and Wesgro. Nick Helme Botanical Surveys,

Scarborough.

Helme, N. 2015. Botanical screening study of site for proposed power station and

possible pipeline routes, Saldanha, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Arcelor

Mittal and ERM South Africa. Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, Scarborough.

Helme, N. 2015a. Botanical screening study of two potential sites for proposed

Sasol power station, Saldanha, Western Cape. Unpublished report for Sasol and

ERM South Africa. Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, Scarborough.

Helme, N. and R. Koopman. 2007. Vegetation report for CAPE Finescale

Vegetation Mapping Project: Saldanha Peninsula. Report for CapeNature, as part

of the CAPE program.

Klak, C., Helme, N.A. & Raimondo, D. 2006. Cephalophyllum rostellum (L.Bolus)

H.E.K.Hartmann. National Assessment: Red List of South African Plants version

2015.1. Accessed on 2016/01/28

Maree, K. and D. Vromans. 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. SANBI, Kirstenbosch.

Mecenero, S., Ball, J., Edge, D., Hamer, M., Henning, G., Kruger, M., Pringle, E.,

Terblanche, R. and Williams, M. (eds.) 2013. Conservation assessment of

butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and atlas. Saftronics

(Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg, and Animal Demography Unit, Cape Town.

Minter, L., M. Burger., J. Harrison, H. Braack, P. Bishop and D. Kloepfer (eds.)

2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Mucina, L. and M. Rutherford. Eds. 2012 update. Vegetation map of South Africa,

Lesotho, and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity

Institute, Pretoria.



20

Pence, G. 2008. Fine Scale Conservation Plan for the Saldanha Municipality.

Report for CapeNature, as part of the C.A.P.E. programme.

Pence, Genevieve Q.K. 2014. Western Cape Biodiversity Framework 2014 Status

Update: Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Western Cape. Unpublished CapeNature

project report. Cape Town, South Africa.

Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C.,

Kamundi, D.A., and Manyama, P.A. (eds.) 2009. Red List of South African Plants

2009. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. &

Cowling, R.M. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment

2004: Technical Report. Volume 1: Terrestrial Component. Pretoria: South

African National Biodiversity Institute.

terrestrial ecology impact assessment: expansion...

Documents