NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge … Hurd Drive Construction Upgrading... ·...

NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge – May 2015

NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge

VEGETATION ASSESSMENT AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

P.O Box 116 Port Elizabeth

6000

Prepared by:

EOH: Coastal & Environmental Services

P.O. Box 934 Grahamstown, 6140

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

Johannesburg and Maputo www.cesnet.co.za

May 2015

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


This Report should be cited as follows: EOH Coastal & Environmental Services, May 2015: NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge: Vegetation assessment and Sensitivity Analysis, CES, Grahamstown.

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services

Report Title: Vegetation assessment and Sensitivity Analysis

Report Version: Draft Report

Project Number: 226

Name Responsibility Signature Date

Ayanda Zide Report Writer

April 2015

Craig Sholto-Douglas Report Writer

April 2015

Dr Chantel

Bezuidenhout Report Reviewer

May 2015

Copyright

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

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

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

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

Mandela Municipality in the Republic of South Africa, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright

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


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services iii NMBM Ecological Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayanda conducts vegetation and impact assessments that guide proposed developments to

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

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

the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority botanical baseline survey and has conducted

groundtruthing surveys for developments in the Eastern Cape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darlington sections of the Greater Addo Elephant National Park.

Dr Chantel Bezuidenhout Chantel holds MSc and PhD degrees in Botany (estuarine ecology) and a BSc degree in Botany

and Geography from NMMU. Chantel's main focus is estuarine ecology and she has done

extensive work on 13 systems from the Orange River Mouth in the Northern Cape to the Mngazi

Estuary in the Transkei. As a result she has been involved in a number of ecological reserve

determination studies including the Kromme, Seekoei and Olifants systems. Chantel has been an

Environmental Consultant for approximately 5.5 years and as such has been focused on

environmental management and impact assessment. Chantel is well versed in environmental

legislation and has been involved in large number of environmental impact assessments and

management plans in South Africa, Zambia and Madagascar. She is currently employed as

Principal Consultant in the CES‘s Grahamstown office.


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services iv NMBM Glen Hurd Ecological Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. VII

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Project description and locality ................................................................................... 1 1.2. Objectives and Terms of Reference ............................................................................ 3

2. APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 4

2.1. Assessment ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Species of conservation concern ................................................................................ 4

2.2.1. Plant species of conservation concern ..................................................................... 4 2.2.2. Faunal species of conservation concern................................................................... 5

2.3. Sample site selection .................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Vegetation mapping ...................................................................................................... 6 2.5. Sensitivity assessment ................................................................................................. 6 2.6. Impact assessment ....................................................................................................... 7

2.6.1. Impact rating methodology ....................................................................................... 7 2.6.2. Example of an environmental significance statement ............................................. 10

2.7. Limitations and assumptions ..................................................................................... 11

3. RELEVANT LEGISLATION ....................................................................................... 12

3.1. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) .................................... 12 3.2. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)................ 12

3.2.1. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) 2004 (Act NO, 10 of 2004) .................................................................................................................. 13

3.3. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA). ... 14 3.4. National Water Act (No.36 of 1998) ............................................................................ 15 3.5. National Forest Act (No.84 of 1998) ........................................................................... 16 3.6. Species of Conservation Concern ............................................................................ 17

3.6.1. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) ................ 17 3.6.2. Endangered and Protected Flora in the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation

Ordinance (PNCO): ................................................................................................ 18 3.6.3. 1976 List of Protected Trees (Government Gazette No. 9542 Schedule A) in the

1998 National Forest Act (NFA): ............................................................................ 18 3.6.4. South African Red Data List ................................................................................... 18 3.6.5. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ........................................... 19

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 22

4.1. Geology and Landform ............................................................................................... 22 4.2. Topography ................................................................................................................. 22 4.3. Climate ......................................................................................................................... 22 4.4. Current Land-use ........................................................................................................ 23 4.5. Vegetation of the study area (Desktop investigation) .............................................. 23

4.5.1. SANBI Vegetation Map .......................................................................................... 23 4.5.1.1. Groot Thicket ..................................................................................................................... 24 4.5.1.2. Algoa Sandstone Fynbos .................................................................................................. 24

4.5.2. Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) .............................................. 24 4.5.2.1. Algoa Grassy Fynbos ........................................................................................................ 24 4.5.2.2. Bethelsdorp Bontveld ........................................................................................................ 26

4.5.3. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan ........................................................ 26 4.5.4. The NMB MOSS .................................................................................................... 29

5. SITE SURVEY: DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION/LAND COVER .......................... 33

5.1. Description of Vegetation ........................................................................................... 33 5.1.1. Groot Thicket ......................................................................................................... 33 5.1.2. Riparian vegetation ................................................................................................ 35


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NMBM Glen Hurd Ecological Study v

5.1.3. Grassy Fynbos/Grassland Mosaic .......................................................................... 36 5.2. Species of Conservation Concern ............................................................................. 40 5.3. Alien Species............................................................................................................... 40 5.4. Faunal species and habitats ...................................................................................... 42

5.4.1. Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................................................ 42 5.4.1.1. Reptiles ............................................................................................................................. 42 5.4.1.2. Amphibians ........................................................................................................................ 42

5.4.2. Birds ....................................................................................................................... 42 5.4.3. Mammals ............................................................................................................... 43

6. BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................................. 44

6.1. Site sensitivity ............................................................................................................. 44

7. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 46

7.1. Planning and Design Phase ....................................................................................... 46 7.2. Construction Phase .................................................................................................... 46

7.2.1. ISSUE 1: Loss of vegetation communities: ............................................................. 46 7.2.2. ISSUE 2: Loss of species of conservation concern and biodiversity (general) ........ 48

7.3. Operation Phase ......................................................................................................... 54

8. IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 56

8.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 56 8.2. Current status ............................................................................................................. 56 8.3. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 56

8.3.1. Plant removal\rehabilitation .................................................................................... 56 8.3.2. Invasion of alien species ........................................................................................ 56

9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 57

APPENDIX

TABLE A-1: PLANT SPECIES LIST ................................................................................. 59


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NMBM Glen Hurd Ecological Study vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Locality map for the proposed Glen Hurd project ........................................................................... 2 Figure 4-1: SANBI Vegetation map of the proposed project area. .................................................................. 25 Figure 4-2: STEP vegetation and ecosystem status map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and

road upgrade ............................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4-3: ECBCP showing the CBA 2 area (T2) and Ecological Corridor (Corridor 2) area. ....................... 30 Figure 4-4: NMB MOSS vegetation and status map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and road

upgrade. ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-5: NMB MOSS Critical Biodiversity Area map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and

road upgrade. .............................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 5-1: Vegetation map of the project area ............................................................................................... 39 Figure 6-1: Sensitivity map for the project area ............................................................................................... 45

LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1 Species of conservation concern found to occur in the project area according to PNCO, IUCN,

SANBI and DAFF‘s tree list 40 Table 5-2: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to NEM:BA 40 Table 5-3: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to CARA 41 Table 5-4: Bird Species of Conservation Concern that are likely to occur in the project area (ADU/BirdLife

SA, 2014) 42 Table 5-5: Mammals of conservation concern likely to be found within the project site. 43

LIST OF PLATES Plate 4-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area 22 Plate 5-1: Thicket vegetation found to occur in the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project. 33 Plate 5-2: (A) illustrating the disturbance in the thicket vegetation due to walking trails that were created. (B)

Thicket vegetation open and grassy, signs of transformation. 34 Plate 5-3: (A)Succulent species (Corpuscularia lehmanii and Harworthia fuscata) found on rocky outcrop in

the thicket vegetation (B) Rocky outcrop in thicket vegetation. 34 Plate 5-4: Photographs illustrating some species found in the thicket vegetation (A) Chrysanthemoides

monilifera (B) Aspalathus subtingens (C)Osyris compressa (D) Crassula multicava 35 Plate 5-5: Photographs illustrating a 360° view of the NMBM Glen Hurd riparian section where the new

bridge is proposed to occur. 36 Plate 5-6: Grassy fynbos vegetation with Acacia Saligna Trees in the Background 37 Plate 5-7: Species of conservation concern Protea nerifolia and Watsonia sp. was found to occur in the

grassy fynbos vegetation. 37 Plate 5-8: Showing Grassy Fynbos which was dominated by gasses in the western portion of the project

area. 38 Plate 5-9: Gomphocarpus physocarpus and Hypericum revolutum found occurring on the grassland area. 38 Plate 5-10: Alien invasive species found in the eastern portion (fynbos and grassland) of the project area.

Acacia saligna and Pinus spp. 41


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services NMBM Glen Hurd Ecological Study vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To be completed on submission of Final Basic Assessment Report.


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 1 NMBM Glen Hurd Ecological Study

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project description and locality The Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM) proposes to construct and upgrade Glen Hurd Road, situated directly north of the Baakens River in Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province. Glen Hurd Drive (also known locally as the third avenue dip) is located on the south-western side of Newton Park, approximately 6km west of the Port Elizabeth City Centre. Glen Hurd Drive links Newton Park and Mangold Park, via the Baakens River Valley. Glen Hurd Drive currently crosses over the Baakens River via a low level causeway. Due to the current design of the causeway, it becomes flooded during heavy rain storms that occur frequently within the area, resulting in road closure. The proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project will include a new high level bridge over the Baakens River and a proposed new Glen Hurd Road will link up to the new Centenary Road at the William Moffett Expressway. In order to achieve this, the new Glen Hurd Road will have to be re-routed north of the existing Glen Hurd Drive The road works for the new Glen Hurd Road entails the construction of a new roadway which will be 7.4m wide and 680m long with pedestrian/cycle pathway on one side. The new roadway connects on the east side to 3rd Avenue and on the west side to the future new Centenary Road at the existing William Moffett Bridge; a By-pass at 3rd Avenue to allow construction of the linking of the new Glen Hurd Road with 3rd Avenue; and a new bridge across the Baakens River, which will be 65m long with a deck 11.30m wide. The deck will include a 1.5m wide pathway along the southern side. Figure 1.1 below shows the locality map of the proposed NMBMM NMBM Glen Hurd project.



Figure 1-1: Locality map for the proposed Glen Hurd project



1.2. Objectives and Terms of Reference The following terms of reference were used for this assessment:

Describe the study area in terms of land cover, vegetation, likely fauna and habitat. Faunal considerations will include mammals, reptiles and amphibians and avifauna. This aspect of the report will specifically include the identification of - o Areas of high biodiversity; o The presence of species of conservation concern, including sensitive, endemic and

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

be avoided or minimised.

Review relevant legislation, policies, guidelines and standards.

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

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

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



2. APPROACH The study site and surrounding areas were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:

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

Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP)

Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP)

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Open Space System (NMB MOSS) Further to the above, one site visit was conducted (6th March 2015) in order to assess the actual ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visit served to inform potential impacts of the proposed project and how significantly it would impact on the surrounding ecological environment. This phase also considered what had been said in the previous study conducted by Weatherall-Thomas and Garner (2010).

2.1. Assessment

The aim of this assessment is to identify areas of ecological importance and to evaluate these in terms of their conservation importance. In order to do so, the ecological sensitivity of areas are assessed as well as the species of conservation concern that may occur in habitats occurring in the area. To a large extent, the condition and sensitivity of the vegetation will also determine the presence of animal species of conservation concern and areas with high faunal biodiversity. It is for this reason that the assessment focuses on the vegetation aspects of the site, and includes only a small section on the fauna recorded from, and expected to live on the site. The aim of this study is not to produce a complete list of all animal and plant species occurring in the region, but rather to examine a representative sample. It is however, important to note areas of high sensitivity as well as species of conservation concern have been identified as far as possible, either from records from the site or a review of their habitat requirements and whether or not these habitats occur in within the site. The aim of this study is to identify areas of high sensitivity and those that may be subject to significant impacts from the project. Aspects that would increase impact significance include:

Presence of plant species of conservation concern.

Presence of animal species of conservation concern.

Vegetation types (which also constitute faunal habitats) of conservation concern.

Areas of high biodiversity.

The presence of process areas: o Ecological corridors o Wetlands (including rivers) o Complex topographical features (especially steep and rocky slopes that provide niche

habitats for both plants and animals)

2.2. Species of conservation concern 2.2.1. Plant species of conservation concern Species that are afforded special protection, notably those that are protected by NEMA. Endangered and Protected Flora in the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO),



South African Red List of South African plants (SA Red Data List) and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) Protected tree list. 2.2.2. Faunal species of conservation concern Species of conservation concern (SCC) in terms of the project area are defined as:

Threatened species:

Species listed in the Endangered or Vulnerable categories in the revised South African Red Data Books (SA RDB – amphibians, du Preez and Carruthers, 2009; reptiles, Branch 1988; birds, SA Birding, 2008; terrestrial mammals, Apps, 2000); and/or

species included in other international lists (e.g., 2010 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals).

Definitions include: Critically Endangered (CR) - A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best

available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.

Endangered (EN) - A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.

Vulnerable (VU) - A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.

Near Threatened (NT) - A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

Sensitive species: Species not falling in the categories above but listed in:

Appendix 1 or 2 of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Endemic species.

Species endemic to the region.

2.3. Sample site selection

A sampling protocol was developed that would enable us to evaluate the existing interpretations of the vegetation of the study area, to improve on them if necessary, and to add detailed information on the plant communities present. The protocol took into account the amount of time available for the study, the accessibility of different parts of the area, and limitations such as the seasonality of the vegetation. A stratified random sampling approach was adopted, whereby initial assumptions were made about the diversity of vegetation, based on initial reconnaissance visits, previous studies or from aerial photographs and satellite imagery and the area stratified into these basic types. In this way the time available was used much more efficiently than in random sampling, but there is a risk of bias and the eventual results may simply ‗prove‘ the assumptions. Sample sites within selected areas were chosen at random to ensure adequate coverage of vegetation types or recognised zones within the blocks of the different vegetation types. In general, the stratification of the site was influenced by obvious features of the vegetation, such as the presence of conspicuous species or vegetation structure. These factors may be largely independent of the floristic make-up of the vegetation, and by definition the biological communities present. Sample plots were analysed by determining the dominant species in each plot, as well as any alien invasive species and potential species of conservation concern occurring within the plots.



Vegetation communities were then described according to the dominant species recorded from each type, and these mapped and assigned a sensitivity score.

2.4. Vegetation mapping

Vegetation is usually mapped from aerial photographs and/or satellite images, and related to data gathered on the ground.

2.5. Sensitivity assessment This section of the report explains the approach to determining the ecological sensitivity of the study area on a broad scale. The approach identifies zones of very high, high, moderate and low sensitivity according to a system developed by EOH CES and used in numerous proposed development studies. It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological (primarily vegetation) characteristics and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on 10 criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity, and have been used in past studies (e.g. CES 2002 – N2 Toll Road Study). The method predominantly involves identifying sensitive vegetation or habitat types, topography and land transformation (Table 2-1). The study area was zoned into areas which were homogenous in terms of vegetation types. Alternatively topography and drainage areas were used as boundaries for homogenous zones. Once the study area had been zoned, the sensitivity criteria described in Table 2-1 were applied to each zone and scored as HIGH (3), MODERATE (2) or LOW (1). A total score for each zone was then calculated and the overall ecological sensitivity was determined using the following percentage scale:

0 - 33.3% : LOW ecological sensitivity

33.4 – 64.9% : MODERATE ecological sensitivity

65 – 85% : HIGH ecological sensitivity

85.1 – 100%: VERY HIGH ecological sensitivity.

Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity. Table 2-1: Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area

CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY

1

MODERATE SENSITIVITY

5

HIGH SENSITIVITY 10

1 Topography Level, or even Undulating; fairly steep slopes

Complex and uneven with steep slopes

2 Vegetation - Extent or habitat type in the region

Extensive Restricted to a particular region/zone

Restricted to a specific locality / site

3 Conservation status of fauna/ flora or habitats

Well conserved independent of conservation value

Not well conserved, moderate conservation value

Not conserved - has a high conservation value

4 Species of conservation concern - Presence and number

None, although occasional regional endemics

No endangered or vulnerable species, some indeterminate or rare endemics

One or more endangered and vulnerable species, or more than 2 endemics or rare species

5 Habitat fragmentation leading to loss of viable populations

Extensive areas of preferred habitat present elsewhere in region not susceptible to fragmentation

Reasonably extensive areas of preferred habitat elsewhere and habitat susceptible to fragmentation

Limited areas of this habitat, susceptible to fragmentation



CRITERIA LOW SENSITIVITY

1

MODERATE SENSITIVITY

5

HIGH SENSITIVITY 10

6 Biodiversity contribution

Low diversity, or species richness

Moderatnmne diversity, and moderately high species richness

High species diversity, complex plant and animal communities

7 Visibility of the site or landscape from other vantage points

Site is hidden or barely visible from any vantage points with the exception in some cases from the sea.

Site is visible from some or a few vantage points but is not obtrusive or very conspicuous.

Site is visible from many or all angles or vantage points.

8 Erosion potential or instability of the region

Very stable and an area not subjected to erosion.

Some possibility of erosion or change due to episodic events.

Large possibility of erosion, change to the site or destruction due to climatic or other factors.

9 Rehabilitation potential of the area or region

Site is easily rehabilitated.

There is some degree of difficulty in rehabilitation of the site.

Site is difficult to rehabilitate due to the terrain, type of habitat or species required to reintroduce.

10 Disturbance due to human habitation or other influences (Alien invasives)

Site is very disturbed or degraded.

There is some degree of disturbance of the site.

The site is hardly or very slightly impacted upon by human disturbance.

A Geographical Information System (GIS) map was drawn up and with the aid of a satellite image the sensitive regions and vegetation types could be plotted. The description of the relevés helped to map the vegetation, and these descriptions as well as sensitivity ratings were illustrated on the resultant maps.

2.6. Impact assessment 2.6.1. Impact rating methodology To ensure a direct comparison between various specialist studies, a standard rating scale has been defined and will be used to assess and quantify the identified impacts. This is necessary since impacts have a number of parameters that need to be assessed. Five factors need to be considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely:

Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact.

Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact.

The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party.

The severity of impacts can be evaluated with and without mitigation in order to demonstrate how serious the impact is when nothing is done about it. The word ‗mitigation‘ means not just ‗compensation‘, but also the ideas of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization means anything that can enhance the benefits. However, mitigation or optimization must be practical, technically feasible and economically viable.

The likelihood of the impact occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts would



occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance.

Each criterion is ranked with scores assigned as presented in Table 2-2 to determine the overall significance of an activity. The criterion is then considered in two categories, viz. effect of the activity and the likelihood of the impact. The total scores recorded for the effect and likelihood are then read off the matrix presented in Table 2-3, to determine the overall significance of the impact. The overall significance is either negative or positive. The significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact. This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts affect the significance ranking of an impact because it considers the impact in terms of both on-site and off-site sources. For example, pollution making its way into a river from a development may be within acceptable national standards. Activities in the surrounding area may also create pollution which does not exceed these standards. However, if both on-site and off-site activities take place simultaneously, the total pollution level at may exceed the standards. For this reason it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature. Seasonality Although seasonality is not considered in the ranking of the significance, if may influence the evaluation during various times of year. As seasonality will only influence certain impacts, it will only be considered for these, with management measures being imposed accordingly (i.e. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).



Table 2-2 Ranking of Evaluation Criteria

* In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know

Temporal scale

Short term Less than 5 years

Medium term Between 5 and 20 years

Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human

perspective almost permanent.

Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that

will always be there

Spatial Scale

Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent

Study area The proposed site and its immediate environs

Regional District and provincial level

National Country

International Internationally

Severity Benefit

Slight / Slightly

Beneficial

Slight impacts on the affected

system(s) or party(ies)

Slightly beneficial to the affected


Moderate /

Moderately

Beneficial

Moderate impacts on the

affected system(s) or party(ies)

An impact of real benefit to the


Severe / Beneficial Severe impacts on the affected


A substantial benefit to the


Very Severe / Very

Beneficial

Very severe change to the


A very substantial benefit to the


Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur



Table 2-3 Ranking matrix to provide an Environmental Significance

Environmental Significance Positive Negative

LOW An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent development. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment.

MODERATE An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which, in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in either positive or negative medium to long term effect on the social and/or natural environment.

HIGH A serious impact which, if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project. These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually long term change to the natural and/or social environment and result in severe negative or beneficial effects.

VERY HIGH A very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project. The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.

2.6.2. Example of an environmental significance statement Impact 1: Impact of noise on human health Cause and Comment The noise associated with Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) has the potential to impact on human health. A recommendation for the movement of large vehicles at night may impact on the sleep patterns of local communities. Mitigation and Management There are standard mitigation measures to ensure that vehicle noise is kept within acceptable limits. Vehicles should be kept in good repair; they should use standard exhaust and silencing equipment. Drivers should stick to designated speed limits. Roads should be kept in good condition.



Significance Statement

RA

TIN

G

Temporal Scale Spatial Scale Severity of

Impact

Risk or

Likelihood Total

Without

Mitigation Short term Localised Moderate Definite

With

Mitigation Short term Localised Slight Unlikely

Overall Significance without mitigation MODERATE

Overall Significance with mitigation LOW

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

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

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



3. RELEVANT LEGISLATION Environmental legislation relevant to the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge (from now referred as Glen Hurd) is summarised below. Biodiversity Plans and Programmes are discussed in Chapter 3 where they are used to describe the desktop ecological conditions.

3.1. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) Relevant Sections of the Act: Section 2, 23, 24, 24-1, 28 -33 Applications for the NMBM Glen Hurd project:

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

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

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

Implications for the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project:

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

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

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

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

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

binding on the Republic.

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

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

Threatened or protected ecosystems and species Sections 50-62 provide details relating to the protection of threatened or protected ecosystems and species. A person may not carry out a restricted activity involving a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species without a permit (Section 56-1). (Refer to EC Environmental Conservation Bill for lists of endangered and protected faunal and floral species).



Alien and invasive species Sections 63-77 provide details relating to the alien and invasive species with the purpose of preventing the introduction and spread, managing and controlling, and eradicating alien and invasive species. 3.2.1. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) 2004 (Act NO, 10 of

2004) Category 1b weeds are: 1) Are those species listed as such by notice in terms of section 70(1)(a) of the Act as species

which must be contained.

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

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

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

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

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

Category 2 weeds are: 1) Category 2 Listed Invasive Species are those species listed by notice in terms of section 70(1)

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

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

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

4) Unless otherwise specified in the List, any species listed as a Category 2 Listed Invasive Species that occurs outside the specified area contemplated in subregulation (1), must, for purposes of these Regulations, be considered to be a Category 1 b Listed Invasive Species and must be managed according to regulation 3.

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

Implications for the NMBM Glen Hurd project:

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



3.3. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA).

The control of alien invasive plant species is also controlled by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) (CARA). Regulations 15 and 16 under this Act, which concern problem plants, were amended during March 2001. The purpose of this Act is to provide for control over the utilization of the natural agricultural resources in order to promote the conservation of the soil, the water sources and the vegetation and the combating of weeds and invader plants. This is achieved by

Production potential of land is maintained,

Preventing and combating erosion,

Preventing and combating weakening or destruction of the water sources, and

Protecting vegetation and combating of weeds and invader plants. The Act provides a list of declared weeds and invader plants as well as indicators of bush encroachment. In terms of weeds and invader plants:

A land user shall control any category 1 plants that occur on any land or inland water surface.

No person shall, except in or for purposes of a biological control reserve – o Establish, plant, maintain, multiply or propagate weeds and invader plants; o Import or sell propagating material of category weeds and invader plants; and o Acquire propagating material of weeds and invader plants

Combating of category 2 plants (Section 15B) according to CARA (Act No 43 of 1983)

1) Category 2 plants may not occur on any land or inland water surface other than a

demarcated area or a biological control reserve.

a. The executive officer may on application in writing demarcate an area as an area

where category 2 plants may occur, be established and be maintained.

b. An area in respect of which a water use license for stream flow reduction activities

has been issued in terms of section 36 of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36

of 1998) shall be deemed to be a demarcated area.

2) The executive officer shall demarcate an area for the occurrence, establishment and

maintenance of category 2 plants only if –

a. the category 2 plants in the area are cultivated under controlled circumstances; and

b. the land user concerned has been authorised to use water in terms of the National

Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998); and

c. the category 2 plants or products of category 2 plants in the area are demonstrated

to primarily serve a commercial purpose, use as a woodlot, shelter belt, building

material, animal fodder, soil stabilisation, medicinal or other beneficial function that

the executive officer may approve; and

d. all reasonable steps are taken to curtail the spreading of propagating material of the

category 2 plants outside the demarcated areas.



3) When an area is demarcated for the occurrence, establishment and maintenance of

category 2 plants the executive officer may impose such additional conditions as may

reasonably be deemed necessary to keep the category 2 plants in the area in check.

4) No person shall sell propagating material of category 2 plants or any category 2 plants to

another person unless such other person is a land user of a demarcated area or of a

biological control reserve.

5) No person shall acquire propagating material of category 2 plants or any category 2 plants

unless such material or such plants are intended for use in a demarcated area or in a

biological control reserve.

6) Propagating material of category 2 plants or category 2 plants shall only be imported or

sold in accordance with the provisions of the Plant Improvement Act, 1976 (Act No. 53 of

1976), the Agricultural Pests Act, 1983 (Act No. 36 of 1983) and the environment

conservation regulations.

7) A land user shall control any category 2 plants that occur on any land or inland water

surface in contravention of the provisions of sub-regulation (1) by means of the methods

prescribed in regulation 15E.

8) Unless authorised thereto in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), no

land user shall allow category 2 plants to occur within 30 meters of the 1:50 year flood line

of a river, stream, spring, natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently,

lake, dam or wetland.

9) The executive officer may, on good cause shown in writing by the land user, grant written

exemption from compliance with one or more of the requirements of sub-regulations (1),

(3), (5), (6), (8) and (9) on such conditions as the executive officer may determine in each

case.

Implications for the NMBM Glen Hurd project:

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

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

The presence and concentration of particular substances in the water;

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

The characteristics and distribution of aquatic biota; and



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for the NMBM Glen Hurd:

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

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

The Baakens River occurs within the project area, thus a Water Use Licence will be required.

3.5. National Forest Act (No.84 of 1998) Any area that has vegetation which is characterised by a closed and contiguous canopy and under storey plant establishment is defined as a ‗forest‘ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF): Forestry sector. A clause in Chapter 3, Part 1 covers:



Prohibition on destruction of trees in natural forests. Section 7 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any indigenous living tree in, or remove or receive any such tree from, a natural forest except in terms of (a) A licence issued under subsection (4) or section 23. Prohibition on destruction of protected trees Section 15 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate, or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any product derived from a protected tree except under a licence or exemption granted by Minister to an applicant and subject to such period and conditions as may be stipulated. Effect of setting aside protected areas Section 10 (1) No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any forest produce in, or remove or receive any forest produce from, a protected area, except—

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

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

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

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


No natural forest was found to occur within the proposed project area or near the area.

One Protected tree species (Sidoroxylen inerme) was found to occur on the project area. A licence is required for the removal of protected trees should this be required.

3.6. Species of Conservation Concern 3.6.1. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), (NEMBA) aims to establish national norms and standards for the management of biodiversity across all sectors and by different management authorities. Chapter 4, Part 2 of the Biodiversity Act provides for listing of species as threatened or protected. If a species is listed as threatened, it must be further classified as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. The Act defines these classes as follows: Table 3-1: NEMBA classes and explanations

Critically endangered species Any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future.

Endangered species Any indigenous species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, although it is not a critically endangered species.

Vulnerable species Any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future; although it is not a critically endangered species or an endangered species.

Protected species

Any species which is of such high conservation value or national importance that it requires national protection‖. Species listed in this category will include, among others, species listed in terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild



Fauna and Flora (CITES).

3.6.2. Endangered and Protected Flora in the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation

Ordinance (PNCO): The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) protects the endangered and protected flora outside of protected areas. Species classified as Schedule 3 are endangered species. Species classified as schedule 4 are protected species. A permit is required for the removal or destruction of species on the PNCO list. 3.6.3. 1976 List of Protected Trees (Government Gazette No. 9542 Schedule A) in the 1998

National Forest Act (NFA): No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree or possess, collect, remove, transport, export, purchase, sell, donate or in any other manner acquire or dispose of any protected tree or any forest product derived from a protected tree, unless a permit has been acquired. 3.6.4. South African Red Data List The South African Red List of South African plants uses the internationally recognised IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria to measure a species risk of extinction. Since the Red List of South African plants is used widely for conservation practices throughout South Africa, this list has been modified to identify species that are at low risk of extinction but of high conservation importance. Table 3-2: South African Red Data List Categories (SANBI, 2013)

EXTINCT (EX)

A species is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. Species should be classified as Extinct only once exhaustive surveys throughout the species' known range have failed to record an individual.

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) A species is Extinct in the Wild when it is known to survive only in cultivation or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range.

REGIONALLY EXTINCT (RE) A species is Regionally Extinct when it is extinct within the region assessed (in this case South Africa), but wild populations can still be found in areas outside the region.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED, POSSIBLY EXTINCT (CR PE)

Possibly Extinct is a special tag associated with the category Critically Endangered, indicating species that are highly likely to be extinct, but the exhaustive surveys required for classifying the species as Extinct has not yet been completed. A small chance remains that such species may still be rediscovered.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)

A species is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Critically Endangered, indicating that the species is facing an extremely high risk of extinction.

ENDANGERED (EN)

A species is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Endangered, indicating that the species is facing a very high risk of extinction.

VULNERABLE (VU)

A species is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets at least one of the five IUCN criteria for Vulnerable, indicating that the species is facing a high risk of extinction.

NEAR THREATENED (NT)

A species is Near Threatened when available evidence indicates that it nearly meets any of the IUCN criteria for Vulnerable, and is therefore likely to become at risk of extinction in the near future.



CRITICALLY RARE

A species is Critically Rare when it is known to occur at a single site, but is not exposed to any direct or plausible potential threat and does not otherwise qualify for a category of threat according to one of the five IUCN criteria.

RARE

A species is Rare when it meets at least one of four South African criteria for rarity, but is not exposed to any direct or plausible potential threat and does not qualify for a category of threat according to one of the five IUCN criteria.

RARE DECLINING

A species is Declining when it does not meet or nearly meet any of the five IUCN criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened, but there are threatening processes causing a continuing decline of the species.

LEAST CONCERN

A species is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the IUCN criteria and does not qualify for any of the above categories. Species classified as Least Concern are considered at low risk of extinction. Widespread and abundant species are typically classified in this category.

DATA DEFICIENT – INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION (DDD)

A species is DDD when there is inadequate information to make an assessment of its risk of extinction, but the species is well defined. Listing of species in this category indicates that more information is required and that future research could show that a threatened classification is appropriate.

DATA DEFICIENT – TAXONOMICALLY PROBLEMATIC (DDT)

A species is DDT when taxonomic problems hinder the distribution range and habitat from being well defined, so that an assessment of risk of extinction is not possible.

NOT EVALUATED (NE)

A species is Not Evaluated when it has not been evaluated against the criteria. The national Red List of South African plants is a comprehensive assessment of all South African indigenous plants, and therefore all species are assessed and given a national Red List status. However, some species included in Plants of southern Africa: an online checklist, are species that do not qualify for national listing because they are naturalized exotics, hybrids (natural or cultivated), or synonyms. These species are given the status Not Evaluated and the reasons why they have not been assessed are included in the assessment justification.

3.6.5. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) The IUCN is recognized globally as one of the most comprehensive and objective approaches for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species. The IUCN aims to provide information and analyses on the status, trends and threats to species in order to inform and take action for the conservation of biodiversity. Below is a diagram of IUCN categories ranked according to status. Table 1-1 provides an explanation of each category.



Table 3-3: IUCN Red Data List Categories

EXTINCT (EX) A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)

A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild if exhaustive surveys in its known habitat in its historical range have failed to record an individual.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)

A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future. .

ENDANGERED (EN) A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future.

VULNERABLE (VU) A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future.

NEAR THREATENED (NT)

A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

DATA DEFICIENT (DD) A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make an assessment based on its distribution and population status.

NOT EVALUATED (NE) A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been assessed against the criteria

LEAST CONCERN (LC) A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against



the criteria and does not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.


Relevant permits/licences will have to be obtained prior to the removal of the Species of Conservation concern.



4. DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1. Geology and Landform The Eastern Cape Province contains a wide variety of landscapes, from the stark Karoo (the semi-desert region of the central interior) to mountain ranges and gentle hills rolling down to the sea. The climate and topography gives rise to the great diversity of vegetation types and habitats found in the region. The underlying geology of this project area is the Peninsula Sandstone Formation of the Table Mountain Group (a member of the Cape Super Group). This formation consists of coarse-grained super-mature sandstone and is relatively resistant to erosion. It forms the bedrock of Algoa Bay and emerges as outcrops in the bay as the islands of St Croix, Jahleel, Bird and Brenton, and on land as Coega Kop. The two vegetation types which occur on the project area are Groot Thicket and Algoa Sandstone Fynbos. The Groot thicket vegetation occurs on relatively shallow, red clayey and generally rocky soils whilst the Algoa Sandstone Fynbos occurs on acidic lithosol soils (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

4.2. Topography The project site is characterised by flat to undulating hills. The elevation ranged between 55 and 95 meters above sea level (asl). Plate 4-1 illustrates the general topography of the project site. The project area is transected by the Baakens River which flows in an easterly direction. It is upon this rive that a high level bridge is proposed.

Plate 4-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area

4.3. Climate The Eastern Cape Province of South Africa has a complex climate due to its location at the confluence of two climatic regimes, namely temperate and subtropical. As a result there are wide



variations in temperature, rainfall and wind patterns, mainly as a result of movements of air masses, altitude, mountain orientation and the proximity of the Indian Ocean. The climate description is based on historical data that has been recorded at the Port Elizabeth weather station; this data shows that temperature in the project area is generally between 8°C and 25˚C and temperatures below 4°C and above 28˚C rarely occur

(https://weatherspark.com/averages). The area is characterised by non-seasonal rainfall with a peak in precipitation between March and October (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Mean annual rainfall for the area is approximately 680 mm and frost events occur about 3 days a year (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

4.4. Current Land-use The project area is currently open to the public, it has hiking trails and walking paths and is used for recreational purposes.

4.5. Vegetation of the study area (Desktop investigation) Published literature on the ecology of the area was referenced in order to describe the study site in the context of the region and the Eastern Cape Province. The following spatial planning tools were used:

SANBI vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford)

SANBI Working for Wetlands

ECBCP

NMBM

STEP 4.5.1. SANBI Vegetation Map Mucina and Rutherford (2006) developed the National Vegetation map as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project: ―It was compiled in order to provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.‖ The map was developed using a wealth of data from several contributors and has allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. The SANBI Vegetation map informs finer scale bioregional plans such as STEP. This SANBI Vegmap project had two main aims:

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

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

The map and accompanying book describes each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important. This is the most comprehensive data for vegetation types in South Africa. Two vegetation types have been identified in the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project area (Figure 4-3), namely:



4.5.1.1. Groot Thicket This vegetation type occurs in the Eastern Cape Province and is associated with moderate to steep lower slopes and ridges from Willowmore/Perdepoort in the west to the Klein Winterhoek/Zuurberg Mountains. Under favourable conditions, spekbook (Portulacaria afra) is abundant amongst sometimes dense stands of low woody shrubs. This vegetation type is classified as Least Threatened with a conservation target of 19%. Approximately 11% is currently statutorily conserved. According to the National vegetation map, this vegetation type comprises the majority of the project area and will be impacted by the project infrastructure (Figure 4-1)

4.5.1.2. Algoa Sandstone Fynbos This vegetation type occurs in the Eastern Cape Province along the coastal flats in Port Elizabeth from Van Stadens River to Southdene-Summerstrand and is associated with flat to gentle rolling plains. It is characterised by grassy shrubland vegetation and forms transitional mosaics with neighbouring vegetation types in the south. Grasses become dominant in wet habitats and species endemic to this vegetation include Agathosma gonaquensis, Cyclopia pubescens, Erica etheliae and Holothrix longicornu. It is classified as Endangered with only 2% conserved in the Van Stadens Wild flower reserve. This vegetation type occurs to the east and west of the proposed development and only small sections are likely to be affected by project infrastructure. 4.5.2. Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP)

The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project aims to identify priority areas that would ensure the long-term conservation of the subtropical thicket biome and to ensure that the conservation of this biome is considered in the policies and practices of the private and public sector that are responsible for land-use planning and the management of natural resources in the region (Pierce et al. 2005). STEP looked specifically at the thicket biome and has provided a finer scale map of the project area than the Mucina and Rutherford map explaining why the two vegetation maps look slightly different. STEP (Figure 4-4) identifies 2 vegetation types to occur in the project area. Pierce and Mader (2006) define the following vegetation types from which source these descriptions are derived:

4.5.2.1. Algoa Grassy Fynbos This vegetation type is characterised by grassy vegetation which occurs on deep sand and stony soils. Leucadendron salignum is a common species in this vegetation type, whilst Protea species such as Protea nerifolia and Protea repens rarely occur in this vegetation. This vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable. This vegetation type occurs to the east and west of the proposed development and only small sections are likely to be affected by project infrastructure.



Figure 4-1: SANBI Vegetation map of the proposed project area.



4.5.2.2. Bethelsdorp Bontveld

This vegetation type has a rich species diversity, many of which are rare. It is characterised by a mosaic of thicket clumps interspersed with a mixture of the renosterveld, grassland and fynbos species, dominated by species such as Themeda triandra (rooigras) and Aloe forex (bitter aloe). Succulent species such as Haworthia fascuta are characteristic of this vegetation. This vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable. According to STEP, Vulnerable ecosystems are those where further disturbance or destruction could harm their health and functioning. From a Spatial planning (forward planning – Spatial Development Frameworks (SDF)) point of view, for Vulnerable vegetation, STEP presents three restrictions and gives examples of opportunities. The three spatial planning restrictions are as follows:

1. In general, Class III (Vulnerable vegetation types) can withstand only limited loss of natural area or limited disturbance through human activities and developments.

2. Proposed disturbance or developments should preferably take place on sites which have undergone disturbance or impacts rather than on sites that are undisturbed.

3. In general, Class IV land should be developed in preference to Class III land. Class IV areas are those that are classified as Currently Not Vulnerable.

Depending on constraints (such as avoidance of spoiling scenery or wilderness, or infra-structure limitations), Class III land can withstand a limited loss of, or disturbance to, natural areas. Within the constraints, this class may be suitable for a moderate range of activities that are either compatible with the natural environment (e.g. sustainable stock-farming, ecotourism, game farming and wilderness) or of limited extent (e.g. small-scale housing or urban development, small-scale cultivation). It should be noted that even though the area is considered to be Vulnerable in its entirety by STEP, the site has been completely isolated by various forms of development (i.e. William Moffett Expressway to the west, Glen Hurd Road to the East and residential developments to the north and south). Thus the area is isolated due to fragmentation and limited opportunities for connectivity exist. In addition to this, the area has been heavily impacted on by anthopogenic activities, such as clearing, the creation of footpaths and dumping which has resulted in the degradation of both these vegetation types. Lastly disturbance within the area has resulted in an increase in alien invasive species to the extent that 40% of the area is dominated by various alien species such as Acacia species, Pinus sp and Lantana Camara. As a result the conservation value of this section of the Baakens River Valley is questionable and thus the construction of the road fall in line with restriction 2 listed above. 4.5.3. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan The ECBCP is a first attempt at detailed, low-level conservation mapping for land-use planning purposes. Specifically, the aims of the Plan were to map critical biodiversity areas through a systematic conservation planning process. The current biodiversity plan includes the mapping of priority aquatic features, land-use pressures, critical biodiversity areas and develops guidelines for land and resource-use planning and decision-making. The main outputs of the ECBCP are ―critical biodiversity areas‖ or CBAs, which are allocated the following management categories:

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



According to the ECBCP spatial planning tool the eastern and western sections of the project area occurs in an area categorised as a CBA 2 area (Figure 4-3) and that the spatial planning tool CBA 2 areas should be managed to maintain the environment in a near-natural state. However, it must be noted that the ECBCP maps CBAs based on extensive biological data and input from key stakeholders. The ECBCP, although mapped at a finer scale than the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al., 2005) is still, for the large part, inaccurate and ―course‖. Therefore it is imperative that the status of the environment, for any proposed development MUST first be verified before the management recommendations associated with the ECBCP are considered (Berliner and Desmet, 2007). It is also important to note that in absence of any other biodiversity plan, the ECBCP has been adopted by the Provincial Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs as a strategic biodiversity plan for the Eastern Cape. The site survey found the areas delineated as CBA2 areas were either developed or severely degraded and are therefore of very little conservation value.



Figure 4-2: STEP vegetation and ecosystem status map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and road upgrade



4.5.4. The NMB MOSS The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality have implemented a systematic conservation assessment and plan to conserve a representative proportion of all biodiversity in the Municipality. To achieve this goal, a suite of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Critical Ecosystem Support Areas (CESAs) were identified. These areas, if safe guarded, will facilitate the long-term persistence of a representative portion of all biodiversity patterns, ecological processes and species of conservation concern (NMBM, 2009). Two vegetation units are found in this area, namely, the Baakens Forest Thicket and Baakens Grassy Fynbos. In general, about 31.4 % and 87.4 % of the vegetation has been lost respectively due to various land use changes. Both vegetation types are classified as Critically Endangered (Figure 4-4) and consequently the majority of the project area is classified as a Critical Ecological Processes area (Figure 4-5). The NMB MOSS recommends the following for developments within CBAs

―Developments should be limited to existing developed/degraded footprints, if present‖

―The installation of infrastructure in CBAs is not desirable and should only be considered if all alternative alignment and design options have been assessed and found to be non-viable. Under such conditions, a Basic Assessment should be undertaken, and if approved a comprehensive EMP must be developed and best-practice restoration efforts strictly implemented‖

Thus if the Basic Assessment gets approved an EMP will have to be developed and restoration strategies implemented. According to the NMB MOSS spatial planning tools (Figures 4-4) the project area falls within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). NMB MOSS defines a CBA area as areas which are ―Critically endangered habitats, ecological process areas, ecological corridors, habitats for species of conservation concern and some threatened ecosystems‖. It is suggested that such areas should form part of the protected area system (NMBM, 2009) and that developments/activities that will result in further loss of these vegetation types is restricted. However, it is important to consider the footprint of the proposed development and status of the vegetation on site. The vegetation was typically disturbed and infested with alien species and therefore of a low to moderate sensitivity throughout the majority of the area. In addition, it is an isolated area as a result of fragmentation and consequently its value as an ecological process area is reduced. Lastly, it should be noted that the decommissioning of the low level causeway will result in restoring the flow within the system to some degree, as the bridge design will accommodate the 1:100 year floodline.



Figure 4-3: ECBCP showing the CBA 2 area (T2) and Ecological Corridor (Corridor 2) area.



Figure 4-4: NMB MOSS vegetation and status map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and road upgrade.



Figure 4-5: NMB MOSS Critical Biodiversity Area map, with a 50 m buffer around the proposed bridge and road upgrade.



5. SITE SURVEY: DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION/LAND COVER

5.1. Description of Vegetation Three vegetation types were found to occur in the project area (Figure 5-1):

Groot Thicket

Grassy Fynbos

Riparian vegetation 5.1.1. Groot Thicket Groot thicket was found to occur on the slopes of the valley and ran parallel to the stream in the valley floor (Figure 5-1). This vegetation type was infested in areas by alien invasive species such as Lantana camara, Acacia mearnsii and Acacia saligana. Dominant species in this vegetation included Rhus lucida, Chrysanthemoides monilifera, Passerina ridgida. Succulent species such as Harworthia fuscata and Corpuscularia lehmanii (Plate 5-1) were found to occur on the rocky outcrops. Sidoroxylen inerme (a protected tree species) was found to occur in this vegetation type. A licence will be acquired from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) should this species need to be trimmed or removed.

Plate 5-1: Thicket vegetation found to occur in the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project.



Plate 5-2: (A) illustrating the disturbance in the thicket vegetation due to walking trails that were created. (B) Thicket vegetation open and grassy, signs of transformation.

Plate 5-3: (A)Succulent species (Corpuscularia lehmanii and Harworthia fuscata) found on rocky outcrop in the thicket vegetation (B) Rocky outcrop in thicket vegetation.



Plate 5-4: Photographs illustrating some species found in the thicket vegetation (A) Chrysanthemoides monilifera (B) Aspalathus subtingens (C)Osyris compressa (D) Crassula multicava 5.1.2. Riparian vegetation This vegetation was found to occur along the Braakens River. It is over this river that the proposed new bridge will be constructed. The Riparian vegetation was typically degraded and infested with species such as Sesbania punicea, Lantana camara and Acacia saligna. Grass species included Typha capensis, Phragmentis australis and Cyperus sp. Plate 5-5 illustrates the 360˚ of this

vegetation. Despite this infestation, the riparian vegetation still performs important ecological processes such as acting like a natural corridor that allows for the movement of species.



33º57‘27.6‖S, 25º33‘37.3‖E

Plate 5-5: Photographs illustrating a 360° view of the NMBM Glen Hurd riparian section where the new bridge is proposed to occur. 5.1.3. Grassy Fynbos/Grassland Mosaic This vegetation type occurred to the west of the valley on the upper slopes. Large areas were degraded due to anthropogenic disturbances such as clearing, dumping and the creation of footpaths. This vegetation type was also infested with alien species such as Acacia saligna (Plate 5-6). Despite this there were a few small patches of grassy fynbos that were in better condition and species of conservation concern such as Protea nerifolia and Watsonia sp were noted to occur here (Plate 5-7). Dominant species in this vegetation type include Passerina rigida and Rhus lucida. The vegetation in the western portion of the project area near the existing William Moffett bridge is degraded and tends to be more of a grassland vegetation type than fynbos (Plate 5-8). The vegetation in this area was dominated by tall grasses which included Chloris gajava, Eragrostis obtuse and Cynodon dactylon. Alien invasive species Verbenia bonerensis was also common in this vegetation.



Plate 5-6: Grassy fynbos vegetation with Acacia Saligna Trees in the Background

Plate 5-7: Species of conservation concern Protea nerifolia and Watsonia sp. was found to occur in the grassy fynbos vegetation.



Plate 5-8: Showing Grassy Fynbos which was dominated by gasses in the western portion of the project area.

Plate 5-9: Gomphocarpus physocarpus and Hypericum revolutum found occurring on the grassland area.



Figure 5-1: Vegetation map of the project area



5.2. Species of Conservation Concern The species list from the site survey was assessed against the South African Red Data List, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) list of protected species, DAFF‘s list of protected tree species and the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) list of species.

Ten Species were listed on the PNCO, only one protected tree species (Sideroxylon inerme) was found to occur in the project area and no species were listed on NEMBA (Appendix A). Table 5-1 Species of conservation concern found to occur in the project area according to PNCO, IUCN, SANBI and DAFF’s tree list

Family Scientific Name IUCN SA red data list PNCO

Protected Trees

AIZOACEAE Corpuscularia lehmannii -

Critically endangered -

-

ASPHODELACEAE Haworthia fasciata - Near Threatened

- -

SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme - Least Concern - Protected

Tree

APOCYNACEAE Carissa Bispinosa - Least Concern

Schedule 4 -

APOCYNACEAE Gomphocarpus physocarpus -

Least concern Schedule 4

-

THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea aurea - Vulnerable Schedule 4 -

PROTEACEAE Leucospermum truncatulum -

Near Threatened Schedule 4

-

PROTEACEAE Protea nerifolia - - Schedule 4 -

APOCYNACEAE Sarcostemma viminale - Least Concern Schedule 4

-

AMARYLLIDACEAE Scadoxus puniceus - Least Concern Schedule 4 -

IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis antholyza -

Least Concern Schedule 4

-

IRIDACEAE Watsonia pillansii - Least Concern Schedule 4 -

IRIDACEAE Watsonia sp. - - Schedule 4 -

5.3. Alien Species Alien invasive species were found to occur throughout the site and covered more than 40% of the study area. Their category and management recommendations, according to the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (Published 1 August 2014) are listed in Table 5-2. Table 5-2: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to NEM:BA

Species Category Comment

Acacia mearnsii

2 These species should be removed from the area.

Acacia cyclops 1b

These species should be removed from the area.

Measures should be put in place to control these species

An Alien Invasive Species Management Programme should be developed to control the listed 1b species.

Acacia saligna 1b

Anredera cordifolia 1b

Arundo donax 1b

Cortaderia selloana 1b

Datura stramonium 1b



Lantana Camara 1b

Opuntia ficus-indica 1b

Spartium junceum 1b

Verbena bonariensis 1b

Table 5-3: Alien invasive species found in the project area according to CARA

Species Category Comment

Acacia cyclops 2 Plants listed as Category 2 may be grown under conditioned zones. It is recommended that these species are removed from the site.

Acacia mearnsii 2

Acacia saligna 2

Cortaderia selloana 1 Plants listed as Category one must be removed and destroyed from the site.

Lantana Camara 1

Datura stramonium 1

Arundo donax 1

Plate 5-10: Alien invasive species found in the eastern portion (fynbos and grassland) of the project area. Acacia saligna and Pinus spp.

Plate 5-11: Alien invasive species found near the Baakens river.



5.4. Faunal species and habitats 5.4.1. Amphibians and Reptiles Amphibians and reptiles are well represented in sub-Saharan Africa. However, distribution patterns in southern Africa are uneven both in terms of species distribution and in population numbers (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Climate, centres of origin and range restrictions are the three main factors that determine species distribution. The eastern coast of South Africa has the highest amphibian diversity and endemicity while reptile diversity is generally highest in the north eastern extremes of South Africa and declines to the south and west (Alexander and Marais, 2010).

5.4.1.1. Reptiles South Africa has 350 species of reptiles, comprising 213 lizards, 9 worm lizards, 105 snakes, 13 terrestrial tortoises, 5 freshwater terrapins, 2 breeding species of sea turtle and 1 crocodile (Branch, 1998). Of those 350 reptile species, the Eastern Cape is home to 133 which include 21 snakes, 27 lizards and eight chelonians (tortoises and turtles). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats. Consultation of the Animal Demography Unit historical records indicates that 52 species of reptiles are likely to occur in the project site. 28 species of snake, 7 species of lizard, 7 species of skink, 3 species of tortoise, 3 species of Gecko, 2 species of monitor lizard, and one species of chameleon and terrapin are likely to occur in the project site. None are listed as species of conservation concern on the IUCN Red Data List nor as a schedule 1 species on the PNCO list. However, all lizards and tortoises are listed as a schedule 2 species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal.

5.4.1.2. Amphibians Amphibians are important in wetland systems, particularly where fish are excluded or of minor importance. In these habitats frogs are dominant predators of invertebrates. Frog abundance and diversity is a poignant reflection of the general health and well-being of aquatic ecosystems. According to historical records, 14 species of frog are likely to occur in the project area. Of these 14 species, none are listed as threatened species on the IUCN Red Data List nor as a schedule 1 on the PNCO list. However, all frogs and toads are listed as schedule 2 species on the PNCO and are thus considered species of conservation concern. Permits will be required for their removal. 5.4.2. Birds Nine bird species are endemic to South Africa, but there are no Eastern Cape endemics. However, there are 62 threatened species within the Eastern Cape Province (Barnes, 2000). Most of these species occur in grasslands or are associated with wetlands, indicating a need to conserve what is left of these ecosystems (Barnes, 2000). According to SABAP2 for the QDS 3325DC, 356 bird species are expected to be found in the site area. Species of Conservation Concern which have distribution ranges including the study area are listed in Table 5-1. Table 5-4: Bird Species of Conservation Concern that are likely to occur in the project area (ADU/BirdLife SA, 2014)

Family Scientific

Name Common name

Red List status

CITES NEMBA PNCO

GRUIDAE Anthropoides paradiseus

Blue Crane Vulnerable Appendix

II Critically

endangered Schedule

2

ACCIPIT RIDAE

Circus maurus Black Harrier Vulnerable - - Schedule

2

CORACIIDAE Coracias garrulus

European Roller Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

ANATIDAE Oxyura maccoa

Maccoa Duck Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

PICIDAE Campethera Knysna Near - - Schedule



notata Woodpecker Threatened 2

TIMALIIDAE

Lioptilus nigricapillus

Bush Blackcap Near

Threatened - -

Schedule 2

The Blue Crane (Anthropoides paradiseus), which is a critically endangered species according to NEMBA has a distribution range which includes the project area. However, it is highly unlikely that the species will occur on site as the habitat is unsuitable. The Black Harrier (Circus maurus) is likely to occur occasionally as the project area contains suitable hunting habitats for the species. Although European Rollers are summer migrants they are unlikely to occur at the project site as they prefer less disturbed habitats away from built up areas. There is suitable habitat for Maccoa Duck, Knysna Woodpecker and Bush Blackcap at the project site. However, it is unlikely that any of the species would frequent the area due to the disturbances of the roads and houses surrounding the study site. 5.4.3. Mammals Large game makes up less than 15% of the mammal species in South Africa and a much smaller percentage in numbers and biomass. In developed and farming areas, this percentage is greatly reduced, with the vast majority of mammals present being small or medium-sized. The study site is located within a built up urban area which further reduces the likelihood of medium and large mammals occurring on site. However, the variation in vegetation and habitat types would provide suitable conditions for many small mammals such as bats, rodents, monkeys and small predatory mammals. According to NEMBA, two protected mammal species have distributions that coincide with the project area (Table 5-2). Additionally, two species with distributions which include the project site are listed on the IUCN Red Data List (Table 5-2). Table 5-5: Mammals of conservation concern likely to be found within the project site.

Scientific Name Common Name IUCN NEMBA PNCO

Atelerix frontalis South African hedgehog - Protected Schedule 2

Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse EN - -

Mellivora capensis Honey Badger - Protected Schedule 2

Miniopterus schreibersii Schreibers Long-fingered bat NT - Schedule 2

The South African Hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis) and Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) are both species which have been known to occur within ecological corridors and ecotones between urban and natural areas. As the South African Hedgehog does not occupy large territories the species may occur at the site. Certain habitats at the project site are suitable for Honey Badgers, but it is unlikely that they would occur as they require a much larger foraging area than that offered by the study site. Schreibers Long-fingered bats roost in caves or in crevices and holes in trees. As there are no caves and limited suitable trees in the project area it is unlikely that it would occur in the project area. It is likely that the White-Tailed Mouse will occur due to habitat suitability.



6. BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

6.1. Site sensitivity These areas have been described in detail below in terms of how they may be affected. An opinion of the state of the environment is provided. Recommended actions or mitigation measures that need to be implemented in order to minimise the ecological impact are described in Chapter 7. The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of high, medium and low areas of sensitivity (Figure 6-1). Areas of high sensitivity include:

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

Areas that have a high species richness;

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

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

Criteria triggered by the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project:

The sensitivity of the Baakens river has been rated as High, as it is important for ecosystem functioning

Areas of medium sensitivity include:

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

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

Degraded areas that still contain species of conservation concern.


Grassy Fynbos in the project area still contains species of conservation concern and has a relatively high species richness is of moderate sensitivity.

Thicket vegetation within the project area was in moderate condition with a relatively high species diversity.

Areas of low sensitivity include:

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

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


These are transformed areas which even though they contain species of conservation concern but their isolation limits their role in providing a valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded.

Residential areas and grassy fynbos to the west were classified as having a low sensitivity.



Figure 6-1: Sensitivity map for the project area



7. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT The ecological study undertaken provides the necessary information in order to assess the impacts of the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade, Road Construction & Baakens River Bridge on the vegetation and the flora at various relevant spatial and temporal scales. The individual impacts can be grouped together as a series of key environmental issues. All of the issues relate to the removal of the existing vegetation cover within the footprint area of the NMBM Glen Hurd project. At the spatial scale the footprint of the proposed Glen Hurd road upgrade and Baakens River Bridge is not significant, but nonetheless these need to be seen in the context of the study area as a whole. Impacts associated with the current land use are taken into account to provide a comparison between the NMBM Glen Hurd project impacts and those that are already occurring. Impacts are assessed based on the current proposed road and bridge layout. Should the area change, the impacts and associated mitigation measures, will need to be revisited. Ecological impacts were identified during the Planning and Design, Construction and Operation Phase of the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project and are described below. These included the consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that may occur.

7.1. Planning and Design Phase Activities associated with the design and pre construction phase pertains mostly to a feasibility assessment which is done mostly at a desktop level. In some cases site visits need to take place but the impact of these visits is negligible, if any, e.g. photographs and field surveys, etc.

7.2. Construction Phase 7.2.1. ISSUE 1: Loss of vegetation communities: This includes the loss of each of the vegetation community types identified on the site, as a result of the clearing of the land for construction. This issue describes only the direct loss of the vegetation communities and no associated loss of animal or plant species of conservation concern, nor the effect on ecosystem functioning or the loss of habitats. Impact 1: Loss of Indigenous Vegetation The construction of the new road and bridge will result in the clearance and subsequent loss of indigenous vegetation within the project area. It is anticipated that the removal of vegetation within the riparian area will be minimal since only the bridge anchors will be located within this vegetation type. It is anticipated that approximately 2 ha will be affected by the road, laydown areas, turning areas etc required during the construction period. The actual road which is 680m long x 7.5m wide will only affect 0.5ha. The new road will impact the Groot Thicket and Grassy Fynbos although due to the small footprint of this linear infrastructure it is anticipated that the impact will be minimal. No-go option The current land use is resulting in the loss of these vegetation types through clearing and the infestation of alien plant species. Left unchecked, this is likely to continue increasing the level of habitat fragmentation and loss of indigenous vegetation.


EOH Coastal & Environmental Services 47 NMBM Ecological Study

Impact Effect

Risk or Likelihood

Overall Significance

Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale Severity of

Impact

Impact 1a: Loss of Groot Thicket Without

Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight Definite LOW-

With Mitigation

Permanent Localised Slight Definite LOW-

No-Go Alternative

Long term Study area Moderate Probable MODERATE-

Impact 1b: Loss of Riparian Vegetation

Without Mitigation

Permanent Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation


No-Go Alternative

Long term Study area Moderate Probable LOW-

Impact 1c: Loss of Grassy Fynbos/Grassland Mosaic Without

Mitigation Permanent Study Area Slight Definite LOW-

With Mitigation


No-Go Alternative

Long term Study area Moderate Probable LOW-

Mitigation Measures: Riparian Vegetation

Laydown areas and turning areas must be located outside of this area.

Vegetation clearing and trampling must be kept to a minimum and remain within the demarcated areas.

In the unlikely event that a protected tree species needs to be removed, a permit to do so must be attained from DAFF.

Grassy Fynbos/Grassland Mosaic and Groot Thicket Mitigation measures include the following:

Vegetation clearing and trampling must be kept to a minimum and remain within the demarcated areas;

Laydown areas and turning areas must be located in areas that have already been impacted or show evidence of degradation. The ECO must identify such areas.

The servitude of the construction activities must be kept to a minimum.

Vegetation impacted on during the construction phase in areas not required during the operation phase must be restored. It is likely that this will occur naturally but given the presence of alien species active rehabilitation and the removal of alien species will be required to ensure that only indigenous species remain.

Rehabilitation of the disturbed areas and the remaining stockpiles (if any) must take place immediately after construction.

Topsoil must be stockpiled separately to sub soil.



7.2.2. ISSUE 2: Loss of species of conservation concern and biodiversity (general) Issue 2 - Loss of species of conservation concern and biodiversity: this includes loss of both animal and plant species of conservation concern over the entire site, including all vegetation community types. It also encompasses the loss of biodiversity as a whole, which includes all species that occur on site taking into account their contribution to the biodiversity of the surrounding area and within the site. The construction of the new road and bridge will result in the loss of biodiversity as vegetation cover is removed. Given that the footprint of the development is relatively small it is anticipated that the loss of biodiversity will be minimal and will not have a severe impact on the existing vegetation within the project area. Impact 2: Loss of plant species of conservation concern Cause and Comment Ten Species of Conservation concern (SCC) were found to occur in the project area. It is likely that there are Species of conservation concern that will be found on site during construction phase that were not observed during this study. It is therefore important that prior to construction the site should be groundtruthed and a search and rescue plan implemented. The impacts at a larger spatial scale will only be important in the case of species that have a globally restricted range, or are otherwise in need of protection. In these cases development of any sort may significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the species. A reduction of the area of occupancy in turn may threaten the chances of survival for these plant species of concern. However, given the small footprint of the project infrastructure associated with the project infrastructure it is unlikely that this development will result in the severe loss of habitat availability and SCC. No-go option The current land use is resulting in the loss of these vegetation types and associated SCC through clearing and the infestation of alien plant species. Left unchecked, this is likely to continue increasing the level of habitat fragmentation and loss of SCC within the project area. Significance statement Loss of SCC

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall

Significance Temporal

Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Permanent Study Area Severe Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation

Short term Localised Moderate Probably

occur LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Long term Study area Slight Probable MODERATE-

Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following

Prior to the construction of the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project:



o The area which will be affected by the construction activities should be groundtruthed and SCC identified and the correct permits acquired for their removal.

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

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

During Construction of the proposed NMBM Glen Hurd project:

o Employees must be prohibited from harvesting wild plants; o Fires must be prohibited; o Rehabilitation should be undertaken progressively throughout the life of the

project; o Work areas must be demarcated and construction activities must be

restricted to these areas; and o An ECO must be employed.

Impact 3: Loss of animal species of conservation concern Cause and Comment The development of the new road and associated infrastructure (e.g. bridges) may result in the displacement of various animal species due to loss of habitat. Less mobile species (such as Tortoises) may be vulnerable during the construction phase of the proposed development. No-Go Option Fauna on site has been impacted on by the isolation of the site. In addition to this, it is highly likely that some animal mortalities have occur in the area due to the fact that the site is nested between two major roads.

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Moderate Probable MODERATE -

With Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Slight May occur LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Short term Study area Slightly

Beneficial Probable LOW-

Mitigation and management Mitigation measures include the following:

Clearing or damaging of intact areas should be avoided;

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

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

Protect pristine habitats and rocky outcrops which play an important ecological role such as providing shelter for reptiles (such as snakes and lizards);



Bird nesting areas within the riparian areas of the project site should be identified and avoided.

Impact 4: Pollution of watercourses during bridge and culvert construction/ reconstruction. Cause and Comment Pollution of watercourses may arise from the accidental or negligent deposition into the active channel of debris from the demolition of existing structures, fill material during excavation or placement, concrete during placement into formwork and fuel and oil from vehicles and machinery. The impacts of spills of wet concrete, fuel and oil will be more severe and longer-lasting than spills of inert materials. No-Go Option The project occurs in an urban area that is utilised by pedestrians. Consequently there is already pollution on site from litter and dumping. Left unchecked, this is likely to continue having a low negative impact on the area. Significance statement

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Total Score Temporal

Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Medium term Study Area Severe Probable HIGH-

With mitigation

Short term Local Slight May occur LOW -

No-Go

Without mitigation

Short Term Study Area Slight Probable LOW -


All hydrocarbons of all types must be stored on impermeable surfaces with appropriately-sized containment bunds and grease traps. Traps must be regularly cleaned.

All chemicals of all types must be stored on impermeable surfaces in secure and bunded designated storage areas.

Cement must be stored on impermeable storage areas protected from the rain and mixed only in designated areas. Cement residue must be cleaned up immediately.

Vehicle repairs, servicing, refuelling and washing must be done only in designated areas with impermeable surfaces with appropriately-sized containment bunds and grease traps.

Where it is necessary to service, repair or refuel a vehicle or item of plant in the field drip trays must be used to catch drips, spills and leaks.

Spill kits must be available at all locations where chemicals of hydrocarbons are stored, handled or used, and spills must be cleaned up immediately in accordance with an established protocol appropriate to the material in question.



Impact 5: Impeding the flow of water in watercourses during bridge construction Cause and Comment The flow in watercourses will be impeded by any instream activity, including the construction of foundation slabs for culverts, new bridge piers, and the supporting structures for bridge deck framework. Depending on the nature of the watercourse the restriction of flow could interfere with the longitudinal migration patterns of instream fauna. Without mitigation impacts could affect a considerable length of the river, both upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge. No-go option The low level causeway is currently impeding the flow of the Baakens River and overtops during period of high rainfall. Significance statement

Impact

Effect Risk or


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Construction phase

Without mitigation

Short term Regional Moderate Probable MOD -

With mitigation Short term regional Slight Probable LOW-

No-Go

Without mitigation

Permanent regional severe definite High -


As far as possible restrict the timing and duration of instream activities to low-flow periods.

Maintain an active channel by diversions or berming.

Design of the new bridge should not impede the flow of water

Where possible, and where necessary on the advice from an aquatic specialist, avoid impeding the flow periods critical to biological cycles of valued flora and fauna

Ensure there is proper drainage of stormwater away from the bridges.

A Water Use License/Permit must be obtained from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) prior commencement of any activity within the watercourse.

Impact 6: Dust Cause and Comment Construction phase activities are associated with an increase in noise levels, vehicular movements and dust levels. Noise pollution can depress local populations of sensitive faunal groups. Animals differ in the degree to which they tolerate such disturbance, and can be expected to have potentially negative and positive impacts on various faunal groups. For example, large breeding birds are sensitive to noise and increased noise and motor vibrations in the nearby streams may impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of noise



(Branch, pers. comm.). Noise pollution will occur during construction and mitigation measures will need to be applied. Some dust may be generated as a result of construction activities and, in particular, where there is exposed ground. Specific activities that may contribute to release of fugitive dust include offloading and stockpiling of building materials such as sand, storage of excavated materials and movement of heavy vehicles. The generation of dust may be higher during windy, dry periods. No-Go Option There is currently no dust being generated on site. Significance statement

Dust and noise generation

Construction phase

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Moderate Definite MODERATE-

With Mitigation


No-Go

Without mitigation

N/A N/A N/A N/A NO EFFECT

Mitigation and management

Topsoil should be cleared in a phased manner to avoid large areas of unconsolidated soils;

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

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

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

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

Vehicle speed should be limited to the lowest possible, and should not exceed 50km/h on the construction site.

Impact 7: Noise Cause and Comment Construction phase activities are associated with an increase in noise levels, vehicular movements and dust levels. Noise pollution can depress local populations of sensitive faunal groups. Animals differ in the degree to which they tolerate such disturbance, and can be expected to have potentially negative and positive impacts on various faunal groups. For example, large breeding birds are sensitive to noise and increased noise and motor vibrations in the nearby streams may impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of noise



(Branch, pers. comm.). Noise pollution will occur during construction and mitigation measures will need to be applied. No-Go Option The proposed development site is adjacent to two residential areas and two major roads. Significance statement

Dust and noise generation

Construction phase

Impact

Effect Risk or

Likelihood Overall


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Without Mitigation

Short Term Study Area Slight Definite LOW-

With Mitigation


No-Go

Without mitigation

Permanent

Study Area

Slight

Definite

LOW -


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

No construction activities may take place between sunset and sunrise;

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

Equipment with lower sound levels should be selected where feasible; and Impact 8: Increased Sediment load Sediment load in rivers and streams is a natural occurrence but an increase, particularly through erosion of the catchment, can lead to an increase in the availability of potentially toxic metals derived from the geology of the catchment, as well as an increase in turbidity of the water. In some cases this may reduce light penetration and, subsequently have negative impacts on aquatic plants, fish and amphibians due to the decrease in water quality. No-Go Option: If no development was to occur on the site there would be no unnatural change to the sediment load of the river.



Significance statement

Invasion of alien species

Impact Effect

Risk or Likelihood

Total Score Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale Severity of Impact

Operation phase Without mitigation

Short Term Localised Severe Probable MODERATE-

With mitigation

Short Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW-

No-Go Without mitigation

N/A N/A N/A N/A NO EFFECT


Minimal earth moving vehicles should be allowed in the riparian zone

The removal of vegetation from this area must not be done during heavy rains

Erosion should be minimised within the drainage channels.

Any stockpiled material must be protected from erosion, stored on flat areas where run-off will be minimised and be surrounded by bunds.

The strategic placement of silt traps and gabions on the proposed new bridge area to curb the occurrence of erosion on the site.

7.3. Operation Phase Impact 9: Habitat fragmentation During periods of high rainfall, the run off along the Baakens River overflows on the causeway, where the road crosses the valley resulting in road closures. The low level causeway acts as a barrier, preventing the movement of aquatic fauna and flora causing further fragmentation of the study area. The new bridge will allow for better flow and can thus be seen as a positive impact as it will allow for the movement of aquatic fauna and flora. No-Go Option: The proposed development site has been completely isolated by urban development, thus large scale fragmentation is present on site. Significance statement

New bridge

Impact

Effect Risk or Likelihood

Total Score Temporal Scale

Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Operation phase

Without mitigation

Permanent Localised Slightly Beneficial

Probable LOW+

With mitigation

Permanent Localised Moderate Beneficial

Probable MOD+

No-Go

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Moderate Probable MOD-




Bridge design should encourage the continual flow of water. Impact 13: Invasion of alien species Cause and Comment As with all construction operations, the introduction of alien and invader species is inevitable; with environmental disturbance comes the influx of aliens. Alien invasive species such as Acacia saligna and Lantana camara, which are already found in some areas of the project area, is likely to increase if mitigation measures are not implemented. Alien invasive species have negative impacts on the biodiversity as they compete with natural vegetation and reduce water availability. Studies show that almost all seven terrestrial biomes in South Africa have alien invasive species. It is important that alien species that are present within the road reserve are eradicated and proper management strategies are put in place to ensure the control of these species. No-Go Option If no development was to occur on the site the existing alien invasive species will continue to increase in numbers in the project area. Significance statement Invasion of alien species

Impact

Effect Risk or


Scale Spatial Scale

Severity of Impact

Operation phase

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Severe Probable MOD -

With mitigation

Long Term Localised Slight Beneficial

Probable LOW+

No-Go

Without mitigation

Permanent Study area Slight Probable LOW-


Eradication of the already established alien invasive species on the development site (This should be done during all phases of the project);

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

A rehabilitation plan must be designed and implemented;

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

An Alien Invasive Control Programme must be implemented.



8. IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1. Conclusions Associated impacts identified with the proposed project area were not deemed insurmountable. All HIGH and MODERATE rated impacts (pre-mitigation) are easily mitigated. Ecologically sensitive areas have been mapped for the project area and recommendations in chapter 7 in this report provide mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the impacts. Overall, it was determined that the identified ecological impacts associated with the project can be affectively mitigated.

8.2. Current status Although classified as a CBA area by NMBM MOSS, the vegetation on the study site is mostly degraded due to clearing and the infestation of alien species. However, there are a few areas such as the Groot Thicket that is in moderate condition. The project area has been affected by urbanisation (residential area and the roads) resulting in the fragmentation of the area which has reduced this areas contribution to ecological processes and as a refugia for SCC (plants and animals).

8.3. Recommendations

8.3.1. Plant removal\rehabilitation

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

8.3.2. Invasion of alien species Any form of disturbance to the natural vegetation provides a gateway for alien species to invade the site of disturbance. In this regard, it is recommended that a strict alien management and monitoring plan be implemented to monitor the additional spread and continued removal of alien species already present on site.

NMBM Glen hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge – March 2015


9. REFERENCES Alexander, G. And Marais, J. 2010. A Guide to Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Animal Demography Unit, Department Of Zoology, University Of Cape Town. 2012. Summary Data Of The Frogs Of South Africa, Lesotho And Swaziland. Downloaded From: Http://Adu.Org.Za/Frog_Atlas.Php; Accessed On 2/02/2013. Berliner, D. and Desmet, P. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William‘s Town. Branch, W.R. 1998. Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. In: A Field Guide to the Eastern Cape Coast, R. A. Lubke, F. W. Gess and M. N. Bruton (eds.), Grahamstown Centre for the Wildlife Soc. S. Afr., 251-264. Branch,W.R. 2014. Personal Communication. Cowling, R.M., Lombard, A.T., Rouget, M., Kerley, G.I.H., Wolf, T., Sims-Castley, R., Knight, A.T., Vlok, J.H., Pierce, S.M., BoshoV, A.F., Wilson, S.L., 2003. A conservation assessment for the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No. 43, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Available from: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za. Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T. 2002. A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot: the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112: 191–216. Coetzee, P.S., Kerley, G.I.H., Campbell, E.E., de Ruyck, A., Wooldridge, T., Boshoff, A. and Bate, G. 1996. Zinc smelter environmental impact assessment: Flora and fauna baseline study for the Coega precinct. SAB Institute for Coastal Research, Port Elizabeth. Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K., & Strauss, T. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. www.sanbi.org Du Preez, L. And Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide To Frogs Of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Sunday‘s River Valley Municipality. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Addo Elephant National Park IUCN (2012). Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge Available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (Accessed 13/03/2015). Knight, A.T. and Cowling, R.M. 2003. Conserving South Africa‘s ‗Lost‘ Biome: A Framework for Securing Effective Regional Conservation Planning in the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit Report No.44, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

NMBM Glenhurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge – March 2015


Edited by A. Barrie Low and A. (Tony) G. Rebelo from contributions by George J. Bredenkamp, J. Ed Granger, M. Timm Hoffman, Roy A. Lubke, Bruce Mckenzie, A. (Tony) Rebelo, & Noel van Rooyen (February 1998). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: A companion to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM). 2009. Final Conservation Assessment and Plan for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. SRK Consulting, Port Elizabeth. Pierce, S.M.; Cowling, R.M.; Knight, A.T.; Lombard, A.T.; Rouget, M and Wolf, T. 2005. Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. Biological Conservation.125: 441-458 Pierce, S. M. and Mader, A. D. 2006. The STEP Handbook. Integrating the natural environment into land use decisions at the municipal level: towards sustainable development. Centre for African Conservation Ecology (ACE). Report Number 47 (Second Edition). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa. Sadler (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating practice to Improve Performance. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report. International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, Canada. SANBI. 2014. Statistics: Red List of South African Plants version 2014.1. Downloaded from Redlist.sanbi.org on 2014/10/15.

Skowno, A.L. and Holness, S.D. 2012. SANParks Addo Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project - Mapping Component. Technical Report. Port Elizabeth. South African Weather Bureau. 2014. http://www.weathersa.co.za/climate. Accessed: 24 June 2014 Stuart, C and Stuart, T. 2007. A field guide to the mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Sundays River Valley Municipality.. Addo Elephant National Park Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project. South African National Parks. Port Elizabeth. South Africa. ISBN 978-0-620-54812-0

http://www.weathersa.co.za/climate

NMBM Glen hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge – March 2015


TABLE A-1: PLANT SPECIES LIST

Family Scientific Name IUCN SA red data list

PNCO NEMBA Protected Trees

FABACEAE Acacia cyclops - Not Evaluated - - -

FABACEAE Acacia Karroo - Least Concern - - -

FABACEAE Acacia mearnsii - Not Evaluated - - -

FABACEAE Acacia saligna - Not Evaluated - - -

HYACINTHACEAE Albuca sp - - - - -

ASPHODELACEAE Aloe ferox - Least Concern - - -

AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus hybridus - Not Evaluated - - -

BASELLACEAE Anredera cordifolia - Not Evaluated - - -

RUBIACEAE Anthospermum aethiopicum - Least Concern - - -

POACEAE Arundo donax Least Concern Not Evaluated - - -

FABACEAE Aspalathus biflora - Least Concern - - -

FABACEAE Aspalathus subtingens - Least Concern - - -

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus sp. - - - - -

ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus racemosus - Least Concern - - -

ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium rutifolium - Least Concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Athanasia dentata - Least Concern - - -

AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia sp. - Least Concern - - -

APOCYNACEAE Carissa Bispinosa - Least Concern Schedule 4 - -

AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus deliciosus - Least Concern - - -

SINOPTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes viridis - Least Concern - - -

POACEAE Chloris gayana - Least Concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera - Least Concern - - -

SANTALACEAE Colpoon compressum - Least Concern - - -

AIZOACEAE Corpuscularia lehmannii - Critically endangered

- - -

POACEAE Cortaderia selloana - Not Evaluated - - -



CRASSULACEAE Crassula cultrata - Least Concern - - -

CRASSULACEAE Crassula multicava - Least concern - - -

CRASSULACEAE Crassula perforata - Least Concern - - -

CRASSULACEAE Crassula sp - - - - -

ARALIACEAE Cussonia thyrsiflora - Least concern - - -

POACEAE Cymbopogan sp - - - - -

POACEAE Cynodon dactylon Least concern - - -

CYPERACEAE Cyperus sp - - - - -

SOLANACEAE Datura stramonium - Not Evaluated - - -

POACEAE Digitaria eriantha - Least concern - - -

SALICACEAE Dovyalis caffra - Least concern - - -

AIZOACEAE Drosanthemum hispidum - Least concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Elytropappus rhinocerotis - Least concern - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis curvula - Least concern - - -

POACEAE Eragrostis obtusa - Least concern - - -

ERICACEAE Erica demissa - Least Concern - - -

ERICACEAE Erica discolor - Least concern - - -

FABACEAE Erythrina caffra - Least Concern - - -

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus sp - - - - -

EBENACEAE Euclea undulata - Least concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Euryops - - - - -

ASTERACEAE Felicia echinata - Least Concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Gazania sp - - - - -

APOCYNACEAE Gomphocarpus physocarpus - Least concern Schedule 4 - -

ASPHODELACEAE Haworthia fasciata - Near Threatened

- - -

ASTERACEAE Helichrysum teretifolium - Least concern - - -

MALVACEAE Hermannia velutina - Least concern - - -

SAPINDACEAE Hippobromus pauciflorus - Least concern - - -

HYPERICACEAE Hypericum revolutum - Least Concern - - -

FABACEAE Indigofera sp. - - - - -



EUPHORBIACEAE Jatropha capensis - Least concern - - -

THYMELAEACEAE Lachnaea aurea - Vulnerable Schedule 4 - -

VERBENACEAE Lantana Camara - Not Evaluated - - -

PROTEACEAE Leucospermum truncatulum - Near Threatened

Schedule 4 - -

ASTERACEAE Metalasia muricata - Least Concern - - -

CELASTRACEAE Mystroxylon aethiopicum - Least Concern - - -

OLINIACEAE Olinia ventosa - Least Concern - - -

CACTACEAE Opuntia ficus-indica Data deficient Not Evaluated - - -

HYACINTHACEAE Ornothigulum sp - - - - -

SANTALACEAE Osyris compressa - Least Concern - - -

THYMELAEACEAE Passerina rigida - Least Concern - - -

POACEAE Phragmites australis Least Concern Least Concern - - -

RHAMNACEAE Phylica ericoides - Least Concern - - -

PINACEAE Pinus sp - - - - -

PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum viridiflorum - Least Concern - - -

LAMIACEAE Plectranthus sp - - - - -

PROTEACEAE Protea nerifolia - - Schedule 4 - -

SANTALACEAE Rhoiacarpos sp - - - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Salago corymbosa - Least Concern - - -

APOCYNACEAE Sarcostemma viminale - Least Concern Schedule 4 - -

AMARYLLIDACEAE Scadoxus puniceus - Least Concern Schedule 4 - -

RHAMNACEAE Scutia myrtina - Least Concern - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia longispina - - - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lucida - Not Evaluated - - -

ANACARDIACEAE Searsia pallens - Least Concern - - -

SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago sp - - - - -

FABACEAE Sesbania punicea - Not Evaluated - - -

SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme - Least Concern - - Protected Tree

FABACEAE Spartium junceum - Not Evaluated - - -

POACEAE Sporobolus africanus - Least Concern - - -



ASTERACEAE Syncarpha argentea - Least Concern - - -

ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta - Not Evaluated - - -

POACEAE Themeda triandra - Least Concern - - -

IRIDACEAE Tritoniopsis antholyza - Least Concern Schedule 4 - -

TYPHACEAE Typha capensis Least Concern Least Concern - - -

VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis - Not Evaluated - - -

CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia thunbergii - Least Concern - - -

IRIDACEAE Watsonia pillansii - Least Concern Schedule 4 - -

IRIDACEAE Watsonia sp. - - Schedule 4 - -

Date post:	17-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hathu
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

NMBM Glen Hurd Road Upgrade & Baakens River Bridge … Hurd Drive Construction Upgrading... ·...

Documents