ecological impact assessment report: proposed …...this ecological specialist assessment report...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT:
PROPOSED UMSINDE EMOYENI WIND ENERGY FACILITY
WESTERN CAPE AND NORTHERN CAPE
Prepared for Arcus Consultancy Services
On behalf of
EMOYENI WIND FARM PROJECT (PTY) LIMITED
By
OCTOBER 2015
![Page 2: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
2
Contents
Declaration of Consultants’ Independence ......................................................................... 4
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development ..................................................................... 7
2 Study Approach ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Scope of Study .................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Assessment Approach & Philosophy ....................................................................... 10
2.3 Data Sourcing and Review .......................................................................................... 13
2.4 Site Visit ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.5 Sensitivity Mapping ....................................................................................................... 15
3 Baseline Environment ........................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Types .................................................................................. 16
3.2 Habitat Types ................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Plant Species of Conservation Concern ................................................................. 22
3.4 Faunal Communities ...................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas ........................................................................................... 25
3.6 Site Sensitivity Assessment ....................................................................................... 27
4 Identification & Nature of Impacts .................................................................................. 29
4.1 Construction Phase ........................................................................................................ 30
4.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Decommissioning Phase .............................................................................................. 32
4.4 Cumulative impacts ....................................................................................................... 32
5 Assessment of Impacts ........................................................................................................ 33
5.1 Planning & Construction Phase ................................................................................. 33
5.2 Operational Phase .......................................................................................................... 35
5.3 Decommissioning Phase .............................................................................................. 37
5.4 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................... 38
5.5 Summary Assessment .................................................................................................. 38
6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 39
7 References ................................................................................................................................ 41
8 Annex 1 List of Plants ........................................................................................................... 42
9 Annex 2. List of Mammals................................................................................................... 48
![Page 3: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
3
10 Annex 3. List of Reptiles .................................................................................................. 52
11 Annex 4 List of Amphibians ............................................................................................ 54
![Page 4: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
4
Declaration of Consultants’ Independence
I Simon Todd, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:
act/ed as the independent specialist in this application;
regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist
input/study to be true and correct, and
do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the
activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific
environmental management Act;
have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material
information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the
competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in
terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and
any specific environmental management Act;
am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of
regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act,
and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in
disqualification;
have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my
disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the
applicant or not; and
am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN
No. R. 543.
Note: The terms of reference must be attached.
Simon Todd Pr.Sci.Nat 400425/11.
October 2015
![Page 5: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
5
Executive Summary
Emoyeni Wind Farm Project Proprietary Limited (EFWP) proposes the development of the
UmSinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility (WEF), located near the town of Murraysburg in
the Western Cape Province, with a small portion of the proposed site extending into the
Northern Cape Province. The development would consist of two phases with up to 98
turbines each, as well as on-site substations, a grid connection and access roads.
This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development, and details the ecological
characteristics of the site and provides an assessment of the likely ecological impacts
associated with the development of the wind energy facility at the site. Impacts are
assessed for the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases
of the development.
A desktop review of the available ecological information as well as a site visit and field
assessment of the proposed development area was conducted in order to identify and
characterise the ecological features of the site and develop an ecological sensitivity map
for the site which is illustrated below.
Although the abundance of plant and
animal species of conservation concern at
the site is relatively low, the environment
is considered moderately sensitive with
areas of higher sensitivity distributed
across the site. The site is rugged with a
high diversity of landscape units which
includes numerous mountains, hills,
gorges and valleys and streams spread
across the study area. As a result, open
plains of lower sensitivity most suitable for
development are fragmented across the
site. Under the assessed layouts there a
number of turbines within areas
considered sensitive, which should be
relocated in order to reduce the overall
impact of the development. This is especially applicable to turbines within area of plains
wash which are highly sensitive to disturbance as well as those within the dolerite
outcrops which are foci of diversity and faunal activity.
Phase 2 is considered to have a greater impact than Phase 1 because it is more
dispersed and would generate an impact across a greater area and there are also more
turbines within sensitive habitats. Phase 1 is more compact and would generate a less
extensive but more intense impact.
![Page 6: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
6
Although the extent of direct habitat loss resulting from both phases of the development
would be less than 200ha, the actual extent of habitat loss experienced by many species
will be significantly larger than this. For fauna which avoid human activity or which
avoid the proximity of turbines due to noise or other impact, the total effective footprint
of the development would be closer to 150km2 (15 000ha). This is considered significant
in the local context, but when considered at a broader regional scale, this represents a
small proportion of the landscape. As a result, the development would have the greatest
impact at an intermediate scale, affecting species movement and presence within the
greater Trouberg region but not the wider Sneeuberg as a whole.
Overall the development will have a moderate impact after mitigation and some kind of
on-site conservation management is recommended to mitigate the negative impacts of
the development on ecological processes in the area.
![Page 7: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
7
1 INTRODUCTION
Emoyeni Wind Farm Project Proprietary Limited (EFWP) proposes the development of the
UmSinde Emoyeni Wind Energy Facility (WEF), located near the town of Murraysburg in
the Western Cape Province, with a small portion of the proposed site extending into the
Northern Cape Province. The development would consist of two phases with up to 98
turbines each, as well as on-site substations, a grid connection and access roads. Arcus
Consulting Services are conducting the legally required EIA process for the development.
Anchor Environmental Consultants, working in collaboration with Simon Todd Consulting,
were commissioned to provide the terrestrial ecological input for the EIA process.
As part of the above EIA process, this ecological specialist study details the ecological
characteristics of the site and provides an assessment of the likely ecological impacts
associated with the development of a wind energy facility at the site. Impacts are
assessed for the preconstruction, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases
of the development. A variety of avoidance and mitigation measures associated with
each identified impact are recommended to reduce the likely impact of the development,
which should be included in the EMPr for the development. The full scope of study is
detailed in Section 2 below.
1.1 Relevant Aspects of the Development
The proposed development is described in full in the main report and is not repeated in
full here. It is however important to note the following details:
The overall development will consist of two phases, resulting in four different EIA
applications as follows:
Umsinde Emoyeni WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape: Phase 1;
Umsinde Emoyeni WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape: Phase 2; and
Electrical Grid Connection and Associated Infrastructure for Umsinde Emoyeni
WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape (Phase 1)
Electrical Grid Connection and Associated Infrastructure for Umsinde Emoyeni
WEF near Murraysburg, Western Cape (Phase 2).
As each of the above is a different application, the impacts associated with each
application component will be assessed separately at the EIA phase.
Each phase will comprise up to 98 wind turbines which will each have a capacity to
generate between 1.5 and 4.5 megawatts (MW) of power. Each turbine will have a
maximum height to the tip of 185 m. Each Phase of the WEF will have a contracted
capacity of up to 140 MW, with an installed capacity of up to 147 MW in line with the
Renewable Energy Independent Producers Procurement Programme.
Infrastructure associated with the development will include access tracks within the site,
turbine foundations, platforms and lay-down areas for construction machinery such as
cranes, and component storage areas. The access tracks will be up to 9 m wide during
construction, but will be reduced to 6 m during operation. Existing farm access tracks
![Page 8: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
8
will be upgraded where possible. Some aggregate for the construction of these tracks
may be sourced from borrow pits within the development site.
The electricity from the turbines will be transferred via a 33 kV electrical network to an
33/132kV onsite substation. The substation will house electrical infrastructure such as
transformers and switch gear to enable the energy to be transferred into the Eskom grid.
The substation will be placed on a concrete foundation with the substation compound
occupying an area of up to 200 m x 250 m. There will be an on-site office compound of
up to 150 m x 80 m, including site offices, parking and an operation and maintenance
facility.
The grid connection for the development will consist of up to 80 km of above-ground
electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure to connect the proposed Umsinde
Emoyeni Wind Energy to the Eskom national grid network. The power line will start from
the onsite substation from which electricity will be transferred via a (up to three) double
circuit 132 kV overhead lines to the existing Eskom Gamma substation west of the N1.
As the area to the west of the site falls within the Ishwati Emoyeni WEF, an assessment
and sensitivity map of this area has already been conducted.
Figure 1. Satellite image showing the layout of Umsinde Phase 1 in red and Umsinde
Phase 2 in yellow.
![Page 9: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
9
2 STUDY APPROACH
2.1 Scope of Study
The scope of the study includes the following activities
a description of the environment that may be affected by the activity and the
manner in which the environ mint may be affected by the proposed project
a description and evaluation of environmental issues and potential impacts (incl.
using direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) that have been identified
a statement regarding the potential significance of the identified issues based on
the evaluation of the issues/impacts
an indication of the methodology used in determining the significance of potential
environmental impacts
an assessment of the significance of direct indirect and cumulative impacts in
terms of the following criteria :
o the nature of the impact, which shall include a description of what causes
the effect, what will be affected and how it will be affected
o the extent of the impact, indicating whether the impact will be local
(limited to the immediate area or site of development), regional, national
or international
o the duration of the impact, indicating whether the lifetime of the impact
will be of a short-term duration (0-5 years), medium-term (5- 15 years),
long-term (> 15 years, where the impact will cease after the operational
life of the activity) or permanent
o the probability of the impact, describing the likelihood of the impact
actually occurring, indicated as improbable (low likelihood) probable
(distinct possibility), highly probable (most likely), or definite (Impact will
occur regardless of any preventable measures)
o the severity/beneficial scale indicating whether the impact will be very
severe/beneficial (a permanent change which cannot be
mitigated/permanent and significant benefit with no real alternative to
achieving this benefit) severe/beneficial (long-term impact that could be
mitigated/long-term benefit) moderately severe/beneficial (medium- to
long-term impact that could be mitigated/ medium- to long-term benefit),
slight or have no effect
o the significance which shall be determined through a synthesis of the
characteristics described above and can be assessed as low medium or
high
o the status which will be described as either positive, negative or neutral
o the degree to which the impact can be reversed
o the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources
o the degree to which the impact can be mitigated
a description and comparative assessment of all alternatives
![Page 10: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
10
recommendations regarding practical mitigation measures for potentially
significant impacts, for inclusion in the Environmental Management Programme
(EMPr)
an indication of the extent to which the issue could be addressed by the adoption
of mitigation measures
a description of any assumptions uncertainties and gaps in knowledge
an environmental impact statement which contains :
o a summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment;
o an assessment of the positive and negative implications of the proposed
activity;
o a comparative assessment of the positive and negative implications of
identified alternatives
General Considerations:
Disclose any gaps in information or assumptions made.
Identify recommendations for mitigatory measures to minimise impacts.
Outline additional management guidelines.
Provide monitoring requirements, mitigation measures and recommendations in a
table format as input into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for faunal
related issues.
A description of the potential impacts of the development and recommended mitigation
measures are to be provided which will be separated into the following project phases:
Preconstruction
Construction
Operational Phase
Decommissioning
2.2 Assessment Approach & Philosophy
The assessment will be conducted according to the EIA Regulations, published by the
Department of Environmental Affairs (2014) as well as within the best-practice
guidelines and principles for biodiversity assessment as outlined by Brownlie (2005) and
De Villiers et al. (2005).
This includes adherence to the following broad principles:
That a precautionary and risk-averse approach be adopted towards projects which
may result in substantial detrimental impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems,
especially the irreversible loss of habitat and ecological functioning in threatened
ecosystems or designated sensitive areas: i.e. Critical Biodiversity Areas (as
identified by systematic conservation plans, Biodiversity Sector Plans or Bioregional
Plans) and Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas.
![Page 11: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
11
Demonstrate how the proponent intends complying with the principles contained in
section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of
1998), as amended (NEMA), which, amongst other things, indicates that
environmental management should.
In order of priority aim to: avoid, minimise or remedy disturbance of
ecosystems and loss of biodiversity;
Avoid degradation of the environment;
Avoid jeopardising ecosystem integrity;
Pursue the best practicable environmental option by means of integrated
environmental management;
Protect the environment as the people’s common heritage;
Control and minimise environmental damage; and
Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining
to sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.
These principles serve as guidelines for all decision-making concerning matters that may
affect the environment. As such, it is incumbent upon the proponent to show how
proposed activities would comply with these principles and thereby contribute towards
the achievement of sustainable development as defined by the NEMA.
In order to adhere to the above principles and best-practice guidelines, the following
approach forms the basis for the study approach and assessment philosophy:
The study will include data searches, desktop studies, site walkovers / field survey of the
property and baseline data collection, describing:
A description of the broad ecological characteristics of the site and its surrounds
in terms of any mapped spatial components of ecological processes and/or
patchiness, patch size, relative isolation of patches, connectivity, corridors,
disturbance regimes, ecotones, buffering, viability, etc.
In terms of pattern, the following will be identified or described:
Community and ecosystem level
The main vegetation type, its aerial extent and interaction with
neighbouring types, soils or topography;
Threatened or vulnerable ecosystems (cf. SA vegetation map/National
Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, fine-scale systematic conservation plans,
etc).
Species level
Red Data Book species (giving location if possible using GPS)
The viability of an estimated population size of the RDB species that are
present (include the degree of confidence in prediction based on
availability of information and specialist knowledge, i.e. High=70-100%
confident, Medium 40-70% confident, low 0-40% confident)
![Page 12: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
12
The likelihood of other RDB species, or species of conservation concern,
occurring in the vicinity (include degree of confidence).
Fauna
Describe and assess the terrestrial fauna present in the area that will be
affected by the proposed development.
Conduct a faunal assessment that can be integrated into the ecological
study.
Describe the existing impacts of current land use as they affect the fauna.
Clarify species of special concern (SSC) and that are known to be:
endemic to the region;
that are considered to be of conservational concern;
that are in commercial trade (CITES listed species);
or, are of cultural significance.
Provide monitoring requirements as input into the Environmental
Management Plan (EMP) for faunal related issues.
Other pattern issues
Any significant landscape features or rare or important vegetation
associations such as seasonal wetlands, alluvium, seeps, quartz patches or
salt marshes in the vicinity.
The extent of alien plant cover of the site, and whether the infestation is
the result of prior soil disturbance such as ploughing or quarrying (alien
cover resulting from disturbance is generally more difficult to restore than
infestation of undisturbed sites).
The condition of the site in terms of current or previous land uses.
In terms of process, the following will be identified or described:
The key ecological “drivers” of ecosystems on the site and in the vicinity, such as
fire.
Any mapped spatial component of an ecological process that may occur at the
site or in its vicinity (i.e. corridors such as watercourses, upland-lowland
gradients, migration routes, coastal linkages or inland-trending dunes, and
vegetation boundaries such as edaphic interfaces, upland-lowland interfaces or
biome boundaries)
Any possible changes in key processes, e.g. increased fire frequency or
drainage/artificial recharge of aquatic systems.
Furthermore, any further studies that may be required during or after the EIA
process will be outlined.
All relevant legislation, permits and standards that would apply to the
development will be identified.
![Page 13: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
13
The opportunities and constraints for development will be described and shown
graphically on an aerial photograph, satellite image or map delineated at an
appropriate level of spatial accuracy.
2.3 Data Sourcing and Review
Data sources from the literature consulted and used where necessary in the study
includes the following:
Vegetation:
Vegetation types and their conservation status were extracted from the South
African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford 2006) as well as the
National List of Threatened Ecosystems (2011), where relevant.
The site lies largely within the planning domain of the Biodiversity Assessment
of the Central Karoo District Municipality (Skowno, Holness & Desmet. 2009),
which defines Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for the
CKDM. However, no Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) mapping or systematic
conservation planning has been conducted for that part of the site which falls
within the Northern Cape, with the result that no detailed conservation priority
area information is available for that area.
Information on plant and animal species recorded for the Quarter Degree
Square (QDS) (QDS) 3123 DB, DD and 3124 CA and CC was extracted from
the SABIF/SIBIS database hosted by SANBI. This is a considerably larger
area than the study area, but this is necessary to ensure a conservative
approach as well as counter the fact that the site itself has probably not been
well sampled in the past.
The IUCN conservation status of the species in the list was also extracted
from the database and is based on the Threatened Species Programme, Red
List of South African Plants (2013).
Freshwater and wetland information was extracted from the National
Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment, NFEPA (Nel et al. 2011).
Important catchments and protected areas expansion areas were extracted
from the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy 2008 (NPAES).
Fauna
Lists of mammals, reptiles and amphibians which are likely to occur at the site
were derived based on distribution records from the literature and various spatial
databases (SANBI’s SIBIS and BGIS databases).
![Page 14: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
14
Literature consulted includes Branch (1988) and Alexander and Marais (2007) for
reptiles, Du Preez and Carruthers (2009) for amphibians, Friedmann and Daly
(2004) and Skinner and Chimimba (2005) for mammals.
Apart from the literature sources, additional information on reptiles were
extracted from the SARCA web portal, hosted by the ADU,
http://vmus.adu.org.za. As most groups have been poorly sampled the sample
area was expanded to include the whole degree squares 3123 and 3124.
The faunal species lists provided are based on species which are known to occur
in the broad geographical area, as well as a preliminary assessment of the
availability and quality of suitable habitat at the site.
The conservation status of each species is also listed, based on the IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria version 3.1 (2013) (See Figure below) and where species
have not been assessed under these criteria, the CITES status is reported where
possible. These lists are adequate for mammals and amphibians, the majority of
which have been assessed, however the majority of reptiles have not been
assessed and therefore, it is not adequate to assess the potential impact of the
development on reptiles, based on those with a listed conservation status alone.
In order to address this shortcoming, the distribution of reptiles was also taken
into account such that any narrow endemics or species with highly specialized
habitat requirements occurring at the site were noted.
Schematic representation of the South African Red List categories. Taken from
http://redlist.sanbi.org/redcat.php
![Page 15: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
15
2.4 Site Visit
A site visit to the area was conducted from the 3rd-5th July 2013. During the site visit,
the different biodiversity features, habitat, and landscape units present at the site were
identified and mapped in the field. Specific features visible on the satellite imagery of
the site were also marked for field inspection and were verified and assessed during the
site visit. This included features such as wetlands or unusual edaphic and landscape
features that were not visible from the access roads of the site and might have otherwise
been missed. Walk-through-surveys were conducted within representative areas across
the different habitats units identified and all plant and animal species observed were
recorded. Active searches for reptiles and amphibians were also conducted within
habitats likely to harbour or be important for such species. The presence of sensitive
habitats such as wetlands or pans and unique edaphic environments such as rocky
outcrops or quartz patches were noted in the field if present and recorded on a GPS and
mapped onto satellite imagery of the site.
2.5 Sensitivity Mapping
An ecological sensitivity map of the site was produced by integrating the available
ecological and biodiversity information available in the literature and various spatial
databases as described above. As a starting point, mapped sensitive features such as
wetlands, drainage lines and water bodies were collated and buffered where appropriate
to comply with legislative requirements or ecological considerations. Additional sensitive
areas where then identified and mapped from the satellite imagery of the site as well as
from the results of the site visit and field assessment. All the different layers created
were then merged to create a single coverage. Features that were specifically captured
in the sensitivity map include drainage features, wetlands and dams, as well as rocky
outcrops and steep slopes. The ecological sensitivity of the different units identified in
the mapping procedure was rated according to the following scale:
Low – Units with a low sensitivity where there is likely to be a low impact on
ecological processes and terrestrial biodiversity. This category represents
transformed or natural areas where the impact of development is likely to be local
in nature and of low significance with standard mitigation measures.
Medium- Areas of natural or previously transformed land where the impacts are
likely to be largely local and the risk of secondary impact such as erosion low.
Development within these areas can proceed with relatively little ecological
impact provided that appropriate mitigation measures are taken.
High – Areas of natural or transformed land where a high impact is anticipated
due to the high biodiversity value, sensitivity or important ecological role of the
area. Development within these areas is undesirable and should only proceed
with caution as it may not be possible to mitigate all impacts appropriately.
![Page 16: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
16
Very High – Critical and unique habitats that serve as habitat for
rare/endangered species or perform critical ecological roles. These areas are
essentially no-go areas from a developmental perspective and should be avoided
as much as possible.
In some situations, areas where also categorized between the above categories,
such as Medium-High, where an area appeared to be of intermediate sensitivity
with respect to the two defining categories.
3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Broad-Scale Vegetation Types
According to the national vegetation map (Mucina & Rutherford 2006), only three
different vegetation types occur within the study area, Upper Karoo Hardeveld, Eastern
Upper Karoo and Southern Karoo Riviere (Figure 2). The site is dominated by Eastern
Upper Karoo, which at 49 821 km2 is the most extensive vegetation type in South Africa
and forms a large proportion of the central and eastern Nama Karoo Biome. This
vegetation type is classified as Least Threatened, and about 2% of the original extent
has been transformed largely for intensive agriculture. The vegetation type is however
poorly protected and less than 1% of the 21% target has been formally conserved.
Mucina & Rutherford (2006) list eight endemic species for this vegetation type, which
considering that it is the most extensive unit in the country, is not very high. Dominant
species within the study area include Pentzia incana, Rosenia humilis, Pteronia sordida,
Zygophyllum lichtensteinii, Eriocephalus ericoides, Salsola calluna, Osteospermum
leptolobum and Ruschia intricata with a variable grass layer often including Fingerhuthia
africana, Eragrostis bergiana, Tragus koeleroides and Eragrostis lehmanniana. There
may be occasional areas of deeper sands present, usually of aeolian nature, blown up
against hills which are dominated by grass species such as Stipagrostis ciliata, S.obtusa
and Eragrostis lehmanniana with occasional scattered shrubs such as Lycium cinereum,
Gnidia polycephala, Rosenia oppositifolia and Melolobium candicans.
The Upper Karoo Hardeveld vegetation type is associated with 11 734 km2 of the steep
slopes of koppies, butts mesas and parts of the Great Escarpment covered with large
boulders and stones. The vegetation type occurs as discrete areas associated with
slopes and ridges from Middelpos in the west and Strydenburg, Richmond and Nieu-
Bethesda in the east, as well as most south-facing slopes and crests of the Great
Escarpment between Teekloofpas and eastwards to Graaff-Reinet. Altitude varies from
1000-1900m. Mucina & Rutherford (2006) list 17 species known to be endemic to the
vegetation type. This is a high number given the wide distribution of most Nama karoo
species and illustrates the relative sensitivity of this vegetation type compared to the
surrounding Eastern Upper Karoo. Typical and dominant species characteristic of these
areas includes grasses such as Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus, Enneapogon
scaber, Digitaria eriantha, Erogrostis lehmanniana and Aristida diffusa subsp. burkei;
shrubs such as Felicia filifolia, Pentzia globosa, Hermannia filifolia, H.munitiflora,
![Page 17: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
17
Melolobium candicans, Nenax microphylla, Eriocephalus ericoides, Asparagus suaveolens
and Chrysocoma ciliata and low trees and large shrubs such as Searsia burchellii, Ehretia
rigida and Lycium oxycarpum, Cadaba aphylla, Melianthus comosus and Buddleja
glomerata.
The Southern Karoo Riviere vegetation type is associated with the rivers of the central
karoo such as the Buffels, Bloed, Dwyka, Gamka, Sout, Kariega and Sundays Rivers.
About 12% has been transformed as a result of intensive agriculture and the
construction of dams. Although it is classified as Least Threatened, it is associated with
rivers and drainage lines and those areas classified under this vegetation type should be
considered sensitive. Within the site, dominant and typical species within this vegetation
type includes Acacia karoo which is usually dominant along the larger water courses, as
well as Olea europea subsp. africana, Searsia lancea and Diospyros lycioides. On the
open plains large woody species are less conspicuous the systems often anastomise with
extensive alluvial floodplains dominated by species such as Salsola aphylla, Salsola
rabieana and Atriplex vestita var. appendiculata, Aridaria noctiflora subsp straminea,
Drosanthemum lique and Lycium cinereum.
Compared to the other vegetation types, this is the only vegetation type at the site
which contains a significant amount of trees. The other vegetation types at the site are
dominated by low shrubs and grasses with occasional larger shrubs. The extent of this
vegetation type is not well mapped and is much more extensive along the larger
drainage systems of the site than has been mapped. This vegetation type is present all
along the Buffels, Bakensklip and other large drainage lines of the site. These areas are
also ecologically important because they function as ecological corridors for the
movement of fauna about the landscape and also represent key resource areas for many
fauna.
![Page 18: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
18
Figure 2. Broad-scale overview of the vegetation in and around the UmSinde Emoyeni
study area. The vegetation map is an extract of the national vegetation map as
produced by Mucina & Rutherford (2006), and also includes rivers delineated by the
National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (Nel et al. 2011).
3.2 Habitat Types
It is clear from Figure 2 above, that the vegetation types at the site have been mapped
at a very coarse scale. In particular, the Southern Karoo Riviere vegetation type has
been mapped only along the larger rivers, when this vegetation type occurs along most
of medium-sized rivers in the study area. In practice, the vegetation of the site, is
relatively homogenous at a broad scale, but is repetitively patterned within the site at a
fairly fine scale, related primarily to soil texture, depth and landscape position. Within
the UmSinde Emoyeni site, the main driver of vegetation composition is elevation.
Elevation is a key driver of vegetation pattern as it has a dominant influence on rainfall
as well as on temperature. Soils in the area are relatively homogenous and determined
![Page 19: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
19
by landscape position, with significant soils accumulated only on the low-lying areas, and
the majority of the site typically has gravelly clay soils or exposed weathered shale
gravels with little or no soil. There are some areas of dolerite outcrops at the site
associated with the Upper Karoo Hardeveld vegetation type and these areas contain
significantly greater plant and animal species richness than the surrounding areas on
shale-derived soils.
The different habitats encountered within the affected section of UmSinde Emoyeni are
mapped below in Figure 3. The landscape diversity and rugged topography of the area is
reflected in the map, which illustrates the varied nature of the site with hills, drainage
features and more flat areas repeatedly interspersed across the site. The majority of
turbines are located on the flatter open plains of the site, which is considered the least
sensitive habitat. However, there are also a number of turbines located on steeper
slopes especially within dolerite outcrops and within the plains wash habitat. On the
steeper slopes, access roads and turbines will generate a significant erosion risk and
there are also sensitive features present in these areas including localised habitats such
as rock fields and densely-vegetated south-facing slopes. The dolerite outcrops are
considered sensitive as these habitats contain high diversity of fauna and flora compared
to the adjacent areas and are considered vulnerable to human impact and disturbance.
The washes of the site are sometimes very broad and difficult to avoid and in many
cases, these are anthropogenic features resulting from the loss of vegetation cover due
to livestock grazing and concomitant increase in runoff and development of incipient
erosion. These areas are vulnerable to disturbance and specific precautions will need to
be taken in these areas to ensure that the development does not trigger or exacerbate
erosion problems in these areas. The proper regulation of runoff and water flow is a key
factor in these areas and mitigation should aim to slow the flow of water and thereby
reduce it energy and erosion potential as much as possible.
Apart from the drainage areas, other sensitive habitats present at the site include a
number of wetlands, which may occur in association with the drainage lines, or more
generally within lowland environments where saturated soils persist for several months
each wet season. Within the higher-lying areas, there are some rock fields present
which also contain succulent and geophyte species not found elsewhere at the site.
Many of these are small and would only be located during a walk-through of the facility,
should either phase become a preferred bidder under the REIPPP.
![Page 20: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
20
Figure 3. Habitat features of the UmSinde Emoyeni site, illustrating the diverse rugged
topography of the site
![Page 21: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
21
Figure 4. The larger drainage systems of the site such as Buffels and Snyderskraal Rivers are
important habitats for amphibians but are also key habitats and movement corridors for mammals.
Figure 5. Typical karoo dwarf shrubland vegetation which occupies the plains and gentle slopes
of the site especially within the Phase 1 development area. These are generally considered lower
sensitivity and are the most favourable areas for development at the site.
Figure 6. Dolerite outcrops are scattered across
the site and are considered sensitive habitats
because they contain greater floral and faunal
diversity than the surrounding areas.
![Page 22: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
22
Figure 7. Rock pavements and debris
fields are usually of limited extent, but
occur scattered across the site.
Although these areas may appear devoid
of life, they contain an abundance of
dwarf succulents and geophytes not
found elsewhere.
3.3 Plant Species of Conservation Concern
In terms of the presence of species of conservation concern within the site, the
abundance of such species is fairly low. According to the SIBIS database, only five such
species are known from the area. However an additional species Gethyllis longistyla
which is classified as Rare was observed in a rockfield near one of the wind measuring
masts near the eastern margin of the site. The other listed species are not likely to
impose a significant constraint on the development as several are associated with mesic
areas such as vleis and, as these areas are intrinsically sensitive, such areas would need
to be avoided in any case. Some other listed species are relatively widespread species
whose local populations are not likely to be compromised by the relatively low footprint
of the wind farm. It is, however, likely that additional listed species occur at the site as
it has not been well sampled in the past.
3.4 Faunal Communities
Mammals
The site falls within the distribution range of approximately 53 terrestrial mammals,
indicating that the mammalian diversity at the site is potentially high. The site is
extensive and topographically diverse, suggesting that a large proportion of these
species are likely to occur at the site. Species observed during the site visit to UmSinde
Emoyeni or to the adjacent Ishwati Emoyeni site include Greater Kudu Tragelaphus
strepsiceros, Aardvark Orycteropus afer, Rock Hyrax Procavia capensis, Springbok
Antidorcas marsupialis, Steenbok Raphicerus campestris, Cape Hare Lepus capensis,
South African Ground Squirrel Xerus inauris, Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillata, Bat-
eared Fox Otocyon megalotis, Namaqua Rock Mouse Aethomys namaquensis, Bush Vlei
Rat Otomys unisulcatus and Cape Porcupine Hystrix africaeaustralis. Three listed species
potentially occur at the site, the Black-footed Cat Felis nigripes (Vulnerable), Leopard
Panthera pardus (Near Threatened) and Honey Badger Mellivora capensis (SARDB
Endangered).
![Page 23: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
23
In terms of the listed mammals, it is possible that there are Leopard in the area given
the rugged topography of the site, while the Black-footed Cat and Honey Badger
probably also occur at the site at a low density as is typical for these species within arid
environments. Although some impact on these species may occur as a result of
development in the area, they are widespread species and this would not be likely to
compromise the local or regional populations of these species. It is not considered likely
that the Riverine Rabbit Bunolagus monticularis occurs at the site. This species is
associated with silty floodplains and if it were to occur anywhere at the site, it would be
on the lowland floodplains of the major rivers. As these areas would be avoided by the
development, the possibility of impact on this species can be discounted.
Some concern was raised during the scoping phase of the development around the
potential impact of the development on predator distribution at the site and the potential
for predators to move out of the development area and into the wider area. This was
partly based on a premise that the wind farm development may deter natural prey
species from the area and secondly that predators themselves would move out of the
area due to the wind turbines. During the construction phase, there will be a lot of noise
and disturbance at the site and it is reasonable to expect that some movement of
sensitive faunal species out of the affected area will occur. However, many species such
as small mammals, hares, dassies and small antelope are likely to remain in the area
and as these are the dominant prey species, it is not likely that prey abundance will
decline significantly. In the operational phase there is no evidence that turbines scare
animals away, which usually quickly become habituated to their presence. In addition,
turbines may attract some predators which learn that there may be dead birds and bats
beneath the turbines and a variety of studies have shown that such carcases are quickly
removed by predators, which is often a confounding factor in bird and bat mortality
studies. Therefore, any impacts on predator-prey dynamics are likely to occur during
the construction phase and would be transient and in the long-term predator prey
dynamics in the area is unlikely to be affected and the wind farm site would not be
source area for predators more than is currently the case. Any changes to the
management of the area or changes in livestock and predator management would have
an overwhelming influence compared to any potential impact of the development
infrastructure itself.
Reptiles
According to the SARCA database, 23 reptiles have been recorded from the half degree
squares 3123D and 3124C, but this rises to 50 species when the area of interest is
expanded to the whole of 3123 and 3124. The latter is a much bigger area than the
study site and probably includes a variety of habitats that are not present within the
study area, but sampling density across the karoo is generally very low and so a
conservative approach is necessary to ensure that all potential species present at the
site are captured. However, even within the larger dataset, there are few listed reptiles
that are likely to be present at the site.
![Page 24: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
24
The only listed species known from the area according to the SARCA database is the
Karoo Padloper, Homopus boulengeri, which is a karoo endemic restricted to the Nama
Karoo in the Eastern, Western and Northern Cape. The distribution of this species is
however fairly large and the site is not within an area of known significance for this
species which appears to favour lowland habitats over mountainous terrain.
It is possible that the Plain Mountain Adder Bitis inornata occurs within the high-lying
parts of the site, above 1600m. This little-known species is found in the Sneeuberge
and may occur at the site as well. It is currently listed as Endangered and has
apparently declined significantly in recent times. Although it has not been recorded from
the site, the area has not been well investigated and there is a reasonable probability
that it occurs at the site. Although the presence of this species would not constitute a
fatal flaw, it nevertheless highlights that areas above 1600m may have additional high-
elevation species present and should be considered higher sensitivity as a result.
The main impacts on amphibians would result from habitat loss, poaching risk and
disruption of landscape connectivity. The presence of roads and turbine service areas
would cause some habitat loss but this is not considered highly significant in context of
the landscape which is still largely intact and the loss of less than 200ha of habitat
across the site would generate low impacts on most species. However, there may be
some species which are vulnerable to habitat disruption due to roads as this can disrupt
the connectivity of landscape for subterranean species which are blocked by roads or for
slow-moving species such as some snakes and tortoises which are vulnerable predation
while crossing roads. During the construction phase species such as padlopers and tent
tortoises will also be vulnerable to illegal collection as these smaller species are often
picked up and kept or sold as pets. These latter impacts are considered of greater
concern than the direct impacts of habitat loss on reptiles. Previous studies on the
impacts of wind farm development on reptiles, have also shown that tortoises at least
are not significantly impacted by the presence of wind turbines (Lovich et al. 2011,
Ennen et al. 2012).
Amphibians
Amphibian diversity in the study area is low, with only 11 species known from the area.
This is however not surprising given the aridity of the area and low abundance of
favourable amphibian habitats. Clearly the larger river systems, the Buffels and
Bakensklip would be the most important areas for amphibians as these rivers contain
permanent pools which would be home to species such as Platanna, Cape River Frog and
Clicking Stream Frog. The smaller drainage lines and ephemeral pans are likely to be
used by less water-dependent species such as Common Caco and Karoo Toad. The only
listed species known from the area is the Giant Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus which is
associated with ephemeral pans and is not likely to be common in the area and is only
sporadically encountered in the Karoo.
In terms of impacts on amphibians, the large number of river crossings is a concern as
disturbance leading to erosion and silt input are a threat to amphibians on the site.
Many of the drainage lines are currently little impacted by direct human influences and
![Page 25: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
25
the large amount of disturbance at the site during construction would certainly be likely
to lead to a decline in water quality in the area due to increased turbidity and potentially
pollution as well. With the appropriate mitigation and avoidance, impact to drainage
systems, erosion and hence impact on amphibians can be kept to a minimum and in the
long-term impacts on amphibians are likely to be low.
3.5 Critical Biodiversity Areas
The site falls within the planning domain of the Critical Biodiversity Areas map for the
Central Karoo District Municipality. The map below (Figure 8) indicates the CBA status
of the area, as well as the underlying reasons that certain areas were designated as CBA
or ESA. In many areas there may however be several reasons that an area is a CBA or
ESA and so it is not possible to illustrate all the possible combinations, but the dominant
or most relevant reason has been illustrated.
A large proportion of the southern part of the site is CBA, while a large part of the
eastern section of the site is an ESA, based on the site falling within an area classified as
part of a priority catchment identified under the NFEPA. Although Phase 1 is in close
proximity to the CBA, it largely avoids the CBAs but under the current layout 57 turbines
are located within the Ecological Support Area. In terms of Phase 2, 64 turbines are
within the ESA and a small extent of new access road is within a CBA. Therefore, the
overall direct impact of the development on CBAs is low, but the potential impact on the
ESA is relatively high as the majority of the development footprint is located within the
ESA.
![Page 26: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
26
Figure 8. Critical Biodiversity Areas map of the UmSinde Emoyeni study area, based on
the CBA map for the Central Karoo District Municipality, produced by Skowno et al.
(2009). The map indicates the underlying reason each area is classified as a CBA or
ESA. The areas classified as CBA are stippled, whereas the remaining coded areas are
classified as ESAs.
In terms of the development contributing to cumulative impacts, the map of renewable
energy developments in the area is illustrated below in Figure 9. There are a number of
other proposed facilities in the broader area, especially to the west of the site near the
N1. These are however within a different environment from the current site and would
not contribute directly to the cumulative loss of similar habitat. The current low levels of
transformation of the affected habitat types indicates that the development is not likely
to pose a significant threat in terms of the extent of transformation that it would involve
![Page 27: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
27
or compromise the countries’ ability to meet national conservation targets. However,
impacts on broad-scale impacts are likely to result from noise generated by the facility
as well as human presence which may deter shy species from the area as well as disrupt
the connectivity of the landscape for such species. The density of the development is
high for a wind farm development, which on the one hand reduces the overall extent of
impact, but increases the intensity of impact within the affected area. Consequently,
reducing the number of turbines would ultimately reduce the impact of the development
as the turbines would be further apart and there would be less noise and other
disturbance at the site. Given the current low levels of disturbance at the site, the
development of two large wind energy developments at the site would significantly
increase disturbance and human presence at the site.
Figure 9. Map of renewable energy applications listed with DEA as at March 2015. Blue
polygons are wind energy applications, red are solar and blue with red borders are mixed
wind and solar developments. At this stage, it is only the Noblesfontein Wind Energy
facility in the furthest southwest of the map which has actually been built.
3.6 Site Sensitivity Assessment
The sensitivity map for the affected parts of the site is illustrated below in Figure 10.
The majority of the Phase 1 turbines are located within the open plains habitat which is
considered to be of Moderate sensitivity. However, 13 turbines are located within
dolerite outcrops which are considered high sensitivity on account of their high diversity
and an additional 7 turbines are located on slopes considered to be vulnerable to erosion
Umsinde
![Page 28: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
28
impact. In terms of Phase 2, 5 turbines are located within the dolerite outcrops and an
additional 20 on steep slopes and 5 within areas classified as High sensitivity as they are
within washes. The turbines within the washes should be moved out of these areas as
the washes are sensitive areas vulnerable to disturbance. Similarly, the number of
turbines within the dolerite outcrops should be reduced as much as possible.
Phase 2 is considered to have a greater impact than Phase 1 because it is more
dispersed and would generate an impact across a greater area and there are also more
turbines within sensitive habitats. Phase 1 is more compact and would generate a less
extensive but more intense impact. Under the assessed layout, most turbines are less
than 500m apart, meaning that any point within the turbine field is likely to be less than
250m from a wind turbine. Noise levels generated by turbines are relatively high within
the context of a natural environment with little other background noise pollution and
many species may find the wind farm environment unfavourable as a result. Therefore,
for many fauna, the footprint of the development should not be considered equivalent to
the extent of transformation, but rather to the full occupied extent of the wind farm
which is approximately 50km2 for Phase 1 and as much as 100km2 for Phase 2. Such
potential habitat loss and disruption of landscape connectivity is considered one of the
major impacts of the development.
![Page 29: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
29
Figure 10. Ecological sensitivity map of that part of the UmSinde Emoyeni site affected
by Phase 1 and Phase 2 infrastructure.
4 IDENTIFICATION & NATURE OF IMPACTS
In this section, the potential impacts and associated risk factors that are likely to be
generated by the development are identified. In order to ensure that the impacts
identified are broadly applicable and inclusive, all the likely or potential impacts that may
be associated with the development are listed. The relevance and applicability of each
potential impact to the current situation are then examined in more detail in the next
section.
![Page 30: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
30
4.1 Construction Phase
Impacts on vegetation and protected plant species
Site clearing for roads, turbines and other infrastructure would result in the loss of
currently intact vegetation. This may include protected and red-listed plant
species as well as their habitats. This impact is highly likely to occur in all areas
where development takes place and as such will be assessed for the facility as
well as the power line servitude.
Alien Plant Invasion Risk
The large amount of disturbance created during construction will leave the site
vulnerable to alien plant invasion. Although, this impact is generated during
construction, it is only expressed during operation and is therefore assessed for
the operational phase and not for construction. Some invasion of short lived
weedy species may occur during construction; however, their control would occur
largely during the operational phase after the completion of the site.
Increased erosion risk
Increased erosion risk would result from soil disturbance and the loss of plant
cover within cleared and disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and
includes quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact.
There are also a lot of drainage lines present that would be disturbed by the
construction of the facility and the risk of erosion problems would therefore be
high. As the larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the
NFEPA, erosion leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly
undesirable.
Due to the extensive disturbance likely to be created by construction within the
facility, this impact is most likely to occur within the facility, but could potentially
occur along the power line route as well if suitable avoidance and mitigation
measures were not implemented during construction.
Direct Faunal impacts
Increased levels of noise, pollution, disturbance and human presence will be
detrimental to fauna. Sensitive and shy fauna would move away from the area
during the construction phase as a result of the noise and human activities
present, while some slow-moving species would not be able to avoid the
construction activities and might be killed. Some mammals and reptiles such as
tortoises would be vulnerable to illegal collection or poaching during the
construction phase as a result of the large number of construction personnel that
are likely to be present. There are also some mammals of conservation concern
which occur in the area and impacts on these species would be undesirable.
Some habitat loss for these species is likely to occur, but would not be of high
![Page 31: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
31
significance given the scale of the development relative to the distribution extent
of these species.
Due to the large amount of activity and equipment operating within the facility
during construction, faunal impacts are highly likely within the facility, but less
likely along the power line route as construction activity will be localised and of
short duration. Consequently faunal impacts will be assessed for the facility, but
not the power line corridor.
4.2 Operational Phase
Alien Plant Invasion Risk
The large amount of disturbance created during construction will leave the site
vulnerable to alien plant invasion. This would be a particular concern if it resulted
in the spread of large woody species such as Prosopis which can have ecosystem-
level consequences for hydrology as well as biodiversity and the delivery of
ecosystem services.
This impact is likely to occur where extensive or recurrent disturbance takes place
and as such is most likely to occur within the facility. Disturbance along the
power line would be limited and of much shorter duration. As such this impact is
likely to be a significant problem only within the facility and is not considered a
likely impact associated with the power line corridor.
Increased erosion risk
Increased erosion risk would result from soil disturbance and the loss of plant
cover within cleared and disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and
includes quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact.
There are also a lot of drainage lines present that would be disturbed by the
construction of the facility and the risk of erosion problems would therefore be
high. As the larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the
NFEPA, erosion leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly
undesirable. This impact is likely to be initiated during construction, but the risk
is likely to persist into the operational phase and it is likely that long-term erosion
monitoring and control at the site would be necessary.
Due to the extensive disturbance likely to be created by construction within the
facility, this impact is most likely to occur within the facility, but could potentially
occur along the power line route as well if suitable avoidance and mitigation
measures were not implemented during construction.
Direct Faunal impacts
Increased levels of noise, disturbance and human presence during operation may
be detrimental to fauna. Noise generated by the turbines may have some impact
on sensitive fauna, while other species may avoid the area on account of the
increased levels of activity in the area. Many species would however become
![Page 32: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
32
habituated to the turbines and would return to normal activity after some time.
Direct faunal impacts during operation are likely to be limited to the facility and
significant interaction is not expected along the power line corridor. Faunal
impacts during operation are possible within the facility, but unlikely along the
power line corridor due to the low activity and limited scope for interaction of the
infrastructure with fauna.
Loss of landscape connectivity and disruption of broad-scale ecological processes
The presence of the facility and associated infrastructure could potentially
contribute to the disruption of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal,
migration or the ability of fauna to respond to fluctuations in climate or other
conditions. Many fauna avoid crossing open areas or are vulnerable to predation
when doing so and so the extensive road network which would be required for the
facility would contribute to this impact on a long-term cumulative basis. This
impact is considered significant only for the facility and it is highly unlikely that
the power line corridor would contribute significantly to this impact.
4.3 Decommissioning Phase
Alien Plant Invasion Risk
The large amount of disturbance created during decommissioning will leave the
site vulnerable to alien plant invasion. This would be a particular concern if it
resulted in the spread of large woody species such as Prosopis which could have
ecosystem-level consequences for hydrology as well as biodiversity and the
delivery of ecosystem services. This impact is likely within the facility, and
unlikely along the power line corridor.
Increased erosion risk
Increased erosion risk would result from soil disturbance and the loss of plant
cover within disturbed areas. The site is topographically diverse and includes
quite a lot of steep areas that would be vulnerable to erosion impact. As the
larger rivers at the site are considered priority rivers under the NFEPA, erosion
leading to impact on the riverine ecosystems would be highly undesirable. This
risk would be restricted to the facility and is not considered likely along the power
line route or substation.
4.4 Cumulative impacts
Impact on Critical Biodiversity Areas and cumulative disruption of broad-scale
ecological processes
Transformation within CBAs would potentially disrupt the functioning of the CBA
or result in biodiversity loss. In addition, the presence of the facility and
associated infrastructure could potentially contribute to the cumulative disruption
of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal, migration or the ability of
![Page 33: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
33
fauna to respond to fluctuations in climate or other conditions. There are a
number of other renewable energy facilities in the broad area and the cumulative
impact of these on habitat loss and the broad scale disruption of landscape
connectivity is a potential concern. This impact results from the facility itself and
the power line is not considered a significant contributor.
5 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
5.1 Planning & Construction Phase
Impact 1. Impacts on vegetation and listed or protected plant species resulting from
construction activities
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 High
3 Long-term
3
High
7 Probable HIGH – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 High
3 Long-term
3
High
7 Probable HIGH – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
Preconstruction walk-through of the facility in order to locate species of conservation concern that can be avoided or
translocated as well as comply with the provincial permit conditions.
Vegetation clearing to commence only after walk through has been conducted and necessary permits obtained.
Preconstruction environmental induction for all construction staff on site to ensure that basic environmental principles
are adhered to. This includes awareness as to no littering, appropriate handling of pollution and chemical spills,
avoiding fire hazards, minimizing wildlife interactions, remaining within demarcated construction areas etc.
ECO to provide supervision and oversight of vegetation clearing activities within sensitive areas such as near drainage
areas.
Vegetation clearing to be kept to a minimum. No unnecessary vegetation to be cleared.
All construction vehicles should adhere to clearly defined and demarcated roads. No off-road driving to be allowed
outside of the construction area.
Temporary lay-down areas should be located within previously transformed areas or areas that have been identified as
being of low sensitivity. These areas should be rehabilitated after use.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Impact 2. Alien Plant Invasion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
![Page 34: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
34
Essential mitigation measures:
Wherever excavation is necessary, topsoil should be set aside and replaced after construction to encourage natural
regeneration of the local indigenous species.
The recovery of the indigenous grass layer should be encouraged through leaving some areas intact through the
construction phase to create a seed source for adjacent cleared areas.
Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure, alien plant
species are likely to be a long-term problem at the site and a long-term control plan will need to be implemented.
Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint as well as adjacent areas which receive runoff from
the facility as there are also likely to be prone to invasion problems.
Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of
herbicides should be avoided as far as possible.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Short-term
1
Very Low 4
Probable Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Short-term
3
Very Low 4
Probable Low – ve High
Impact 3. Increased Erosion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
Dust suppression and erosion management should be an integrated component of the construction approach.
Disturbance near to drainage lines or the pan should be avoided and sensitive drainage areas near to the construction
activities should demarcated as no-go areas.
Regular monitoring for erosion problems along the access roads and other cleared areas.
Erosion problems should be rectified on a regular basis.
Sediment traps may be necessary to prevent erosion and soil movement if there are topsoil or other waste heaps
present during the wet season.
A low cover of vegetation should be left wherever possible within the construction footprint to bind the soil, prevent
erosion and promote post-disturbance recovery of an indigenous ground cover.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Low
1 Med-term
2
V Low
4 Probable V Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Low
1 Med-term
2
V Low 4
Probable V Low – ve High
Impact 4. Direct Faunal Impacts
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 High
3 Medium
2
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 High
3 Medium
2
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
![Page 35: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
35
Essential mitigation measures:
All personnel should undergo environmental induction with regards to fauna and in particular awareness about not
harming or collecting species such as snakes, tortoises and owls which are often persecuted out of superstition.
Any fauna threatened by the construction activities should be removed to safety by the ECO or appropriately qualified
environmental officer.
All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes
and tortoises.
All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any
accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related
to the nature of the spill.
If trenches need to be dug for water pipelines or electrical cabling, these should not be left open for extended periods
of time as fauna may fall in and become trapped in them. Trenches which are standing open should have places
where there are soil ramps allowing fauna to escape the trench.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Medium
2
Low
5 Probable LOW – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Medium
2
Low
5 Probable LOW – ve High
5.2 Operational Phase
Impact 1. Alien Plant Invasion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
Wherever excavation is necessary, topsoil should be set aside and replaced after construction to encourage natural
regeneration of the local indigenous species.
The recovery of the indigenous shrub/grass layer should be encouraged through leaving some areas intact through the
construction phase to create a seed source for adjacent cleared areas.
Due to the disturbance at the site as well as the increased runoff generated by the hard infrastructure, alien plant
species are likely to be a long-term problem at the site and a long-term control plan will need to be implemented.
Problem woody species such as Prosopis are already present in the area and are likely to increase rapidly if not
controlled.
Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development footprint as well as adjacent areas which receive runoff from
the facility as there are also likely to be prone to invasion problems.
Regular alien clearing should be conducted using the best-practice methods for the species concerned. The use of
herbicides should be avoided as far as possible.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
![Page 36: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
36
Impact 2. Increased Erosion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
All roads and other hardened surfaces should have runoff control features which redirect water flow and dissipate any
energy in the water which may pose an erosion risk.
Regular monitoring for erosion after construction to ensure that no erosion problems have developed as result of the
disturbance.
All erosion problems observed should be rectified as soon as possible, using the appropriate erosion control structures
and revegetation techniques.
All cleared areas should be revegetated with indigenous perennial grasses from the local area. These can be cut
when dry and placed on the cleared areas if natural recovery is slow.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Impact 3. Direct Faunal Impacts
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
No unauthorized persons should be allowed onto the site.
Any potentially dangerous fauna such snakes or fauna threatened by the maintenance and operational activities
should be removed to a safe location.
The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden.
If the site must be lit at night for security purposes, this should be done with downward-directed low-UV type lights
(such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects.
All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any
accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related
to the nature of the spill.
All vehicles accessing the site should adhere to a low speed limit (30km/h max) to avoid collisions with susceptible
species such as snakes and tortoises.
If parts of the facility are to be fenced, then no electrified strands should be placed within 30cm of the ground as some
species such as tortoises are susceptible to electrocution from electric fences as they do not move away when
electrocuted but rather adopt defensive behaviour and are killed by repeated shocks. Alternatively, the electrified
strands should be placed on the inside of the fence and not the outside.
![Page 37: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
37
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium 6
Probable MEDIUM – ve High
5.3 Decommissioning Phase
Impact 1. Alien Plant Invasion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
Rehabilitation of all cleared and disturbed areas with local species.
Post-decommissioning monitoring and control of alien species for at least 3 years after decommissioning.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Impact 2. Increased Erosion Risk
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
6 Definite MEDIUM – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
Removal of all infrastructure components from the site.
Rehabilitation of all cleared and disturbed areas with local species.
Off-site disposal of all facility components such as cabling, turbine parts etc.
Monitoring programme for at least three years after decommissioning to document vegetation recovery across the site.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
Phase 2 Local
1 Low
1 Long-term
3
Low 5
Probable Low – ve High
![Page 38: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
38
5.4 Cumulative Impacts
Impact 1. Impact on CBAs and Broad-Scale Ecological Processes
Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Without Mitigation
Phase 1 Regional
2 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
7 Probable High – ve High
Phase 2 Regional
2 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
7 Probable High – ve High
Essential mitigation measures:
The development footprint should be kept to a minimum and natural vegetation should be encouraged to return to
disturbed areas.
An open space management plan should be developed for the site, which should include management of biodiversity
within the affected areas, as well as that in the adjacent rangeland.
Avoid impact to potential corridors such as the riparian corridors associated with the larger drainage lines within the
facility area.
With Mitigation
Phase 1 Regional
2 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
7 Probable High – ve High
Phase 2 Regional
2 Medium
2 Long-term
3
Medium
7 Probable High – ve High
5.5 Summary Assessment
A summary of the different impacts associated with the Umsinde Emoyeni wind farm
development, is provided below in Table 1. Although, there are differences in the Phase
1 and Phase 2 impacts as discussed in the text, these are not apparent in the
assessment, which has a coarse resolution due to the limited number of possible
categories of significance. Although many of the impacts associated with the
development can be mitigated to a low level, there are several impacts such as the loss
of habitat and presence of the facility which may impact broad-scale ecological processes
which cannot be effectively mitigated.
Table 1. Summary assessment of impacts associated with the Umsinde Emoyeni wind farm
development. Impacts are applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development.
Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence
Planning & Construction Phase
Impact 1: Impacts on vegetation
and listed or protected plant species
resulting from construction activities
Before Mitigation High Probable High – ve High
After Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
Impact 2: Alien Plant Invasion Risk
Before Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Very Low Probable Low – ve High
![Page 39: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
39
Impact 3: Increased Erosion Risk
Before Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
After Mitigation V Low Probable V Low – ve High
Impact 4. Direct faunal impacts
during construction
Before Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High
Operational Phase
Impact 1. Alien plant invasion risk
Before Mitigation Medium Definite Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High
Impact 2. Increased erosion risk
Before Mitigation Medium Definite Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High
Impact 3 Faunal impacts during
operation
Before Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Medium Probable Medium – ve High
Decommissioning Phase
Impact 1. Alien plant invasion risk
Before Mitigation Medium Definite Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High
Impact 2. Increased erosion risk
Before Mitigation Medium Definite Medium – ve High
After Mitigation Low Probable Low – ve High
Cumulative Impacts
Impact 1. Impact on CBAs and
Broad-Scale Ecological Processes
Before Mitigation Medium Probable High – ve High
After Mitigation Medium Probable High – ve High
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Umsinde Emoyeni site is fair rugged and topographically diverse with the result that
there are numerous mountains, hills, gorges and valleys and streams present within the
study area. As several of these landscape features and habitats are considered
sensitive, the areas of lower sensitivity most suitable for development are fragmented
across the site and restricting the development footprint to these areas represents a
challenge for the developer. However, under the assessed layouts there are number of
turbines within areas considered sensitive, which should be relocated in order to reduce
the overall impact of the development. This is especially applicable to turbines within
area of plains wash which are highly sensitive to disturbance as well as those within the
dolerite outcrops which are foci of diversity and faunal activity.
Although the total footprint resulting from both phases of the development in terms of
transformation is less than 200ha, the actual extent of habitat loss experienced by many
species will be significantly larger than this and for fauna which avoid human activity or
![Page 40: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
40
which avoid the proximity of turbines due to noise or other impact, the total effective
footprint of the development would be closer to 150km2 (15 000ha). Although this is
significant in the local context, when considered at a broader regional scale, this is still a
small proportion of the landscape. As the levels of transformation in the area are low,
the development of the site would not prevent broad-scale movement for most species
and would have the greatest impact at an intermediate scale, affecting species
movement and presence within the Trouberg region.
As the wind energy developments represent an additional rather than an alternative
landuse, it is recommended that some sort of conservation management be
implemented across the development site in order to promote biodiversity and reduce
the overall impact of the development. This could include stewardship agreements or
the formation of a conservancy among the affected landowners to implement biodiversity
orientated management interventions at the site. Activities such as alien clearing or
erosion control should be partly funded by the wind farm development as these would
contribute directly to meeting the environmental management obligations of the wind
farm owner/operator.
![Page 41: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
41
7 REFERENCES
Alexander, G. & Marais, J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik
Nature, Cape Town.
Branch W.R. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik,
Cape Town.
Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa.
Struik Nature., Cape Town.
IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>.
Ennen, J. R., Lovich, J. E., Meyer, K. P., Bjurlin, C., & Arundel, T. R. (2012). Nesting
ecology of a population of Gopherus agassizii at a utility-scale wind energy facility in
southern California. Copeia, 2012(2), 222-228.
Lovich, J. E., Ennen, J. R., Madrak, S., Meyer, K., Loughran, C., Bjurlin, C. U. R. T. I. S.,
... & Groenendaal, G. M. (2011). Effects of wind energy production on growth,
demography and survivorship of a desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) population in
southern California with comparisons to natural populations. Herpetological Conservation
and Biology, 6(2), 161-174.
Marais, J. 2004. Complete Guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape
Town.
Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van
Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L.
and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem
Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.
Mucina L. & Rutherford M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. 2005. The mammals of the Southern African Subregion.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Skowno, A.L. Holness S.D and P. Desmet. 2009. Biodiversity Assessment of the Central
Karoo District Municipality. DEAP Report EADP05/2008, 52 pages.
![Page 42: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
42
8 ANNEX 1 LIST OF PLANTS
List of plant species known from the area around the UmSinde site, based on the SANBI SIBIS
database. IUCN status is from the South African Red List of Plants (2015).
Family Species IUCN Family Species IUCN
ACANTHACEAE Monechma incanum LC AIZOACEAE Galenia papulosa LC
AIZOACEAE Galenia procumbens LC AIZOACEAE Galenia pubescens LC
AIZOACEAE Galenia sarcophylla LC AIZOACEAE Plinthus karooicus LC
AIZOACEAE Tetragonia arbuscula LC AIZOACEAE Tetragonia echinata LC
AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus capensis subsp. capensis
LC AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus thunbergii LC
AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha Declining AMARYLLIDACEAE Brunsvigia radulosa LC
ANACARDIACEAE Searsia lancea LC APIACEAE Berula erecta subsp. thunbergii LC
APIACEAE Bupleurum mundii LC APIACEAE Chamarea longipedicellata LC
APIACEAE Conium chaerophylloides LC APIACEAE Deverra denudata subsp. aphylla
LC
APIACEAE Peucedanum caffrum LC APOCYNACEAE Duvalia maculata LC
APOCYNACEAE Huernia barbata subsp. barbata LC APOCYNACEAE Microloma armatum var. armatum
LC
APOCYNACEAE Tridentea virescens LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus acocksii LC
ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus aethiopicus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus burchellii LC
ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus capensis var. capensis
LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus concinnus LC
ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus cooperi LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus denudatus LC
ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus mucronatus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus racemosus LC
ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus retrofractus LC ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus striatus LC
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe aristata LC ASPHODELACEAE Aloe broomii var. broomii LC
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe variegata LC ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine asphodeloides LC
ASPHODELACEAE Bulbine narcissifolia LC ASPHODELACEAE Haworthia venosa subsp. tessellata
LC
ASPHODELACEAE Kniphofia ensifolia subsp. autumnalis
EN ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra acocksii LC
ASPLENIACEAE Asplenium cordatum LC ASTERACEAE Amphiglossa triflora LC
ASTERACEAE Arctotheca calendula LC ASTERACEAE Arctotis adpressa LC
ASTERACEAE Arctotis erosa LC ASTERACEAE Artemisia afra var. afra LC
ASTERACEAE Berkheya annectens LC ASTERACEAE Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. subcanescens
LC
ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma ciliata LC ASTERACEAE Chrysocoma coma-aurea LC
ASTERACEAE Cineraria aspera LC ASTERACEAE Cineraria lyratiformis LC
ASTERACEAE Conyza podocephala LC ASTERACEAE Conyza scabrida LC
ASTERACEAE Cotula coronopifolia LC ASTERACEAE Cotula microglossa LC
ASTERACEAE Denekia capensis LC ASTERACEAE Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis LC
ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca cuneata LC ASTERACEAE Dimorphotheca zeyheri LC
ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus africanus var. africanus
LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus decussatus LC
ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus ericoides subsp. ericoides
LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus eximius LC
ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus punctulatus LC ASTERACEAE Eriocephalus spinescens LC
ASTERACEAE Eumorphia dregeana LC ASTERACEAE Euryops annae LC
ASTERACEAE Euryops empetrifolius LC ASTERACEAE Euryops lateriflorus LC
ASTERACEAE Felicia filifolia subsp. filifolia LC ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata subsp. cinerascens
LC
ASTERACEAE Felicia muricata subsp. muricata LC ASTERACEAE Felicia ovata LC
![Page 43: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
43
ASTERACEAE Felicia zeyheri subsp. zeyheri LC ASTERACEAE Garuleum latifolium LC
ASTERACEAE Garuleum pinnatifidum LC ASTERACEAE Gazania krebsiana subsp. krebsiana
LC
ASTERACEAE Gazania linearis var. linearis LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum albo-brunneum LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum asperum var. albidulum
LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum dregeanum LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum hamulosum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum lineare LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum lucilioides LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum nudifolium var. nudifolium
LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum pentzioides LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum rosum var. arcuatum
LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum splendidum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum stoloniferum LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum tinctum LC ASTERACEAE Helichrysum tysonii LC
ASTERACEAE Helichrysum zeyheri LC ASTERACEAE Hertia cluytiifolia LC
ASTERACEAE Lactuca dregeana LC ASTERACEAE Lasiopogon glomerulatus LC
ASTERACEAE Lasiospermum bipinnatum LC ASTERACEAE Leysera tenella LC
ASTERACEAE Osteospermum leptolobum LC ASTERACEAE Osteospermum spinescens LC
ASTERACEAE Othonna auriculifolia LC ASTERACEAE Othonna coronopifolia LC
ASTERACEAE Othonna pavonia LC ASTERACEAE Pegolettia retrofracta LC
ASTERACEAE Pentzia dentata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia globosa LC
ASTERACEAE Pentzia lanata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia pinnatisecta LC
ASTERACEAE Pentzia punctata LC ASTERACEAE Pentzia sphaerocephala LC
ASTERACEAE Phymaspermum aciculare LC ASTERACEAE Phymaspermum parvifolium LC
ASTERACEAE Pseudognaphalium undulatum LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia adenocarpa LC
ASTERACEAE Pteronia erythrochaeta LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia glauca LC
ASTERACEAE Pteronia glaucescens LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia glomerata LC
ASTERACEAE Pteronia membranacea LC ASTERACEAE Pteronia sordida LC
ASTERACEAE Pulicaria scabra LC ASTERACEAE Rosenia humilis LC
ASTERACEAE Rosenia oppositifolia LC ASTERACEAE Rosenia spinescens LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio achilleifolius LC ASTERACEAE Senecio angustifolius LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio asperulus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio burchellii LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio consanguineus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio hastatus LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio hieracioides LC ASTERACEAE Senecio incomptus LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio leptophyllus LC ASTERACEAE Senecio niveus LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio radicans LC ASTERACEAE Senecio reptans LC
ASTERACEAE Senecio ruwenzoriensis LC ASTERACEAE Tarchonanthus camphoratus LC
ASTERACEAE Trichogyne paronychioides LC ASTERACEAE Tripteris aghillana var. aghillana
LC
ASTERACEAE Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia
LC ASTERACEAE Tripteris sinuata var. linearis LC
ASTERACEAE Tripteris sinuata var. sinuata LC ASTERACEAE Troglophyton capillaceum subsp. capillaceum
LC
ASTERACEAE Ursinia nana subsp. leptophylla LC ASTERACEAE Ursinia nana subsp. nana LC
BLECHNACEAE Blechnum australe subsp. australe
LC BORAGINACEAE Anchusa riparia LC
BORAGINACEAE Lithospermum affine LC BRASSICACEAE Erucastrum strigosum LC
BRASSICACEAE Heliophila cornuta var. squamata
LC BRASSICACEAE Heliophila suavissima LC
BRASSICACEAE Lepidium africanum subsp. africanum
LC BRASSICACEAE Lepidium africanum subsp. divaricatum
LC
BRASSICACEAE Lepidium desertorum LC BRASSICACEAE Lepidium ecklonii LC
BRASSICACEAE Matthiola torulosa LC BRASSICACEAE Sisymbrium capense LC
BUDDLEJACEAE Buddleja glomerata LC BUDDLEJACEAE Gomphostigma virgatum LC
CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia albens LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia androsacea LC
![Page 44: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
44
CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia nodosa LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia tenella var. tenella
LC
CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia thunbergiana LC CAMPANULACEAE Wahlenbergia undulata LC
CAPPARACEAE Cadaba aphylla LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Dianthus caespitosus subsp. caespitosus
LC
CARYOPHYLLACEAE Pollichia campestris LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Silene undulata LC
CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex semibaccata var. appendiculata
LC CHENOPODIACEAE Atriplex suberecta LC
CHENOPODIACEAE Bassia salsoloides LC CHENOPODIACEAE Exomis microphylla var. axyrioides
LC
CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola aphylla LC CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola calluna LC
CHENOPODIACEAE Salsola rabieana LC CONVOLVULACEAE Convolvulus sagittatus LC
CRASSULACEAE Cotyledon orbiculata var. dactylopsis
LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula capitella subsp. thyrsiflora
LC
CRASSULACEAE Crassula corallina subsp. corallina
LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula lanceolata subsp. lanceolata
LC
CRASSULACEAE Crassula lanuginosa var. lanuginosa
LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula muscosa var. muscosa LC
CRASSULACEAE Crassula natans var. minus LC CRASSULACEAE Crassula tetragona subsp. acutifolia
LC
CUCURBITACEAE Cucumis myriocarpus subsp. leptodermis
LC CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis africana LC
CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis capensis LC CYPERACEAE Carex glomerabilis LC
CYPERACEAE Cyperus laevigatus LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus longus var. longus LC
CYPERACEAE Cyperus marginatus LC CYPERACEAE Cyperus usitatus LC
CYPERACEAE Pseudoschoenus inanis LC CYPERACEAE Schoenoplectus paludicola LC
CYPERACEAE Scirpoides dioecus LC DIPSACACEAE Scabiosa columbaria LC
DRYOPTERIDACEAE Dryopteris antarctica LC EBENACEAE Diospyros austro-africana var. microphylla
LC
EBENACEAE Diospyros austro-africana var. rubriflora
LC EBENACEAE Diospyros lycioides subsp. lycioides
LC
EBENACEAE Diospyros pallens LC ERICACEAE Erica woodii var. woodii LC
EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia aggregata var. aggregata
LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia clavarioides var. clavarioides
LC
EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia epicyparissias LC EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia inaequilatera var. inaequilatera
LC
EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia rectirama LC FABACEAE Argyrolobium collinum LC
FABACEAE Cullen tomentosum LC FABACEAE Indigofera alternans var. alternans
LC
FABACEAE Indigofera sessilifolia LC FABACEAE Lessertia diffusa LC
FABACEAE Lessertia pauciflora var. pauciflora
LC FABACEAE Lessertia spinescens LC
FABACEAE Lotononis calycina LC FABACEAE Lotononis platycarpa LC
FABACEAE Melolobium calycinum LC FABACEAE Melolobium candicans LC
FABACEAE Melolobium microphyllum LC FABACEAE Sutherlandia frutescens LC
FABACEAE Trifolium burchellianum subsp. burchellianum
LC GERANIACEAE Geranium ornithopodioides EN
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium abrotanifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium alchemilloides LC
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium dichondrifolium LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium glutinosum LC
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium minimum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium proliferum LC
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium ramosissimum LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium sidoides Declining
GERANIACEAE Pelargonium tragacanthoides LC GERANIACEAE Sarcocaulon patersonii LC
GISEKIACEAE Gisekia pharnacioides var. pharnacioides
LC HYACINTHACEAE Albuca setosa LC
HYACINTHACEAE Drimia intricata LC HYACINTHACEAE Drimia physodes LC
HYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria undulata LC HYACINTHACEAE Massonia depressa LC
HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum juncifolium var. juncifolium
LC HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum tenuifolium subsp. tenuifolium
LC
HYPOXIDACEAE Empodium gloriosum LC HYPOXIDACEAE Empodium plicatum LC
IRIDACEAE Babiana bainesii LC IRIDACEAE Dierama pendulum LC
![Page 45: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
45
IRIDACEAE Hesperantha longituba LC IRIDACEAE Moraea pallida LC
IRIDACEAE Moraea polystachya LC IRIDACEAE Romulea macowanii var. alticola
LC
IRIDACEAE Romulea triflora LC IRIDACEAE Tritonia karooica LC
IRIDACEAE Tritonia laxifolia LC JUNCACEAE Juncus inflexus LC
JUNCACEAE Juncus rigidus LC LAMIACEAE Ballota africana LC
LAMIACEAE Mentha longifolia subsp. capensis
LC LAMIACEAE Salvia disermas LC
LAMIACEAE Salvia repens var. keiensis DDD LAMIACEAE Salvia verbenaca LC
LAMIACEAE Stachys aethiopica LC LAMIACEAE Stachys hyssopoides LC
LAMIACEAE Stachys rugosa LC LINACEAE Linum aethiopicum LC
LOBELIACEAE Lobelia dregeana LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia thermalis LC
LORANTHACEAE Septulina glauca LC LORANTHACEAE Tapinanthus oleifolius LC
MALVACEAE Anisodontea capensis LC MALVACEAE Hermannia abrotanoides LC
MALVACEAE Hermannia coccocarpa LC MALVACEAE Hermannia cuneifolia var. cuneifolia
LC
MALVACEAE Hermannia cuneifolia var. glabrescens
LC MALVACEAE Hermannia filifolia var. filifolia LC
MALVACEAE Hermannia grandiflora LC MALVACEAE Hermannia jacobeifolia LC
MALVACEAE Hermannia linearifolia LC MALVACEAE Hermannia multiflora LC
MALVACEAE Hermannia pulchella LC MALVACEAE Hermannia vestita LC
MARSILEACEAE Marsilea macrocarpa LC MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus comosus LC
MELIANTHACEAE Melianthus dregeanus subsp. dregeanus
LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Aridaria noctiflora subsp. straminea
LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Chasmatophyllum musculinum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Delosperma multiflorum LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Drosanthemum lique LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum aitonis LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum crystallinum
LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Mesembryanthemum excavatum
LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Psilocaulon articulatum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Psilocaulon coriarium LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Rabiea difformis LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Ruschia grisea LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Stomatium peersii LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Stomatium ryderae LC
MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Trichodiadema barbatum LC MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Trichodiadema pomeridianum LC
MOLLUGINACEAE Limeum fenestratum var. fenestratum
LC MOLLUGINACEAE Limeum humifusum LC
MOLLUGINACEAE Mollugo cerviana var. cerviana LC MOLLUGINACEAE Pharnaceum dichotomum LC
OROBANCHACEAE Hyobanche sanguinea LC OSMUNDACEAE Todea barbara LC
OXALIDACEAE Oxalis bifurca var. angustiloba LC OXALIDACEAE Oxalis depressa LC
OXALIDACEAE Oxalis smithiana LC PAPAVERACEAE Papaver aculeatum LC
PEDALIACEAE Sesamum capense LC PHYTOLACCACEAE Phytolacca heptandra LC
PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago crassifolia var. crassifolia
LC PLUMBAGINACEAE Limonium dregeanum LC
POACEAE Agrostis lachnantha var. lachnantha
LC POACEAE Aristida adscensionis LC
POACEAE Aristida congesta subsp. barbicollis
LC POACEAE Aristida congesta subsp. congesta
LC
POACEAE Aristida diffusa subsp. burkei LC POACEAE Aristida diffusa subsp. diffusa LC
POACEAE Bromus pectinatus LC POACEAE Cenchrus ciliaris LC
POACEAE Chaetobromus involucratus subsp. dregeanus
LC POACEAE Chloris virgata LC
POACEAE Cymbopogon prolixus LC POACEAE Cynodon incompletus LC
POACEAE Digitaria argyrograpta LC POACEAE Digitaria eriantha LC
POACEAE Echinochloa crus-galli LC POACEAE Ehrharta calycina LC
POACEAE Ehrharta erecta var. erecta LC POACEAE Ehrharta pusilla LC
POACEAE Eleusine coracana subsp. africana
LC POACEAE Enneapogon desvauxii LC
POACEAE Enneapogon scoparius LC POACEAE Eragrostis bicolor LC
![Page 46: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
46
POACEAE Eragrostis chloromelas LC POACEAE Eragrostis curvula LC
POACEAE Eragrostis lehmanniana var. chaunantha
LC POACEAE Eragrostis obtusa LC
POACEAE Eragrostis procumbens LC POACEAE Eragrostis rotifer LC
POACEAE Eragrostis truncata LC POACEAE Eustachys paspaloides LC
POACEAE Festuca scabra LC POACEAE Fingerhuthia africana LC
POACEAE Fingerhuthia sesleriiformis LC POACEAE Helictotrichon capense LC
POACEAE Helictotrichon turgidulum LC POACEAE Heteropogon contortus LC
POACEAE Hordeum capense LC POACEAE Hyparrhenia hirta LC
POACEAE Hyparrhenia poecilotricha LC POACEAE Karroochloa purpurea LC
POACEAE Koeleria capensis LC POACEAE Leptochloa fusca LC
POACEAE Melica decumbens LC POACEAE Melica racemosa LC
POACEAE Merxmuellera disticha LC POACEAE Merxmuellera stricta LC
POACEAE Miscanthus capensis LC POACEAE Oropetium capense LC
POACEAE Panicum coloratum var. coloratum
LC POACEAE Panicum stapfianum LC
POACEAE Pentaschistis airoides subsp. airoides
LC POACEAE Pentaschistis cirrhulosa LC
POACEAE Phragmites australis LC POACEAE Schismus inermis LC
POACEAE Setaria verticillata LC POACEAE Sporobolus fimbriatus LC
POACEAE Sporobolus ioclados LC POACEAE Sporobolus tenellus LC
POACEAE Stipa dregeana var. dregeana LC POACEAE Stipagrostis ciliata var. capensis LC
POACEAE Stipagrostis namaquensis LC POACEAE Stipagrostis obtusa LC
POACEAE Tetrachne dregei LC POACEAE Themeda triandra LC
POACEAE Tragus berteronianus LC POACEAE Tragus koelerioides LC
POACEAE Tragus racemosus LC POLYGALACEAE Muraltia alticola LC
POLYGALACEAE Polygala seminuda LC POLYGALACEAE Polygala virgata var. decora LC
POLYGONACEAE Polygonum plebeium LC POLYGONACEAE Rumex lanceolatus LC
POLYGONACEAE Rumex steudelii LC POLYPODIACEAE Polypodium vulgare LC
PORTULACACEAE Anacampseros arachnoides LC PORTULACACEAE Anacampseros filamentosa subsp. filamentosa
LC
PORTULACACEAE Talinum arnotii LC PTERIDACEAE Adiantum capillus-veneris LC
PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes bergiana LC PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes eckloniana LC
PTERIDACEAE Cheilanthes induta LC PTERIDACEAE Pellaea calomelanos var. calomelanos
LC
ROSACEAE Cliffortia ramosissima LC ROSACEAE Rubus ludwigii subsp. ludwigii LC
ROSACEAE Rubus rigidus LC RUBIACEAE Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum
LC
RUBIACEAE Anthospermum spathulatum subsp. spathulatum
LC RUBIACEAE Galium capense subsp. capense LC
RUBIACEAE Galium capense subsp. garipense var. garipense
LC RUBIACEAE Galium tomentosum LC
RUBIACEAE Nenax microphylla LC RUBIACEAE Rubia petiolaris LC
SANTALACEAE Thesium burchellii LC SANTALACEAE Thesium flexuosum LC
SANTALACEAE Thesium hystrix LC SANTALACEAE Thesium lineatum LC
SANTALACEAE Thesium namaquense LC SANTALACEAE Thesium triflorum LC
SANTALACEAE Thesium zeyheri LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Aptosimum elongatum LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma macrosiphon LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Chaenostoma rotundifolium LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia alonsooides LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Diascia capsularis LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Jamesbrittenia atropurpurea subsp. atropurpurea
LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Limosella grandiflora LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia cynanchifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Nemesia fruticans LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago acocksii LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago albida LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago crassifolia LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago geniculata LC
![Page 47: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
47
SCROPHULARIACEAE Selago saxatilis LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Veronica anagallis-aquatica LC
SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya karrooica LC SCROPHULARIACEAE Zaluzianskya peduncularis LC
SOLANACEAE Lycium afrum LC SOLANACEAE Lycium cinereum LC
SOLANACEAE Lycium oxycarpum LC SOLANACEAE Solanum capense LC
SOLANACEAE Solanum tomentosum var. tomentosum
LC SOLANACEAE Withania somnifera LC
THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia microphylla LC THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia polycephala LC
THYMELAEACEAE Passerina montana LC TYPHACEAE Typha capensis LC
URTICACEAE Urtica lobulata LC VERBENACEAE Chascanum incisum LC
VERBENACEAE Chascanum pumilum LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Tribulus terrestris LC
![Page 48: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
48
9 ANNEX 2. LIST OF MAMMALS
List of mammals which are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Ephraim Sun site. Habitat notes
and distribution records are based on Skinner & Chimimba (2005), while conservation status is
from the IUCN Red Lists 2014.2 and South African Red Data Book for Mammals (Friedmann &
Daly 2004).
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Likelihood
Afrosoricida (Golden Moles):
Chlorotalpa sclateri Sclater’s Golden Mole LC Montane grasslands, scrub and forested kloofs of the Nama Karoo and grassland biomes
High
Macroscledidea (Elephant Shrews):
Macroscelides proboscideus Round-eared Elephant Shrew
LC
Species of open country, with preference for shrub bush and sparse grass cover, also occur on hard gravel plains with sparse boulders for shelter, and on loose sandy soil provided there is some bush cover
High
Elephantulus rupestris Western Rock Elephant Shrew
LC Rocky koppies, rocky outcrops or piles of boulders where these offer sufficient holes and crannies for refuge.
High
Elephantulus edwardii Cape Rock Elephant Shrew LC From rocky slopes, with or without vegetation, from hard sandy ground bearing little vegetation, quite small rocky outcrops
High
Tubulentata:
Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC Wide habitat tolerance, being found in open woodland, scrub and grassland, especially associated with sandy soil
Confirmed
Hyracoidea (Hyraxes)
Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC Outcrops of rocks, especially granite formations and dolomite intrusions in the Karoo. Also erosion gullies
Confirmed
Lagomorpha (Hares and Rabbits):
Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC Dry, open regions, with palatable bush and grass
High
Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC Common in agriculturally developed areas, especially in crop-growing areas or in fallow lands where there is some bush development.
High
Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Hare LC Closely confined to rocky koppies, rocky kloofs and gorges.
Confirmed
Rodentia (Rodents):
Cryptomys hottentotus African Mole Rat LC Wide diversity of substrates, from sandy soils to heavier compact substrates such as decomposed schists and stony soils
High
Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC Catholic in habitat requirements. Confirmed
Pedetes capensis Springhare LC Occur widely on open sandy ground or sandy scrub, on overgrazed grassland, on the fringes of vleis and dry river beds.
Confirmed
![Page 49: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
49
Xerus inauris South African Ground Squirrel
LC Open terrain with a sparse bush cover and a hard substrate
Confirmed
Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled Dormouse LC Associated with sandstones of Cape Fold mountains, which have many vertical and horizontal crevices.
High
Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse LC Essentially a grassland species, occurs in wide variety of habitats where there is good grass cover.
High
Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC Wide habitat tolerance High
Mastomys coucha Southern Multimammate Mouse
LC Wide habitat tolerance. High
Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse LC
Catholic in their habitat requirements, but where there are rocky koppies, outcrops or boulder-strewn hillsides they use these preferentially
Confirmed
Aethomys granti Grant’s Rock Mouse LC Restricted to the karoo where they are associated with rocky terrain.
High
Parotomys littledalei Littledale’s Whistling Rat LC Riverine associations or associated with Lycium bushes or Psilocaulon absimile
Low
Otomys unisulcatus Bush Vlei Rat LC
Shrub and fynbos associations in areas with rocky outcrops Tend to avoid damp situations but exploit the semi-arid Karoo through behavioural adaptation.
High
Desmodillus auricularis Cape Short-tailed Gerbil LC Tend to occur on hard ground, unlike other gerbil species, with some cover of grass or karroid bush
High
Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed Gerbil LC Gerbils associated with Nama and Succulent Karoo preferring sandy soil or sandy alluvium with a grass, scrub or light woodland cover
High
Malacothrix typica Gerbil Mouse LC Found predominantly in Nama and Succulent Karoo biomes, in areas with a mean annual rainfall of 150-500 mm.
High
Primates:
Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon LC Can exploit fynbos, montane grasslands, riverine courses in deserts, and simply need water and access to refuges.
Confirmed
Cercopithecus mitis Vervet Monkey LC Most abundant in and near riparian vegetation of savannahs
Confirmed
Eulipotyphla (Shrews):
Myosorex varius Forest Shrew LC Prefers moist, densely vegetated habitat High
Crocidura cyanea Reddish-Grey Musk Shrew LC
Occurs in relatively dry terrain, with a mean annual rainfall of less than 500 mm. Occur in karroid scrub and in fynbos often in association with rocks.
High
Erinaceomorpha (Hedgehog)
Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog LC Generally found in semi-arid and subtemperate environments with ample ground cover
Low
Carnivora:
![Page 50: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
50
Proteles cristata Aardwolf LC Common in the 100-600mm rainfall range of country, Nama-Karoo, Succulent Karoo Grassland and Savanna biomes
High
Caracal caracal Caracal LC Caracals tolerate arid regions, occur in semi-desert and karroid conditions
Confirmed
Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC Wide habitat tolerance. High
Panthera pardus Leopard NT Wide habitat tolerance, associated with areas of rocky koppies and hills, mountain ranges and forest
Moderate
Felis nigripes Black-footed cat VU
Associated with arid country with MAR 100-500 mm, particularly areas with open habitat that provides some cover in the form of tall stands of grass or scrub.
High
Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet LC Occur in open arid associations High
Suricata suricatta Meerkat LC Open arid country where substrate is hard and stony. Occur in Nama and Succulent Karoo but also fynbos
High
Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC Semi-arid country on a sandy substrate Confirmed
Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose LC Wide habitat tolerance Confirmed
Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC Associated with open country, open grassland, grassland with scattered thickets and coastal or semi-desert scrub
High
Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal LC Wide habitat tolerance, more common in drier areas.
Confirmed
Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC Open country with mean annual rainfall of 100-600 mm
Confirmed
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel LC Primarily a savanna species that have an annual rainfall of more than 600 mm, although they have been recorded from drier areas.
Moderate
Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC Widely distributed throughout the sub-region Confirmed
Mellivora capensis Ratel/Honey Badger IUCN LC/SA RDB EN
Catholic habitat requirements High
Rumanantia (Antelope):
Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu LC Broken, rocky terrain with a cover of woodland and a nearby water supply.
Confirmed
Tragelaphus oryx Eland LC Wide habitat tolerance, absent from a large proportion of former range
Low
Oryx gazella Gemsbok LC Open arid country Low
Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC Presence of bushes is essential Confirmed
Redunca fulvorufula Mountain Reedbuck LC Dry grass-covered stony slopes hills and mountains.
High
Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok LC Associated with rocky hills, rocky mountainsides, mountain plateaux with good grass cover.
Confirmed
Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok LC Arid regions and open grassland. Confirmed
Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC Inhabits open country, Confirmed
Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer LC Closely confined to rocky habitat. Confirmed
![Page 51: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
51
![Page 52: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
52
10 ANNEX 3. LIST OF REPTILES
List of reptiles which are likely to occur at the UmSinde site, based on the SARCA database for
the immediate area (3123D, 3124C) as well as wider area (3123, 3124). Conservation status of
from Bates et al. (2014).
Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name Red list
category No.
records Area
Agamidae Agama aculeata aculeata Common Ground Agama
Least Concern 5 3123, 3124
Colubridae Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3128
Colubridae Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater
Least Concern 5 3123, 3129
Colubridae Dipsina multimaculata Dwarf Beaked Snake
Least Concern 1 3123, 3130
Colubridae Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern 3 3123, 3131
Colubridae Telescopus beetzii Beetz's Tiger Snake
Least Concern 5 3123, 3132
Cordylidae Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard
Least Concern 1 3123, 3134
Elapidae Aspidelaps lubricus lubricus Coral Shield Cobra
Not listed 3 3123, 3138
Gekkonidae Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern 2 3123, 3141
Gekkonidae Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Gecko Least Concern 6 3123, 3143
Lacertidae Pedioplanis laticeps Karoo Sand Lizard Least Concern 1 3123, 3148
Lacertidae Pedioplanis namaquensis Namaqua Sand Lizard
Least Concern 9 3123, 3150
Lamprophiidae Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake
Least Concern 6 3123, 3151
Lamprophiidae Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater
Least Concern 5 3123, 3152
Lamprophiidae Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake
Least Concern 1 3123, 3155
Lamprophiidae Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3156
Lamprophiidae Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake
Least Concern 2 3123, 3157
Lamprophiidae Psammophylax rhombeatus rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake
Least Concern 3 3123, 3159
Lamprophiidae Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Least Concern 1 3123, 3160
Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa subrufa Central Marsh Terrapin
Least Concern 1 3123, 3162
Scincidae Acontias breviceps Short-headed Legless Skink
Least Concern 2 3123, 3163
Scincidae Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern 1 3123, 3164
Scincidae Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern 1 3123, 3165
Scincidae Trachylepis sulcata sulcata Western Rock Skink
Least Concern 5 3123, 3166
Testudinidae Homopus boulengeri Karoo Padloper Near Threatened
1 3123, 3168
![Page 53: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
53
Testudinidae Psammobates tentorius verroxii Verrox's Tent Tortoise
Not listed 2 3123, 3170
Testudinidae Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern 20 3123, 3171
Typhlopidae Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake
Least Concern 1 3123, 3172
Gekkonidae Afroedura karroica Karoo Flat Gecko Least Concern 8 3123D, 3124C
Gekkonidae Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Gecko Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Gekkonidae Pachydactylus oculatus Golden Spotted Gecko
Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Varanidae Varanus albigularis albigularis Rock Monitor Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion gutturale Little Karoo Dwarf Chameleon
Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion ventrale Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon
Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Agamidae Agama atra Southern Rock Agama
Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Lacertidae Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard
Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Lacertidae Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Common Sand Lizard
Least Concern 3 3123D, 3124C
Scincidae Trachylepis variegata Variegated Skink Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Cordylidae Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard
Least Concern 3 3123D, 3124C
Cordylidae Karusasaurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard
Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Cordylidae Pseudocordylus microlepidotus fasciatus Karoo Crag Lizard Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Gerrhosauridae Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps
Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Lamprophiidae Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake
Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Lamprophiidae Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House Snake
Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Lamprophiidae Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Elapidae Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Viperidae Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Testudinidae Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern 6 3123D, 3124C
Testudinidae Homopus femoralis Greater Padloper Least Concern 4 3123D, 3124C
Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa galeata South African Marsh Terrapin
Not evaluated 1 3123D, 3124C
![Page 54: ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED …...This Ecological Specialist Assessment Report forms part of the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for the development,](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052101/603ac452cacaf1260b16b42f/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
UmSinde Emoyeni WEF – Specialist Ecological Study for EIA
54
11 ANNEX 4 LIST OF AMPHIBIANS
List of amphibians which are likely to occur in the vicinity of the UmSinde site. Habitat notes
and distribution records are based on Du Preez and Carruthers (2009), while conservation status
is from the IUCN Red Lists 2014 and Minter et al. (2004).
Family Genus Species Subspecies Common name Red list category No.
records Area
Bufonidae Vandijkophrynus gariepensis gariepensis Karoo Toad (subsp. gariepensis)
Not listed 10 3123D, 3124C
Bufonidae Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Bufonidae Poyntonophrynus vertebralis Southern Pygmy Toad Least Concern 2 3123D, 3124C
Pyxicephalidae Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco Least Concern 4 3123D, 3124C
Hyperoliidae Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina Least Concern 1 3123D, 3124C
Pyxicephalidae Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bull Frog Near Threatened 1
Pyxicephalidae Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog Least Concern 14 3123D, 3124C
Pyxicephalidae Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog Least Concern 5 3123D, 3124C
Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog Least Concern 1
Pyxicephalidae Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog Least Concern 7 3123D, 3124C
Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Least Concern 5 3123D, 3124C