BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...

 
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
  PROPOSED HYDROPONIC
PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN
 DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE
   TOWN, WESTERN CAPE

          GREG NICOLSON

            SEPTEMBER 2020

       REPORT PREPARED FOR
NCC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THIS REPORT
This is a ‘specialist report’ and is compiled in terms of the National Environmental Management
Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended, and the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2014, as amended.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIALIST
Capensis Ecological Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by the NCC ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES (PTY) LTD to provide specialist botanical consulting services for proposed hydroponic
production facilities near Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town, Western Cape.

CONDITIONS RELATING TO THIS REPORT
The content of this report is based on the authors’ best scientific and professional knowledge as
well as available information. Capensis Ecological Consulting (Pty) Ltd reserves the right to
modify the report in any way deemed fit should new, relevant or previously unavailable or
undisclosed information become known to the author from on-going research or further work in
this field, or pertaining to this investigation.

This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the authors. This
also refers to electronic copies of the report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as
part of other reports, including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or
conclusions drawn from or based on this report must make reference to this report. If these form
part of a main report relating to this investigation or report, this report must be included in its
entirety as an appendix or separate section to the main report.

DETAILS OF THE SPECIALIST
Gregory Nicolson MSc (Botany) Pr. Sci. Nat.
Capensis Ecological Consulting
156 Main Road
Muizenberg
7945
Mobile: 072 211 9843
e-mail: greg@capenis.co.za

Expertise
• Qualifications: BSc. Hons. (Environmental Science), MSc (Botany)
• Botanist with 7 years’ experience in the field of Botanical Surveys
• Has experience in Botanical exploration in South Africa and Namibia
• Has conducted over 100 botanical assessments for the EIA process.

                                                                                                        i
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

THE SPECIALIST

I, Gregory Alexander Nicolson, as the appointed specialist hereby declare/affirm the correctness
of the information provided or to be provided as part of the application, and that I:

•   in terms of the general requirement to be independent:
•   other than fair remuneration for work performed/to be performed in terms of this application,
    have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the activity or application and that
    there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity; or
•   in terms of the remainder of the general requirements for a specialist, am fully aware of and
    meet all of the requirements and that failure to comply with any the requirements may result
    in disqualification;
•   have disclosed/will disclose, to the applicant all material information that have or may have
    the potential to influence the decision of the Department or the objectivity of any report, plan
    or document prepared or to be prepared as part of the application;
•   have ensured/will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the
    application was/will be distributed or was/will be made available to interested and affected
    parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was/will be
    facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were/will be provided with
    a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments;
•   have ensured/will ensure that the comments of all interested and affected parties were/will be
    considered, recorded and submitted to the Department in respect of the application;
•   have ensured/will ensure the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist
    reports in respect of the application, where relevant;
•   have kept/will keep a register of all interested and affected parties that participate/d in the
    public participation process; and
•   am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 of the 2014 NEMA
    EIA Regulations.
    Note: The terms of reference of the review specialist must be attached.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company: Capensis Ecological Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Date: 30 September 2020

                                                                                                        ii
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4
2. PROTOCOL FOR DETERMINING LEVEL OF REPORTING ...................................................... 5
3. TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... 5
   3.1. GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 5
   3.2. SPECIFIC ............................................................................................................................. 5
4. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................. 6
   4.1. LOCALITY ............................................................................................................................ 6
   4.2. LANDSCAPE AND GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 9
   4.3. CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................. 9
5. METHODOLOGY, LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................... 10
6. THE VEGETATION OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................. 11
   6.1. NATIONAL VEGETATION TYPE AND ECOSYSTEM THREAT STATUS ......................... 11
   6.2 BIODIVERSITY PLANS ....................................................................................................... 14
   6.3. VEGETATION OF THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 16
     6.3.1 GENERAL SITE CONDITION ........................................................................................ 18
7. SENSITIVITY............................................................................................................................. 22
8. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................. 23
9. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 24
   9.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT FARM 39/20 KLEIN DASSENBERG ............................. 26
     9.1.1 DIRECT IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 26
     9.1.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 26
     9.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 26
   9.2 THE NO-GO SCENARIO ..................................................................................................... 26
   9.3 MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................ 26
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 28
11. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 29
APPENDIX 1: CONVENTION FOR ASSIGNING SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS TO IMPACTS. ....... 30
APPENDIX 2: MINIMUM CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY
SPECIALIST REPORTS AS PER PROTOCOL FOR THE SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY (GN 320 OF 20 MARCH 2020)
...................................................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 3: ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE: GREG NICOLSON ................................. 34
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

1. INTRODUCTION

 A new vegetable hydroponics production facility is proposed at Farm 39/20 Klein
 Dassenberg. The property is approximately 34 ha in size. NCC Environmental Services
 (PTY) Ltd. has been appointed to manage the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for
 the project. Capensis Ecological Consulting Pty (Ltd) (Capensis) was appointed by NCC to
 undertake a botanical assessment and provide a scoping report for the site. Following the
 initial scoping report for the proposed development the layout was adjusted to avoid the
 botanically sensitive areas. The updated proposed development layout appears in Figure 1.
                                                                                                  9

                                                                                                      30000

                                                                                                                                        1

                                                                                                                  3

                                                                                                                          4
                                                                                                                          5

                                                                                                                      7

                                                                                                                                                1:Access Control (10m2)
                                                                                          NO GO
                                                                                                                                                2:Roads & Marshalling yard (1,982ha)

                                                                                                                                  7             3:Admin, Processing and despatch (2800m2)

                                                                                                                                                4:Nursery 1100m2

                                                                                                                                                5:Training, R&D 1656m2

                                                                                                                                                6:Water Handling (to be determ ined)
                                                                                 F F ER

                                                                                                                      7                         7:Lettuces (3,38ha)
                                                                                BU

                                                                                                                                                8:Future Lettuces

                                                                                                                                                9:Tomato/Cucumber/Peppers(3,32ha)

                                                                                                                                                10:Borehole
                                                                                              NO GO                                             11:Future T/C/P

                                                                                                                                                12:Strawberries (3,32ha)

                                                                                                                                                13:Future Strawberries

                                                                                                                                                14: Ablution point (staff)
                                                                                          9                           7
                                                                                                                                                15: NO GO area (9000m2)
                                                                         O R
                                                                       I D

                                                                                                                                                16: Buffer (17 400m2)
                                                                    C OR

                                                                                                                                                17: Corridor (5 5000m2)

                                                                                                              9                                 18: Wetland (33 000m2)

                                                                                                                                                19: Water course (6 000m2)

                                                                                                                                                20: Remainder open space (15,6ha)

                                                                                                                                                21: Site area (34,26ha)
                                                                                                                                      30000
                                                                                                                                                22: Total disturbed area (19,8ha)

                                                                                                                                              Legend 1
                                                                                                                                              1 : 50

                                                                               12             9

                                                                                                                      WWTP

                                                                                                                              6
                                                                                    12

                                                                                                                                      30000
                                                    30000
                                                            30000

                                         Site
                                     1   1 : 2000

  Figure 1. The updated layout of the proposed development on the study site after botanical screening report was
                                         completed (image supplied by NCC).

                                                                                    Project Name
                                                                                    Owner
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

2. PROTOCOL FOR DETERMINING LEVEL OF REPORTING

The sensitivity of the site was predetermined using the Department of Environmental Affairs
(DEA) screening tool (https://screening.environment.gov.za/screeningtool/). The study area is
rated to have Very High terrestrial biodiversity sensitivity. This level of sensitivity requires a
Terrestrial Biodiversity Impact Assessment to be submitted as part of the application for
Environmental Authorisation (EA). This botanical impact assessment forms part of this input as
required in the Protocol for the assessment and reporting of environmental impacts on
terrestrial biodiversity (Government Gazette 2020).

3. TERMS OF REFERENCE

3.1. GENERAL

 Botanical assessments must follow guidelines set out in the following documents:

  ●       Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) Guidelines
          for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in the EIA Process (Brownlie, 2005);
  ●       Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in the Western Cape (Cadman et
          al., 2016);
  ●       The requirements of CapeNature for providing comments on agricultural, environmental,
          mine planning and water-use related applications (Turner, 2013); and
  ●       Procedures for the assessment and minimum criteria for reporting on identified
          environmental themes in terms of Sections 24(5)(a) and (h) and 44 of the National
          Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Government Gazette GN.320, 2020).

3.2. SPECIFIC

The specific terms of reference followed for this assessment are as follows:

Undertake a site visit and compile a Botanical Impact Assessment Report that addresses
the following:

      •    Identify and describe biodiversity patterns at community and ecosystem level (main
           vegetation type, plant communities in the vicinity and threatened/vulnerable
           ecosystems), at species level (threatened Red List species, presence of alien species)
           and in terms of significant landscape features;

                                                                                                         5
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

    •   Assess the local and regional importance of the vegetation communities and plant
        species within the affected areas based on the relevant biodiversity plans, bioregional
        planning documents and Environmental Management Frameworks etc.;
    •   Describe the sensitivity of the site and its environs and map these resources;
    •   Identify any areas not suitable for development or related activities (No-Go Areas) and
        related buffers that should be observed;
    •   Describe the direct, indirect and cumulative botanical impacts (both before and after
        mitigation) and an assessment of the significance of the impacts;
    •   Describe the measures to mitigate any impacts, and an indication of whether or not the
        measures (if implemented) would change the significance of the impact, for the
        construction and operational phases of the project; and
    •   Include any rehabilitation or monitoring measures that may be required.

4. STUDY AREA

4.1. LOCALITY
Farm 39/20 Klein Dassenberg (referred to as the ‘study area’ or ‘site’ in this report) is located
close to the town of Atlantis in the City of Cape Town (Figure 2). The study area is located on
the south side of Klein Dassenberg Road and midway between the R304 to the west and the
N7 to the east (Figure 3). The site and land to the east and west is undeveloped. Limited
agricultural activities, including grazing currently occur at the site (Figure 4).

                                                                                                         6
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 2. The location of the study area within the context of the City of Cape Town, overlaid on a Bing ™
Streetmap image.

                                                                                                             7
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 3. The location of the study area in relation to the closest roads and towns overlaid on a Bing ™ aerial
image.

Figure 4. A close-up image of the study area, overlaid on a Bing ™ aerial image.

                                                                                                                  8
BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

4.2. LANDSCAPE AND GEOLOGY

The study area is characterized by sandy flats with deep acidic regic sands (Rebelo et al. 2006
in Mucina & Rutherford 2006). The topography of the site is generally flat and does not support
dunes typical of the western parts of Atlantis. There are some shallow seasonally wet
deppresions and a small drainage line which occurs on the site.

4.3. CLIMATE

The climate of the area is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm dry summers (Figure
5). Rainfall is concentrated in winter from from April to September (MAP 440mm). Mean daily
temperatures: maximum 27.9°C for February and mean daily minimum 7.0°C for July (Rebelo
et al. 2006 in Mucina & Rutherford 2006).

Figure 5. Climate chart for the study area showing maximum and minimum temperatures with monthly rainfall
averages (www.meteoblue.com).

                                                                                                            9
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

5. METHODOLOGY, LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

 The study area was visited on the 11th of November 2019 and surveyed on foot. Sample
 waypoint positions were obtained using a Garmin GPS map 62. Photographs were taken and
 georeferenced using an Olympus TG-5 Camera with built-in GPS.

 The following sources have been used to inform this study:

  ●   Site boundaries: The property boundaries have been downloaded from the Cape
      Farm Mapper Website (https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/).
  ●   Vegetation Types: Based on The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland
      (VEGMAP)(Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The South African National Biodiversity
      Institute (SANBI) has updated the mapping for the VEGMAP (2012) and these latest
      shapefiles have been used where appropriate. Where fine scale vegetation maps
      are available these are also used (e.g. C.A.P.E. Fine Scale Integrated Vegetation
      Map (2007).
  ●   Ecosystem threat status: Informed by the List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems
      (Government Gazette, 2011) and CapeNature’s (2014) updated ecosystem status
      based on criterion A1 only (irreversible loss of habitat). An update of the ecosystem
      threat status has been produced as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial
      Plan (CapeNature, 2016) and is used as the most up to date information on
      ecosystem threat status in the Western Cape.
  ●   Biodiversity planning: The City of Cape Town BioNet (Holmes and Pugnalin, 2017),
      is important for determining the conservation importance of the designated habitat.
      Ground-truthing is an essential component in terms of determining the habitat
      condition.
  ●   Important species: The presence or absence of threatened (i.e. species of
      conservation concern) and ecologically important species informs the ecological
      condition and sensitivity of the site. The latest conservation status of species is
      checked on the Red List of South African Plants (Raimondo et al. 2009) via the
      website (www.redlist.sanbi.org).
  ●   Previous studies: Previous botanical studies in the region of the study area provide
      additional information that can support the findings of the once-off nature of a typical
      impact assessment report.

The site visit was carried out during early summer. The peak flowering time in this region is
spring, which occurs from August to October. The timing of the survey is therefore regarded as

                                                                                                         10
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

sub-optimal in terms of accurately assessing the flora of the site. Despite this limitation, the
overall condition of the vegetation can still be determined with a moderate to high degree of
confidence.

6. THE VEGETATION OF THE STUDY AREA

6.1. NATIONAL VEGETATION TYPE AND ECOSYSTEM THREAT STATUS

According to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SANBI, 2012)
(VEGMAP), the vegetation type occurring in the study area and surrounds is Atlantis Sand
Fynbos (Table 1; Figure 6). Atlantis Sand Fynbos occurs “on moderately undulating to flat
sand plains with a dense moderately tall, ericoid shrubland dotted with emergent, tall
sclerophyllous shrubs and an open, short restioid stratum Restioid and proteoid fynbos are
dominant, with asteraceous fynbos and patches of ericaceous fynbos in seepages” (Rebelo et
al. 2006 in Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Atlantis Sand Fynbos occurs on the West Coast
coastal flats of the Western Cape province and east towards Klipheuwel and Paardeberg.

Ecosystem threat status is derived from three sources. These include the following:
1. The National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (NLTTE) (Government Gazette,
2011).
2. The Western Cape State of Biodiversity (WCSB) Report (Turner, 2017).
3. The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) (2018).

Table 1 provides a summary of the threat statuses, remaining extent and conservation target.

Atlantis Sand Fynbos is listed as Critically Endangered in the NLTTE, WCSB Report under
criterion D1 and an Endangered in the NBA. This is explained in the NBA:

          “Atlantis Sand Fynbos is heavily degraded by alien invasive species such as Acacia
          saligna, A. cyclops and various species of Eucalyptus and Pinus (Rebelo et al.
          2006). Consequently, 145 plant species are threatened mainly as a result of alien
          invasive species (142 species) and overgrazing (99 species), but also by altered fire
          regimes (54 species)(Red List of Species 2018). Agriculture, mainly small holdings
          and pastures, has also been a key pressure to this ecosystem type more recently,
          with 16 069 ha (23 %)(2014) consisting of croplands, as well as historically with a
          further 15 279 ha (22 %)(2014) consisting of old fields (Rebelo et al. 2006; HBMOD
          2018)”.

                                                                                                         11
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Table 1. Ecosystem threat status according derived from available information sources

                                The National List of
                                                          The Western Cape State of      The National Biodiversity
 Ecosystem threat status      Threatened Terrestrial
                                                              Biodiversity (2017)            Assessment (2019)
                                Ecosystems (2011)

    Atlantis Sand           CRITICALLY ENDANGERED         CRITICALLY ENDANGERED         ENDANGERED (B1thrsp_inv
        Fynbos                         (D1)                          (D1)                     and B1thrsp_ovgr)

                                                                                         Limited extent ecosystem at
                                Threatened species            Threatened species
        Reason                                                                          risk of collapse due to invasive
                                   associations.                 associations.
                                                                                          species and overgrazing.
     Remaining % of
                                       51%                           38%                             52%
       ecosystem
   Conservation target                 30%                           30%                             30%
   Species of special       84 Threatened species and 6
        concern                  endemic species.

                                                                                                                           12
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 6. VEGETATION MAP: The vegetation types within the study area, superimposed on a portion of The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SANBI, 2012)
overlaid on a Bing ™ aerial image.
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

6.2 BIODIVERSITY PLANS

The conservation importance of all areas within the City of Cape Town have been mapped in the
Biodiversity Network (BioNet) (Holmes and Pugnalin, 2017). The BioNet map units are selected for
conserving important habitats and biodiversity processes. The habitat categories are selected for
various reasons and may include degraded or low quality vegetation, since they may serve as
important biodiversity corridors between ecologically intact habitats. It is therefore important to
ground-truth these areas and interpret the findings in relation to the objectives of the CoCT BioNet
Map (City of Cape Town, 2017).

●       The entire site is classified as “Other Natural Area” (Table 2; Figure 7).

Table 2. City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network category descriptions and permissible activities assigned in the relevant
to the study area and immediate surrounds (Holmes & Pugnalin, 2016).

Critical       CBA Name        Description       Significance of        Objective        Action           Compatible Activities
Biodiversity                                     Habitat
Area (CBA)
Category
Other          Unselected      Natural           Local                  Sustainable      Negotiable.      Until Bio Network is secured
Natural        Natural Area:   vegetation in     significance. Will     management       Low priority,    elsewhere, these areas may
Areas          Good/Fair/Re    Endangered,       result           in    within general   no urgency.      become NB if required as
               storable        Vulnerable        impaired     ability   rural land-use   Invasive         biodiversity offset sites. Higher
                               and       Least   to meet targets,       principles.      alien control.   impact   activities   could   be
                               Concern      in   given that higher                                        considered     on     degraded
                               good         or   categories      will                                     portions. Vegetation in good
                               restorable        not always be                                            condition should be subject to
                               condition.        achievable.                                              low impact activities only.

The key ecological drivers in lowland fynbos ecosystems according to Cadman et al. (2016)
include (1) the natural fire frequency, (2) diversity of habitat and environmental gradients, (3)
regional and local natural water drainage patterns and (4) natural grazing and physical soil
disturbance.
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 7. CONSERVATION PLANNING MAP: The study area in relation to the BioNet (Homes and Pugnalin, 2017) overlaid on a Bing ™ aerial image.
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

6.3. VEGETATION OF THE STUDY AREA

The description of the vegetation within study area and habitat condition classes appears below in
sections 6.3.1. A description of the various habitat condition classes appears in Table 3.

Table 3. The habitat condition descriptions used for the vegetation on the site.

     Habitat condition       Description
     Intact vegetation       A true representation of the original vegetation type in terms of structure and species
                             makeup. Minimal soil disturbance. Unlikely to have ever been ploughed. Disturbance may
                             be evident.
     Semi-intact             Closely resembles the original vegetation type in terms of structure and species makeup
                             but has undergone some form of current or historical disturbance. Restoration potential is
                             high.
     Degraded                Only a few species representative of the original vegetation type are present. The
                             vegetation has undergone heavy disturbance. Restoration potential is either low or
                             moderate.
     Highly degraded         The original vegetation is usually absent and has been removed in the past. Only a few
                             remnant or pioneer species are present. Soils usually ploughed in the past. Restoration
                             potential is very low.
     Transformed             No remnant species exist anymore. The landscape is altered irreversibly with no restoration
                             potential. Examples include cultivated farmland and the built environment.

                                                                                                                   16
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 8. HABITAT MAP: The habitats identified on the site overlaid on a Bing ™ aerial image including the species of conservation concern (SCC).

                                                                                                           17
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

6.3.1 General site condition

The overall condition of the vegetation on the site is degraded to highly degraded. The original
overstorey shrub layer has been completely removed and the site is dominated by low to very low
vegetation (Figure 9). The nature of the original disturbance is unknown, however, it is likely that
the entire study area was cleared for agricultural purposes. Cows currently graze the site, which
contributes to the degradation. Despite the lack of indigenous shrubs, the study area is still
dominated by indigenous species. The dominant growth forms are graminoids, annuals and
succulent ground covers. The most dominant species are kweek (Cynodon dactylon), polgras
(Ehrharta calycina) and Dasispermum hispidum. Exotic grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus
diandrus), wild oats (Avena fatua) and ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) are common, as are
agricultural weeds such as lotus (Lotus sp.) and vetch (Vicia sp.).

 Figure 9. A typical view of the site showing the low species diversity and denuded shrub layer.

Indigenous annuals are fairly common on the site and include lionsface (Nemesia affinis),
Phyllopodium cephalophorum, Lyperia tristis and the reenblom (Dimorphotheca pluvialis).
Succulents include varkslaai (Conicosia pugioniformis) and Carpanthea pomeridiana. Bulbs occur
in low densities throughout the site. These include include: ladies hand (Cyanella hyacinthoides),
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

koffiepit (Wachendorfia paniculata), Albuca sp., aasuintjie (Moraea collina), soetuintjie (Moraea
fugax), Capespinach (Trachyandra sp.), Disa bracteata, chinkerinchee (Ornithogalum thyrsoides)
and kabong (Lapeirousia anceps).

The Critically Endangered Aspalathus retroflexa subsp. bicolor was found in two small
populations (total of approximately 10 plants)(Figure 10). The species is located in two localities, at
S33.59251° E18.54119° and S33.59520° E18.54129°. This species is only known from
approximately 6 small and very fragmented populations. Any new populations found are therefore
regarded as regionally significant.

Figure 10. The Critically Endangered Aspalathus retroflexa subsp. bicolor was found in two small areas on the site.

The site has mostly been kept free of the invasive Port Jackson willow (Acacia saligna). Piles of
cleared Port Jackson are visible on the site and a low density of seedlings are emerging. Two large
established patches of this species have been left on the site (Figures 8 and 11).

                                                                                                                      19
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 11. Two large patches of Port Jackson willow remain on the site.

On the southern side of the site there are a number of small seasonally wet depressions and an
ephemeral drainage line. A freshwater ecology study will delineate the boundaries of these
features. These areas are dominated by species typically associated with seasonally wet and
slightly saline conditions and include sedges, rushes and glassworts (Figure 12). Species recorded
in the wet areas include: Sporobolus virginicus, Limonium scabrum, Juncus oxycarpus, Isolepis
marginata, Ficinia sp., Ficinia pygmaea (Near Threatened), Cotula cf. vulgaris, Triglochin bulbosa
and Crassula glomerata.

                                                                                                         20
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 12. The seasonal drainage line can be seen as the bright green area surrounded by brown vegetation. Although
it appears highly degraded, a moderate diversity of indigenous species are found in this area.

One species of conservation concern (SCC) was found on the edges of the seasonally wet areas,
the Endangered Hermannia procumbens subsp. myrrhifolia (Figure 13). Approximately 40 plants
were found on the site and this is therefore a regionally significant population. The Near
Threatened Ficinia pygmaea was found sporadically throughout the seasonally wet areas.
Another potentially threatened SCC, the Endangered Manulea cf. augei, was found in the vicinity
of the seasonally wet areas, however, the identification has not been confirmed.

                                                                                                               21
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 13. The Endangered Hermannia procumbens subsp. myrrhifolia is found on the edges of the seasonal stream in
the study area. Pictured here are the leaves of this low growing and inconspicuous plant.

7. SENSITIVITY

 Sensitivity is defined here as the ‘conservation value’ together with the ‘degree of resilience to
 disturbance’. The conservation value relates to the conservation status (including the ecosystem
 threat status) and other factors including ecological connectivity, habitat condition, persistence of
 ecological process and the site’s role in supporting biodiversity. The degree of resilience takes
 into consideration factors such as sensitivity to disturbance and restoration potential.

 A Low sensitivity rating is applied to the greater part of the site for the following reasons:

  1. The vegetation on the site is degraded to highly degraded and does not represent the original
       vegetation in terms of diversity and composition.
  2. The site is does not provide connectivity between intact remnants.
  3. This area has low to moderate rehabilitation potential.

                                                                                                             22
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

  4. The site is included in the BioNet as “Other Natural Area”. This is a valid category confirmed
      during the site visit.

A High sensitivity rating is applied to the areas that contain the SCC and the seasonally wet areas
for the following reasons:

  1. Two of the SCC, namely the Critically Endangered Aspalathus retroflexa subsp. bicolor and
      the Endangered Hermannia procumbens subsp. myrrhifolia are both regionally significant
      populations.
  2. The seasonally wet areas are inherently sensitive as wetlands. Two other SCC have been
      identified in this area (Ficinia pygmaea and Manulea cf. augei.) A freshwater ecologist will
      accurately delineate these sites and necessary buffers.

The sensitivity/constraints map for the site appears below in Figure 14.

8. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The identification of potentially developable and No-Go areas is largely dependent on the habitat
sensitivity. However, if it is reasonable to either include or exclude certain areas based on an
evaluation of the best interests of the affected environment versus the proposed development
activity, then this should be motivated accordingly.

In the case of the study area, the two regionally significant populations of SCC and the seasonally
wet areas are deemed to be highly sensitive and should be considered as No-Go areas. An area of
30 - 40m around each population is required to protect the two sub-populations of Aspalathus
retroflexa subsp. bicolor of. These two sites should be connected via a buffer and protected in
perpetuity. Rehabilitation of this area, including the propagation of the SCC, should be undertaken.
The seasonal stream, should be excluded form the development area (i.e. No-Go). The
rehabilitation of this area will also be required. It is further recommended that these two No-Go
areas are connected through a corridor along the west boundary of the property (Figure 14).

                                                                                                         23
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 14. SENSITIVITY AND CONSTRAINTS MAP: The sensitivity and constraints for the proposed development are
directly linked to the sensitive habitats and SCC.

9. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The impact assessment is a measure of the impacts likely to occur on the affected environment,
specifically the vegetation, ecological processes, important species and habitats. They are
considered for (a) the ‘No-Go’ scenario and (b) the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project. The updated layout of the proposed development has taken the botanically
sensitive areas into account and excluded these from the footprint (Figure 15).
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Figure 15. The updated conceptual layout of the proposed development showing the services (image supplied by NCC).

                                                                                                               25
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

9.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT FARM 39/20 KLEIN DASSENBERG

9.1.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts occur through direct interaction of an activity with the environment. If the High
sensitivity areas and buffers are recognized and excluded from the development footprint, the
impact would be Low negative (Table 4). The conservation and rehabilitation of these areas would
reduce the impact associated with the development significantly (see mitigation) and if successful
could result in a Low positive impact.

9.1.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts on the environment are those which are not a direct result of the project, often
produced away from or as a result of a complex impact pathway. Examples include loss of diversity
due to loss of connectivity between vegetation remnants and associated loss of pollination. Indirect
impacts are likely to occur during the operational stage. No indirect impacts have been identified for
this site.

9.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are those impacts linked but not limited to (a) increased loss of vegetation type
or the ecosystems listed in the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (Government
Gazette, 2011) and (b) other local developments taking place in the region. The development of
this site would result in the loss of approximately 19.5 ha of vegetation, 0.13 % of the remaining
area of Atlantis Sand Fynbos (14810 ha according to the COCT BioNet). This area and percentage
is small, and if the proposed mitigation is implemented only highly degraded habitat would be lost
and the cumulative impact would be Low negative (Table 4).

9.2 THE NO-GO SCENARIO
Under the No-Go scenario the development does not go ahead and the status quo would remain
the same. This would likely result in a Low negative impact (with general further degradation of the
site and possible loss to the SCC).

9.3 MITIGATION
Mitigation options are generally considered in terms of the following hierarchy: (1) avoidance, (2)
minimization, (3) restoration and (4) offsets. Avoidance is possible in this case as the development
can take the sensitive areas into consideration and avoid development here. The impacts can be
minimized by reducing (minimizing) the development footprint. Rehabilitation of the undeveloped

                                                                                                         26
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

portions of the site could reduce the impact further, possibly resulting in a positive impact if the
populations of SCC are protected and rehabilitated. An offset would not be required if the sensitive
areas are avoided. The residual impact would most likely be Low negative to Medium positive
depending on the extent of the rehabilitation and long-term conservation measures applied to the
areas excluded from the development footprint. The following mitigation measures are proposed for
the site:
    •    The sensitive areas that are to be excluded from the development must be surveyed to
         determine they are accurately aligned with the botanical and freshwater sensitivities on the
         site.
    •    An ECO and/or botanist must be present to ensure that the populations of Aspalathus
         retroflexa subsp. bicolor are not damaged and are correctly incorporated into the no-go
         areas during the surveying exercise.
    •    The no-go areas must be physically marked out to ensure that they are completely avoided
         during construction.
    •    A rehabilitation plan should be drafted and incorporated into the EMPr for the property. This
         plan should detail the rehabilitation of the sensitive and no-go areas.

Table 4. The impact significance table for both the construction and operational phase of the project.

                              Proposed developments                                         “No go”
                   Without Mitigation         With mitigation             Without Mitigation          With mitigation
Nature                 Negative                    Positive                    Neutral                    Neutral
Extent                 Local (2)                   Local (1)                  Local (2)                  Local (2)
Magnitude               Low (1)                     Low (1)                  Medium (2)                Medium (2)
Duration             Long term (3)               Long term (3)              Long term (3)             Long term (3)
Consequence           Moderately                   Slightly                    Slightly                   Slightly
                    detrimental (6)              beneficial (5)            detrimental (7)            detrimental (7)
Significance          LOW (-) (24)               LOW (-) (20)               LOW (-) (21)               LOW (-) (21)
Probability           Definite (4)                Definite (4)              Probable (3)               Probable (3)
Confidence               High                        High                       High                       High
Reversibility             Low                        Low                       Medium                     Medium
Irreplaceable
loss          of        Medium                       Low                         Low                        Low
resources
Cumulative
                        Low (-)                     Low (+)                  Negligible                  Negligible
Impact
Degree        to
which       the
                                        Medium                                               Low
impact      can
be avoided
Degree        to                        Medium                                               Low

                                                                                                                        27
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

which     the
impact   can
be managed
Degree     to
which     the
                                   Medium                                          Low
impact   can
be mitigated

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study area is located within an area of potentially high botanical sensitivity as the vegetation
type present, Atlantis Sand Fynbos, is listed as Critically Endangered (D1 – threatened species
associations) and Endangered (A1 – irreversible loss of habitat). Whereas the condition of the
vegetation is degraded to highly degraded, the high association with threatened species was found
to be relevant with three SCC found on the site. Potentially a fourth SCC occurs at the site but this
has not been confirmed. The entire study area is included in the City of Cape Town BioNet as
“Other Natural Areas” (ONAs). This is not one of the high importance categories in the BioNet,
however, these areas may become important as conservation areas or as offset sites in the future.
According to the BioNet, high impact activities can only be considered in degraded portions and
vegetation in good condition should be subject to low impact activities (Holmes and Pugnalin
2016). The screening study for the site identified a number of high sensitivity areas associated with
SCC and seasonally wet areas. These sites and additional buffers and a corridor have been
proposed to ensure that these sites are at least a minimum size for a viable ecologically
functioning. These recommendations have been incorporated into the updated conceptual layout
for the development and are all excluded.

The impact of the updated layout is Low negative as the sensitive parts of the site have been
excluded from the development. If these areas are actively conserved and rehabilitated in
accordance with a plan set out by a qualified restoration ecologist, the residual impact may be Low
to Medium positive. The rating of Low or Medium positive would be dependent on the level of
rehabilitation achieved. A rehabilitation plan that sets out the methods, goals and monitoring of the
sensitive areas, should be included in the EMPr for the property. It is concluded that the
development of the site is acceptable from a botanical perspective and can result in a positive
outcome for conservation if the proposed mitigation measures are implemented.

                                                                                                         28
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

11. REFERENCES

Brownlie, S. 2005. Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes: Edition
       1.CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005-053 C. Provincial Government of the Western Cape:
       Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

Cadman, M., de Villiers, C., Holmes, P., Rebelo, T., Helme, N., Euston Brown, D., Clark, B.,
       Milton, S., Dean, R., Brownlie, S., Snaddon, K., Day, L., Ollis, D., Job, N., Dorse, C.,
       Wood, J., Harrison, J., Palmer, G., Maree, K., Manuel, J., Holness, S., Ralston, S. and
       Driver, A. 2016. Fynbos Forum Ecosystem Guidelines for Environmental Assessment in
       the Western Cape Fynbos Forum, Edition 2.

Cape Farm Mapper website: https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/

CapeNature. 2014. Updated ecosystem status of vegetation types. Unpublished data obtained
       from CapeNature.

City of Cape Town. 2017. Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network. Environmental Resource
    Management         Department         (ERMD),       City      of     Cape       Town.      Shape     file
    (http://bgis.sanbi.org/Projects/Detail/43).

Government Gazette No. 26436. 2004. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act
       2004.

Government Gazette No. 34809. 2011. Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems in South Africa.
       National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004).

Holmes, P. and Pugnalin, A. 2017. Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network. Environmental Resource
  Management          Department        (ERMD),        City      of     Cape       Town.       Shape     file
  (http://bgis.sanbi.org/Projects/Detail/43).

Holmes, P. and Pugnalin, A. 2016. The Biodiversity Network for the Cape Town Municipal Area C-
  PLAN & MARXAN ANALYSIS: 2016 METHODS & RESULTS. Environmental Resource
  Management Department (ERMD), City of Cape Town, June 2016

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. (eds.) The Vegetation of South Africa. Lesotho & Swaziland.
       Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

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

                                                                                                         29
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C., Kamundi,
        D.A. & Manyama, P.A. (eds) 2009. Red List of South African plants 2009.Strelitzia 25.
        South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Rebelo, A.G., Boucher, C., Helme, N., Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. Fynbos Biome. In:
    Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds.) The Vegetation of South Africa. Lesotho & Swaziland.
    Strelitzia19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

South African National Biodiversity Institute. 2012 Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and
        Swaziland [vector geospatial dataset] 2012. Available from the Biodiversity GIS website,
        downloaded on 05 October 2016.
Turner, A.A. 2013. CapeNature’s requirements for providing comments on agricultural,
        environmental, mining, planning and water-use related applications. Jonkershoek
        Scientific Services Offices.

APPENDIX 1: CONVENTION FOR ASSIGNING SIGNIFICANCE
RATINGS TO IMPACTS.

For each impact, the nature (positive/negative), extent (spatial scale), magnitude/intensity (intensity scale),
duration (time scale), consequence (calculated numerically) and probability of occurrence is ranked and
described. These criteria would be used to ascertain the significance of the impact, firstly in the case of no
mitigation and then with the most effective mitigation measure(s) in place.

The tables below show the rankings of these variables, and defines each of the rating categories.

                       Table 2: Assessment criteria for the evaluation of impacts
                  CRITERIA                     RANK                       DESCRIPTION
                                                              The environment will be positively
                                        Positive (+)
                                                              affected.
           Nature
                                                              The environment will be negatively
                                        Negative (-)
                                                              affected.
                                                              Beyond provincial boundaries, but
                                        National (4)
                                                              within national boundaries.
                                                              Beyond a 10 km radius of the
                                        Regional (3)          proposed     activities,  but   within
         Extent or spatial influence                          provincial boundaries.
         of impact                                            Within a 10 km radius of the proposed
                                        Local (2)
                                                              activities.
                                                              On site or within 100 m of the
                                        Site specific (1)
                                                              proposed activities.
                                        Zero (0)              Zero extent.

                                                                                                           30
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

                                                               Natural and/ or social functions and/
                                         High (3)
                                                               or processes are severely altered.
                                                               Natural and/ or social functions and/
         Magnitude/ intensity of         Medium (2)
                                                               or processes are notably altered.
         impact (at the indicated
                                                               Natural and/ or social functions and/
         spatial scale)                  Low (1)
                                                               or processes are slightly altered.
                                                               Natural and/ or social functions and/
                                         Zero (0)
                                                               or processes remain unaltered.
                                                               More than 10 years, but impact
                                         Long Term (3)
                                                               ceases after the operational phase.
                                         Medium Term (2)       Between 3 – 10 years.
         Duration of impact
                                         Short Term (1)        Construction period (up to 3 years).

                                         None (0)              Zero duration.
                                         Extremely
                                         beneficial/           The impact is extremely beneficial/
                                         detrimental           detrimental.
                                         (10 – 11) (+/-)
                                         Highly beneficial/
                                                               The impact       is   highly   beneficial/
                                         detrimental
                                                               detrimental.
                                          (8 – 9) (+/-)
                                         Moderately
                                         beneficial/           The impact is moderately beneficial/
         Consequence                     detrimental           detrimental.
          (Nature x (Extent          +    (6 – 7) (+/-)
          Magnitude/ Intensity       +   Slightly
          Duration))                     beneficial/           The impact is slightly         beneficial/
                                         detrimental           detrimental.
                                          (4 – 5) (+/-)
                                         Negligibly
                                         beneficial/           The impact is negligibly beneficial/
                                         detrimental           detrimental.
                                          (1 – 3) (+/-)
                                         Zero
                                         consequence           The impact has zero consequence.
                                         (0) (+/-)
                                                               Estimated at a greater than 95%
                                         Definite (4)
                                                               chance of the impact occurring.
                                                               Estimated 50 – 95% chance of the
                                         Probable (3)
                                                               impact occurring.
                                                               Estimated 6 – 49% chance of the
         Probability of occurrence       Possible (2)
                                                               impact occurring.
                                                               Estimated less than 5% chance of the
                                         Unlikely (1)
                                                               impact occurring.
                                                               Estimated no chance of impact
                                         None (0)
                                                               occurring.

The significance of an impact is derived by taking into account the consequence (nature of the impact and
its extent, magnitude/intensity and duration) of the impact and the probability of this impact occurring
through the use of the following formula:

                             Significance Score = Consequence x Probability

The means of arriving at a significance rating is explained in Table 3.

                                                                                                            31
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

                                Table 3: Definition of significance ratings
                      SIGNIFICANCE SCORE                 SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS

                               32 – 40                   High (+)               High (-)

                               25 – 31                 Medium (+)          Medium (-)

                               19 – 24                   Low (+)                Low (-)

                               10 – 18                Very-Low (+)         Very-Low (-)

                                1–9                                Negligible

Once the significance of an impact has been determined, the confidence in the assessment of the impact,
as well as the degree of reversibility of the impact and irreplaceable loss of resources would be
determined using the rating systems outlined in Table 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Lastly, the cumulative impact
is ranked and described as outlined in Table 7.

                                 Table 4: Definition of confidence ratings
    CONFIDENCE
                                     CRITERIA
    RATINGS
                                     Wealth of information on and sound understanding of the
    High
                                     environmental factors potentially influencing the impact.
                                     Reasonable amount of useful information on and relatively sound
    Medium                           understanding of the environmental factors potentially influencing
                                     the impact.
                                     Limited useful information on and understanding of the
    Low
                                     environmental factors potentially influencing this impact.

                                      Table 5: Degree of reversibility
    REVERSABILITY             OF
                                    CRITERIA
    IMPACT
    High                            High potential for reversibility.

    Medium                          Medium potential for reversibility.

    Low                             Low potential for reversibility.

    Zero                            Zero potential for reversibility.

                                    Table 6: Degree of irreplaceability
     IRREPLACEABLE          LOSS
                                     CRITERIA
     OF RESOURCES
     High                            Definite loss of irreplaceable resources.

     Medium                          Medium potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.

     Low                             Low potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.

     Zero                            Zero potential for loss of irreplaceable resources.

                             Table 7: Cumulative Impact on the environment

     CUMULATIVE IMPACTS              CRITERIA

                                                                                                          32
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

                                           The activity is one of several similar past, present or future
                                           activities in the same geographical area, and might contribute to a
         High                              very significant combined impact on the geographical, physical,
                                           biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the
                                           environment.
                                           The activity is one of a few similar past, present or future activities
                                           in the same geographical area, and might contribute to a very
         Medium                            significant combined impact on the geographical, physical,
                                           biological, social, economic and cultural aspects of the
                                           environment.
                                           The activity is localised and might have a negligible cumulative
         Low
                                           impact.
         Zero                              No cumulative impact on the environment.

APPENDIX 2: MINIMUM CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY SPECIALIST REPORTS AS
PER PROTOCOL FOR THE SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL
BIODIVERSITY (GN 320 OF 20 MARCH 2020)

Protocol        Terrestrial Biodiversity Specialist Assessment Report Content                       Section       /
ref                                                                                                 Page

3.1.1.          contact details of the specialist, their SACNASP registration number, their field   Page ii and
                of expertise and a curriculum vitae;                                                Appendix 3

3.1.2.          a signed statement of independence by the specialist;                               Page iii

3.1.3.          a statement on the duration, date and season of the site inspection and the         Section 5
                relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment;

3.1.4.          a description of the methodology used to undertake the site verification and        Section 5
                impact assessment and site inspection, including equipment and modelling
                used, where relevant;

3.1.5.          a description of the assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in              Section 5
                knowledge or data as well as a statement of the timing and intensity of site
                inspection observations;

3.1.6.          a location of the areas not suitable for development, which are to be avoided       Section 7/8
                during construction and operation (where relevant);

3.1.7.          additional environmental impacts expected from the proposed development;            Section 9

3.1.8.          any direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed development;            Section 9

3.1.9.          the degree to which impacts and risks can be mitigated;                             Section 9

3.1.10.         the degree to which the impacts and risks can be reversed;                          Section 9

3.1.11.         the degree to which the impacts and risks can cause loss of irreplaceable           Section 9
                resources;

                                                                                                                      33
Botanical Impact Assessment – Proposed Hydroponics development at Klein Dassenberg, City of Cape Town

3.1.12.       proposed impact management actions and impact management outcomes                 Section 9
              proposed by the specialist for inclusion in the Environmental Management
              Programme (EMPr);

3.1.13.       a motivation must be provided if there were development footprints identified     N/A
              as per paragraph 2.3.6 above that were identified as having a "low" terrestrial
              biodiversity sensitivity and that were not considered appropriate;

3.1.14.       a substantiated statement, based on the findings of the specialist assessment,    Section 10
              regarding the acceptability, or not, of the proposed development, if it should
              receive approval or not; and

3.1.15.       any conditions to which this statement is subjected.                              Section 10

APPENDIX 3: ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE: GREG
NICOLSON

Experience
    •     Expertise in field work in the CFR – vegetation surveys, plant identification, plant collection,
          ecological monitoring
    •     Data management and analysis
    •     Basic skills in GIS programs
    •     Vegetation and species mapping
    •     MSc thesis entitled “ Road reserves as conservation assets: exploring the species of
          conservation concern and the ecological condition of the N7 road reserve”. Graduation date:
          December 2010
    •     Experience leading teams of field assistants in remote mountainous areas
    •     Completed over 50 botanical survey/assessment reports

Career History
    •     March 2013 – present: independent botanical specialist and associate of Bergwind
          Botanical Surveys & Tours CC
    •     March 2011 – December 2012: conducted a comprehensive post fire survey of the
          Paardeberg (Paardeberg Sustainability Institute)

Education and qualifications
    •     Pr. Nat. Sci. (116488)
    •     MSc (Botany) – University of Cape Town (2010).
    •     BSc: Hons (Env. Science) – University of Cape Town (2005)
    •     BSc: Environmental and Geographical Science - University of Cape Town (2002 – 2004)

Personal Details
    •     Greg Nicolson
    •     25 Dartmouth Road, Muizenberg, 7945
    •     Cell: 072 211 9843. Home: 021 709 0750
    •     gregnicolson@gmail.com
    •     Date of birth – 26/08/1981
    •     Marital status – Single
    •     Dependents – 2

                                                                                                             34
You can also read