BOTANICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED HYDROPONIC PRODUCTION FACILITIES, KLEIN DASSENBERG, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE - GREG NICOLSON REPORT ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
9Botanical 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
10Botanical 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)”.
11Botanical 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.
12Botanical 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.
16Botanical 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).
17Botanical 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).
19Botanical 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.
20Botanical 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.
21Botanical 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.
22Botanical 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).
23Botanical 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).
25Botanical 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
26Botanical 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
27Botanical 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.
28Botanical 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.
29Botanical 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.
30Botanical 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.
31Botanical 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
32Botanical 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;
33Botanical 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
34You can also read
