ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR ZIVELI LIFESTYLE VILLAGE

Transcription

1 ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR ZIVELI LIFESTYLE VILLAGE Carol Steenkamp for URBAN GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS September 2016

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Impacts and mitigation Vegetation Drainage lines Rocky areas or ridges GENERAL ASSESSMENT Disturbance Erosion Waste and Pollution issues RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION... 12

3 1 INTRODUCTION An environmental assessment in the form of a scoping exercise was initially done in 2007 by Urban Green Environmental Consultants for the proposed Ziveli Lifestyle Village. Social, historical, and biophysical impacts were addressed and mitigation measures recommended. A Vegetation Management plan was developed at the time and it was recommended to use this in conjunction with the construction environmental management plan (CEMP). Construction has now commenced with site preparation for the construction of the Lifestyle Village, development of access routes and the installation of support infrastructure. It is however not clear if the CEMP was indeed implemented. As per instruction from Urban Green Environmental Consultants a site visit was carried out on 23 September 2016 to assess the activities of the contractor on site, to ensure that all protected trees are marked and sensitive areas are highlighted. The findings of the assessment and recommendations are presented in this report. 2 LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS The proposed layout plan for the Ziveli Lifestyle Village on Portion 8 of the Farm Aris No 29 does not indicate any of the environmental features, e.g. rocky ridges, drainage lines or large protected trees. All protected trees as well as large indigenous trees within a 100 meter from the drainage line should have been surveyed and indicated on the lay out plan in order to adjust alignment of access roads, areas to be cleared, individual erven, etc. Negative impacts can be ascribed to the fact that limited implementation of a CEMP was done and also no monitoring. Although a scoping study was done in line with environmental legislation very little environmental management was implemented and activities were not monitored or controlled by the developer or enforced by the authorities.

4 3 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION VEGETATION Large areas of vegetation have been cleared on site. Due to the use of heavy construction vehicles the soil has been compacted in areas and dust and wind erosion is a major problem in other areas (Figure 1). Figure 1: Cleared areas on site Large heaps of vegetation that have been removed are scattered all over the site, unfortunately it was impossible to identify with certainty the protected trees within these heaps. It was therefore not possible to determine the number of protected trees already removed that permits are needed for (Figure 2). If you however look at the size and numbers of the trees discarded of, there would definitely have been a fair number of large and small protected trees. Figure 2: Discarded trees and shrubs

5 One large, protected Ziziphus mucronata (Buffalo thorn) could however be positively identified (Figure 3) Figure 3: Large Ziziphus mucronata removed It is unfortunate that the developer did not demarcate the areas where it was not necessary to remove ALL vegetation e.g. road servitudes, private open spaces and individual erven. The integrity of the site has been compromised to a large extend due to the insensitive way in which vegetation have been removed. Vegetation plays an important role in soil holding capacity, provides habitat to a number of faunal species and contributes to biodiversity. The removal of vegetation therefore has a negative impact on habitat and ecosystem services. Although the dominant species on site are not protected species these have all been removed except for a few larger trees (less than ten). Photos taken in 2007 (Figure 4) were also compared to the current situation and although these photos (2007) were taken in a different season (much greener) the destruction is quite clear with large areas completely denuded (Figure 5). Figure 4: North south view of Site (taken in 2007)

6 Figure 5: North south view of site (taken Sept 2016) Due to the use of large construction equipment damage to trees was evident (Figure 6). It would therefore be important to have environmental training of workers in order to address the correct way to trim trees. Figure 6: Damage to trees It is commendable that a large number of protected trees i.e. Acacia erioloba (Camel thorn), Albizia anthelmintica (worm cure Albizia), Boscia albitrunca (Shepherd s tree) and Ziziphus mucronata (Buffalo thorn) have been marked on site (Figure 7) as well as some of the larger unprotected dominant species, i.e. Acacia hebeclada (Candle pod acacia) (Figure 8) and Acacia hereroensis (Mountain thorn). The area accommodates numerous protected tree species and other individuals (i.e. big specimens although not protected species) worthy of protection. Larger trees are important as they often serve as habitat for a variety of vertebrate fauna e.g. nesting, roosting, feeding sites etc.

7 Figure 7 : Protected trees marked Figure 8 : Large Acacia hebeclada (Candle pod Acacia) one of the dominant spp. need to also be protected. An additional thirty plus trees have been marked during the site visit, either with white paint or red and white tape; all of these are protected trees (Figure 9). Figure 9: Additional protected trees marked during the site visit. The Forest Act, 2001 (Act No. 12 of 2001), affords protection to any living tree, bush or shrub within 100m from any river, stream or watercourse. A Harvesting Permit therefore needs to be acquired from the Directorate of Forestry for the removal of

8 specific tree species from the site, including Acacia erioloba, Albizia anthelmintica, Ziziphus mucronata and Boscia albitrunca. Unfortunately it is impossible to determine the number of protected trees that were indeed removed during clearing of the site. Also important to point out that not all of the trees can however be avoided during the construction phase, but larger specimens and sensitive areas should now be marked, avoided and included in the overall landscaping of the area DRAINAGE LINES The drainage line is an integral environmental feature of the site and needs to be demarcated as a NO GO area. Unfortunately the drainage line is already eroded and therefore it is highly recommend that NO vegetation is removed (Figure 10). These stabilise the banks of the drainage line and prevent severe flooding of the adjacent flatlands. It is important to demarcate this area and NO constructions vehicles allowed within the demarcated area and also NO vegetation removed from within the demarcated area. This will also be in accordance with the The Forest Act, 2001 (Act No. 12 of 2001) which affords protection to any living tree, bush or shrub within 100m from any river, stream or watercourse. Figure 10: Drainage line with associated vegetation From Figure 10 it is evident that the drainage line is already exposed and prone for erosion during the rainy season due to the little vegetation on the banks. It is therefore also important that this area be rehabilitated and gabions put in place to prevent further damage. The drainage line should also be included in the green network on site in order to establish ecological links.

9 3.2 ROCKY AREAS OR RIDGES To the north of the site there are some rocky areas with associated vegetation which serve as important habitat (Figure 11). These areas should also be included in the green network and link up with the drainage line through green corridors to improve overall ecological functioning of the site. Figure 11: Rocky outcrop an area of high biodiversity Construction activities in these areas will result in the area being disturbed, losing their value as unique areas and then requiring rehabilitation. It is therefore important to demarcate these rocky areas as sensitive and include in the green network 4 GENERAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 DISTURBANCE With better initial planning and active control (construction EMP implementation and construction monitoring) the excessive disturbance (Figure 12) during the initial site preparation phase could have been avoided. Fewer disturbances would result in less rehabilitation of areas and result in an overall natural ambience with associated ecological advantages. Such disturbances affect the soil, groundwater and erosion potential.

10 Figure 12: Evidence of disturbance It will be important to level areas where sand has been dumped (Figure 12) and to remove all vegetation waste. Care should be taken as not to alter the flow of the drainage line. All of this should be addressed in a construction EMP. 4.2 EROSION The main concern is erosion from cleared areas. Erosion is already evident in the drainage line to the south of the site which suggests high flow volumes and velocities during flash flood events (Figure 13). Increased run off from exposed or disturbed areas and stromwater discharge into drainage lines will increase erosion of the banks of drainage lines. Figure 13: Evidence of erosion damage

11 4.3 WASTE AND POLLUTION ISSUES Since the construction phase is still in the early stages of site clearance there were little evidence of waste and pollutants related to current construction activities. There are however all the waste plant material and soil (Figure 2 and 12) that have been discarded of in large heaps and the removal of this need to be addressed in the CEMP. There are however also evidence of waste already on site prior to construction or due to demolishing of buildings and structures (Figure 14). Figure 14: Evidence of Waste The removal of waste and a waste management plan for construction should be addressed in the CEMP. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Mitigations measures should be included in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), implemented with urgency and monitored by an environmental control officer (ECO). Drainage lines and rocky areas should be demarcated as NO GO areas, preserved and incorporated into an interconnected system of green space.

12 NO construction activities should be allowed in NO GO areas. to be clearly demarcated. NO GO areas need Trees and undergrowth in areas that have not yet been disturbed should be left intact as far as possible as they have a soil-holding capacity, this should be incorporated into landscaping of erven. Indigenous trees of all species should be left intact, wherever possible, to reduce erosion by stabilising soil and reducing runoff. This also has the added advantage that gardens will already have shade and the homeowners can take pride in having indigenous trees and will also mitigate the impacts of development on biodiversity in the area. Only indigenous trees, shrubs and succulents should be allowed in landscaping. Large construction vehicles should be careful in not damaging any trees. Sensitise contactors to overall and/or excessive disturbance issues. The servitude for the road should be carefully considered, and then the surveyor must mark out the exact servitude, where trees are in the road reserve, the alignment needs to be changed to accommodate the road. As far as possible the pebble mulch cover should also be maintained. This will have the added advantage of enhancing the infiltration of water into the soil in preestablished gardens and green spaces. Re-vegetation should be promoted as soon as possible upon completion of construction work at any specific area. Monitor compliance throughout the construction phase. 6 CONCLUSION The Ziveli Lifestyle village development is no different from any other development activities taking place throughout the larger Windhoek area. Although there were some positive points there were however a number of issues identified which could/should have been addressed prior to or during the actual clearing of the site. All development result in some form of environmental damage although with prior planning and good control this can be minimised to a large extend.

13 It is therefor of the utmost importance that a CEMP be implemented and that an ECO be appointed to monitor compliance throughout before any further construction activities resume.