Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment for The

BIODIVERSITY AND WETLAND BASELINE & IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE KROONSTAD PROSPECTING RIGHT APPLICATION

DATE

August 2018

CLIENT

Prepared for : Prepared by:

Shango Solutions The Biodiversity Company Tel: +27 11 678 6504 420 Vale Ave. Ferndale, 2194 [email protected] Cell: +27 81 319 1225 www.shango.co.za Fax: +27 86 527 1965 [email protected] www.thebiodiversitycompany.com

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment for the Report Name Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Submitted to Shango Solutions

Andrew Husted

Andrew Husted is Pr Sci Nat registered (400213/11) in the following fields of Report Reviewer practice: Ecological Science, Environmental Science and Aquatic Science. Andrew is an Aquatic, Wetland and Biodiversity Specialist with more than 12 years’ experience in the environmental consulting field. Andrew has completed numerous wetland training courses, and is an accredited wetland practitioner, recognised by the DWS, and also the Mondi Wetlands programme as a competent wetland consultant.

Michael Adams Report Writer

(Herpetofauna & Michael Adams is Cert Sci Nat registered (118544) and is an experienced Fauna) natural scientist with a specialisation in herpetofauna. He has over 10 years of experience working with reptiles and amphibians as a consultant and through various conservation initiatives.

Martinus Erasmus

Report Writer (Botany and Fauna) Martinus Erasmus (Cand Sci Nat) obtained his B-Tech degree in Nature Conservation in 2016 at the Tshwane University of Technology. Martinus has been conducting basic assessments and assisting specialists in field during his studies since 2015.

Ivan Baker

Report Writer Ivan Baker obtained his BSc Hons degree in Environmental Science in 2016 at the North-West University of Potchefstroom. Ivan has been part of various (Wetlands) wetland assessments, both in conducting the fieldwork as well as writing reports for various projects which include mining, housing developments, roads and infrastructure and rehabilitation. Ivan has experience in soil science which has been part of his BSc. and Honours degree. He currently is in his final year of Masters degree in soils and hydropedology. The Biodiversity Company and its associates operate as independent consultants under the auspice of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions. We declare that we have no affiliation with or vested financial interests in the proponent, other than for work performed under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017. We have no conflicting Declaration interests in the undertaking of this activity and have no interests in secondary developments resulting from the authorisation of this project. We have no vested interest in the project, other than to provide a professional service within the constraints of the project (timing, time and budget) based on the principals of science.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] ii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application DECLARATION I, Martinus Erasmus, declare that:

 I act as the independent specialist in this application;

 I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

 I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

 I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

 I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;

 I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

 I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

 All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

 I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of Section 24F of the Act.

Martinus Erasmus

Terrestrial Ecologist

The Biodiversity Company

August 2018

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] iii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application DECLARATION I, Michael Adams, declare that:

 I act as the independent specialist in this application;

 I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

 I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

 I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

 I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;

 I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

 All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

 I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of Section 24F of the Act.

Michael Adams

Terrestrial Ecologist

The Biodiversity Company

August 2018

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] iv Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application DECLARATION I, Ivan Baker, declare that:

 I act as the independent specialist in this application;

 I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

 I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

 I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

 I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;

 I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

 All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

 I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of Section 24F of the Act.

Ivan Baker

Wetland Ecologist

The Biodiversity Company

August 2018

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] v Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Project Area ...... 1

3 Scope of Work ...... 3

4 Key Legislative Requirements ...... 3

5 Methodologies ...... 6

5.1 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mapping ...... 6

5.2 Terrestrial ...... 6

5.2.1 Botanical Assessment ...... 6

5.2.2 Literature Study ...... 7

5.2.3 Faunal Assessment (Mammals & Avifauna) ...... 7

5.2.4 Herpetology (Reptiles & Amphibians) ...... 8

5.2.5 Dry Season Fieldwork ...... 9

5.3 Wetlands ...... 10

5.3.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping ...... 10

5.3.2 Wetland Delineation ...... 10

5.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ...... 11

5.3.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status (PES) of wetlands ...... 11

5.3.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of Wetlands ...... 12

5.3.6 Ecological Classification and Description ...... 12

5.4 Protected Area’s Buffer ...... 12

5.5 Impact Assessment ...... 14

6 Limitations ...... 14

7 Project Area ...... 15

7.1 General Land Use and Cover ...... 15

7.2 Soils and Geology ...... 16

7.3 Climate ...... 18

7.4 Project Area in Relation to the Free State Biodiversity Plan ...... 18

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] vi Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 7.4.1 Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan ...... 18

7.5 National Biodiversity Assessment ...... 20

7.5.1 Ecosystem Threat Status ...... 20

7.5.2 Ecosystem Protection Level ...... 22

7.6 Project Area in Relation to Protected Areas ...... 24

7.7 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Status ...... 24

7.8 The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines ...... 26

8 Results & Discussion ...... 30

8.1 Desktop Assessment ...... 30

8.1.1 Vegetation Assessment ...... 30

8.1.2 Faunal Assessment ...... 34

8.1.3 Wetland Assessment ...... 42

8.2 Field Survey ...... 46

8.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ...... 46

8.2.2 Fauna ...... 48

8.2.3 Wetlands ...... 54

9 Potential Impacts ...... 66

9.1 Methodology ...... 66

9.2 Purpose and Scope ...... 66

9.3 Current Impacts ...... 66

9.4 Identification of Additional Impacts ...... 67

9.4.1 Construction Phase...... 67

9.4.2 Operational Phase ...... 67

9.4.3 Decommissioning ...... 68

9.4.4 Rehab and Closure ...... 68

10 Assessment of Significance ...... 69

10.1 Construction Phase ...... 69

10.2 Operational Phase ...... 74

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] vii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 10.3 Decommissioning...... 81

10.4 Rehab and Closure ...... 87

11 Impact Assessment Results ...... 92

12 Mitigation Measures ...... 93

12.1 Mitigation Measure Objectives ...... 93

12.1.1 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Vegetation Communities & CBAs ...... 93

12.1.2 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Faunal Communities ...... 94

12.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Wetlands ...... 95

13 Conclusion ...... 97

14 References ...... 100

Tables

Table 1: A list of key legislative requirements relevant to biodiversity and conservation in the Free State Province ...... 4

Table 2: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied ...... 11

Table 3: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2008) ...... 11

Table 4: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories...... 12

Table 5: The mining and biodiversity guidelines categories ...... 27

Table 6: List of bird species of regional or global conservation importance that are expected to occur in pentads 2640_2835; 2640_2840; 2640_2845; 2645_2835; 2645_ 2840; 2645_2845; 2650_2835; 2650_2840; 2650_2845 (SABAP2, 2018, ESKOM, 2015; IUCN, 2017) ...... 35 Table 7: List of mammal species of conservation concern that may occur in the project area as well as their global and regional conservation statuses (IUCN, 2017; SANBI, 2016) ...... 39

Table 8: Herpetofaunal species of conservation concern which may occur in the project area ..41

Table 9:Trees, shrubs and weeds recorded at the proposed project area (species name in red are listed species) ...... 46

Table 10: A list of avifaunal species recorded for the project area ...... 48

Table 11: Mammal species recorded in the project area during the May 2018 survey ...... 51

Table 12: List of all herpetofauna recorded within the project area ...... 53

Table 13: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al. 2013) ...... 56

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] viii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table 14: The ecosystem services provided by the HGM type ...... 60

Table 15: Direct and indirect benefits obtained from ecosystem services ...... 61

Table 16: Summary of the scores for the wetland PES ...... 61

Table 17: The EIS results for the delineated HGM types ...... 62

Table 18: Buffer determination- Threats posed by the proposed exploration activities ...... 64 Table 19: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation ...... 69 Table 20: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna ...... 70 Table 21: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 71 Table 22: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 73 Table 23: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation ...... 75 Table 24: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation and potential leaks, discharges, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment ...... 76 Table 25: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna ...... 77 Table 26: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 79 Table 27: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 80 Table 28: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation ...... 82 Table 29: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna...... 83 Table 30: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) ...... 84 Table 31: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 86 Table 32: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation ...... 88 www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] ix Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table 33: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna...... 89 Table 34: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands ...... 90 Figures

Figure 1: General location of the project area showing the four proposed prospecting borehole locations...... 2 Figure 3: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis et al. 2013) ...... 10

Figure 3: Land types associated with the project area ...... 17

Figure 4: Climate diagram for the project area, Mucina and Rutherford (2006)...... 18

Figure 5: The project area superimposed on the Free State Terrestrial CBA spatial data (BGIS, 2018) ...... 19 Figure 6: The project area showing the ecosystem threat status of the associated terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018) ...... 21 Figure 7: The project area showing the level of protection of terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018) ...... 23

Figure 8: The project area in relation to the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (BGIS, 2018) ...... 25

Figure 9: The project area superimposed on the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines spatial dataset (BGIS,2018) ...... 29 Figure 10: The project area showing the vegetation type based on the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland (BGIS,2017) ...... 31 Figure 11: Map showing the grid drawn to compile an expected species list (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) ...... 34

Figure 12: Illustration of the NFEPA wetlands surrounding the project area ...... 43

Figure 13: Inland water areas identified within range of the proposed activity ...... 45

Figure 14: Some of the avifauna found in the project area: A) Speckled Mousebird (Colius striatus), B) Kalahari Scrub Robin (Cercotrichas paena) C), Red-billed Quelea (Quelea quelea), D) African Red-eyed Bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans), E) Swainson’s Spurfowl (Pternistis swainsonii), F) Violet-eared Waxbill (Granatina granatina), G) Pied Crow (Corvus albus) and H) Black-headed Heron (Ardea melanocephala) ...... 50 Figure 15: Some of the mammal species observed in the project area: A) Cape Serotine Bat Neoromicia capensis, B) Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillate, C) Vervet Monkey Chlorocebus

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] x Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application pygerythrus, D) Common Duiker Sylvicapra grimmia, E) Steenbok Raphicerus campestris, F) Black-backed Jackal Canis mesomelas ...... 52 Figure 16: Some of the herptofauna found in the project area: A) Red toad (Schismaderma carens), B) Slender Thread Snake (Namibiana gracilior), C) Scale of a Sungazer (Smaug giganteus), D) Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink (Panaspis wahlbergii) ...... 53

Figure 17: Evidence of HGM units identified for the project ...... 54

Figure 18: Delineation of wetlands within project area ...... 55

Figure 19: Amalgamated diagram of HGM 1, highlighting the dominant water inputs, throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) ...... 57 Figure 20: Examples of the soil types identified within the delineated wetland boundaries (Sepane soil form) ...... 58

Figure 21: Hydrophytes within HGM 1 ...... 59

Figure 22: Crop fields within the HGM unit’s catchment ...... 62

Figure 23: Wetland buffer requirements ...... 65 Figure 24: Radar indicting the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation ...... 70 Figure 25: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna ...... 71 Figure 26: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 73 Figure 27: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 74 Figure 28: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation ...... 76

Figure 29: Radar indicating vegetation and potential impacts of leaks, discharges, pollutant from the development into the surrounding environment ...... 77

Figure 30: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna ...... 78

Figure 31: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 80 Figure 32: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 81 Figure 33: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation ...... 83

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] xi Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Figure 34: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna ...... 84 Figure 35: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) ...... 86 Figure 36: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 87 Figure 37: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation ...... 89 Figure 38: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna...... 90 Figure 39: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 92

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] xii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 1 Introduction

The Biodiversity Company (TBC) was appointed to conduct a terrestrial and wetland baseline and impact (risk) assessment for the environmental authorisations in support of the Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application. The total extent of the project area is 22 202.78 ha.

The surface geology of the area consists of rocks of the Karoo Supergroup. The type of minerals that will be prospected for are: Silver Ore, Gold Ore, Coal, Cobalt, Copper Ore, Diamond (Alluvial), Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Molybdenum Ore, Nickel Ore, Lead, Platinum Group Metals, Rare Earths, Sulphur, Uranium Ore, Tungsten Ore and Zinc Ore.

A late-dry season terrestrial biodiversity and wetland survey was conducted in mid August 2018 with an additional survey conductd towards the end of August 2018. The surveys primarily focussed on the prospecting footprint area, referred to as the project area herein. The identification and description of any sensitive receptors were recorded across the project area, and the manner in which these sensitive receptors may be affected by the activity was also investigated.

This report, after taking into consideration the findings and recommendations provided by the specialist herein, should inform and guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), enabling informed decision making as to the ecological viability of the proposed development and to provide an opinion on whether any environmental authorisation process or licensing is required for the proposed development. 2 Project Area

The proposed project area is situated about 13 km east of Kroonstad, 5 km south of Edenville and 30 km North of Steynsrus in the Free State Province of South Africa. The prospecting right application covers a total of 22 202.78 ha. The land uses surrounding the project area consist of agricultural land, natural areas, the urban area of Kroonstad, Edenville and Steynsrus with associated houses, livestock and game farming. Infrastructure such as secondary tar roads, gravel roads and homesteads, occur within the proximity of the project area (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the layout of the proposed project area and the four proposed prospecting borehole footprint areas.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 1 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Figure 1: General location of the project area showing the four proposed prospecting borehole locations www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 2

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application 3 Scope of Work

The Terms of Reference (ToR) included the following:

 Desktop description of the baseline receiving environment specific to the field of expertise (general surrounding area as well as site specific environment);

 Identification and description of any sensitive receptors in terms of relevant specialist disciplines (biodiversity) that occur in the project area, and the manner in which these sensitive receptors may be affected by the activity;

 Identify ‘significant’ ecological, botanical and faunal features within the proposed development areas;

 Identification of conservation significant habitats around the project area which might be impacted by the proposed development;

 Site visit to verify desktop information;

 Screening to identify any critical issues (potential fatal flaws) that may result in project delays or rejection of the application;

 The delineation, classification and assessment of wetlands within 500m of the project area;

 Implementation of WET-Health for determination of Present Ecological State (PES) of wetland areas;

 Implementation of WET-EcoServices for determination of ecosystem services for the wetland areas;

 Determine the Environmental Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of wetland systems;

 Conduct risk assessments relevant to the proposed activity;

 Recommendations relevant to associated impacts; and

 Report compilation detailing the baseline findings. 4 Key Legislative Requirements

The legislation, policies and guidelines listed below are applicable to the current project in terms of biodiversity and wetland systems (Table 1). The list below, although extensive, may not be exhaustive and other legislation, policies and guidelines may apply in addition to those listed below.

Explanations of certain documents, organisations or legislation is provided (below Table 1) where these have a high degree of relevance to the project and/or are referred to in this assessment.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 3 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table 1: A list of key legislative requirements relevant to biodiversity and conservation in the Free State Province

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993) The Convention on Wetlands (RAMSAR Convention, 1971) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC,1994) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 1973)

INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, 1979) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 2006) The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998) The National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003) The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) The National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008); The Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (No. 39 of 2004) National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act No. 27 of 2003) National Biodiversity Framework (NBF, 2009) National Forest Act (Act No. 84 of 1998) National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998) National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) NATIONAL NATIONAL National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA’s) National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) World Heritage Convention Act (Act No. 49 of 1999) National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) Municipal Systems Act (Act No. 32 of 2000) Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014 South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) Sustainable Utilisation of Agricultural Resources (Draft Legislation). White Paper on Biodiversity Boputhatswana Nature Conservation Act 3 of 1973 Free State Nature Conservation Ordinance 8 of 1969

PROVINCIAL

International Legislation and Policy

 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 4 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival; and

 The IUCN (World Conservation Union). The IUCN’s mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. National Level

 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996). The Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of South Africa states that everyone has a right to a nonthreatening environment and requires that reasonable measures be applied to protect the environment. This protection encompasses preventing pollution and promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development;

 The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) No. 10 of 2004: specifically, the management and conservation of biological diversity within the RSA and of the components of such biological diversity;

 National Forests Act, 1998 (Act 84 of 1998), specifically with reference to Protected Tree species;

 National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA): The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) was completed as a collaboration between the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and other stakeholders, including scientists and biodiversity management experts throughout the country over a three-year period (Driver et al., 2011). The purpose of the NBA is to assess the state of South Africa’s biodiversity with a view to understanding trends over time and informing policy and decision-making across a range of sectors (Driver et al., 2011). The DWS is the custodian of South Africa’s water resources and therefore assumes public trusteeship of water resources, which includes watercourses, surface water, estuaries, or aquifers. The National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) recognises that the entire ecosystem and not just the water itself, and any given water resource constitutes the resource and as such needs to be conserved. No activity may therefore take place within a watercourse unless it is authorised by the DWS. Any area within a wetland or riparian zone is therefore excluded from development unless authorisation is obtained from the DWS in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i).

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the associated Regulations as amended in April 2017, states that prior to any development taking place within a wetland or riparian area, an environmental authorisation process needs to be followed. This could follow either the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process or the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process depending on the scale of the impact.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 5 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Provincial and Municipal Level

In addition to national legislation, South Africa's nine provinces have their own provincial biodiversity legislation, as nature conservation is a concurrent function of national and provincial government in terms of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). The Department is currently in the process of developing a Provincial Biodiversity Plan. State of the environment Report for the Province can be viewed at: www.environment.gov.za/soer/reports/freestate.html. 5 Methodologies

5.1 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mapping Existing data layers were incorporated into GIS software to establish how the proposed prospecting operations might interact with any ecologically important entities. Emphasis was placed around the following spatial datasets:

 Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina et al., 2006);

 Important Bird Areas 2015 – BirdLife South Africa (vector geospatial dataset);

 Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) National Landcover 2015;  Land Type Data (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972 - 2006);

 The inland water dataset; and

 The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al., 2011).

5.2 Terrestrial 5.2.1 Botanical Assessment

The botanical study encompassed an assessment of all the vegetation units and habitat types within the project area. The focus was on an ecological assessment of habitat types as well as identification of any Red Data species within the known distribution of the project area. Due to the survey being conducted in the dry season this represented a severe limitation to the number of species identified. Furthermore, some areas of the project area had already been impacted upon due to previous mining activities and/or were being utilised for agriculture which further limited the identification of floral species. The methodology included the following survey techniques:

 Floral species identification;

 Sensitivity analysis based on structural and species diversity; and

 Identification of any potentially occurring floral red-data species or presence of suitable habitat for these species.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 6 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 5.2.2 Literature Study

A literature review was conducted as part of the desktop study to identify the potential habitats present within the project area. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) provides an electronic database system, namely the Botanical Database of Southern Africa (BODATSA), to access distribution records on southern African plants. This is a new database which replaces the old Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) database. The POSA database provided distribution data of flora at the quarter degree square (QDS) resolution.

The Red List of South African Plants website (SANBI, 2017) was utilized to provide the most current account of the national status of flora. Relevant field guides and texts consulted for identification purposes in the field during the surveys included the following:

 Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld (Van Wyk & Malan, 1997);

 A Field Guide to Wild Flowers (Pooley, 1998);

 Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa (Van Oudtshoorn, 1999);

 Orchids of South Africa (Johnson & Bytebier, 2015);

 Guide to the Aloes of South Africa (Van Wyk & Smith, 2014);

 Medicinal Plants of South Africa (Van Wyk et al., 2013);

 Freshwater Life: A field guide to the plants and animals of southern Africa (Griffiths & Day, 2016); and

 Identification Guide to Southern African Grasses. An identification manual with keys, descriptions and distributions. (Fish et al., 2015). Additional information regarding ecosystems, vegetation types, and species of conservation concern (SCC) included the following sources:

 The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina & Rutherford, 2012);

 Grassland Ecosystem Guidelines: landscape interpretation for planners and managers (SANBI, 2013); and

 Red List of South African Plants (Raimondo et al., 2009; SANBI, 2016). 5.2.3 Faunal Assessment (Mammals & Avifauna)

The faunal desktop assessment included the following:

 Compilation of expected species lists;

 Compilation of identified species lists;

 Identification of any Red Data or species of conservation concern (SCC) present or potentially occurring in the area; and www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 7 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Emphasis was placed on the probability of occurrence of species of provincial, national and international conservation importance. The field survey component of the study utilised a variety of sampling techniques including, but not limited to, the following:

 Visual observations;

 Camera trapping;

 Identification of tracks and signs; and

 Utilization of local knowledge and results from previous assessments carried out within the project area. Mammal distribution data were obtained from the following information sources:

 The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (Skinner & Chimimba, 2005);

 Bats of Southern and Central Africa (Monadjem et al., 2010);

 The 2016 Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (www.ewt.org.za) (EWT, 2016);

 Animal Demography Unit (ADU) - MammalMap Category (MammalMap, 2017) (mammalmap.adu.org.za); and

 A Field Guide to the Tracks and Signs of Southern, Central and East African Wildlife (Stuart & Stuart, 2013. 5.2.4 Herpetology (Reptiles & Amphibians)

A herpetofauna assessment of the project area was also conducted. The herpetological field survey comprised the following techniques:

 Diurnal hand searches - are used for reptile species that shelter in or under particular microhabitats (typically rocks, exfoliating rock outcrops, fallen timber, leaf litter, bark etc.);

 Visual searches - typically undertaken for species whose behaviour involves surface activity or for species that are difficult to detect by hand-searches or pitfall trapping. May include walking transects or using binoculars to view the species from a distance without the animal being disturbed;

 Amphibians – many of the survey techniques listed above will be able to detect species of amphibians. Over and above these techniques, vocalisation sampling techniques are often the best to detect the presence of amphibians as each species has a distinct call. Records from the aquatic ecologists were also utilised for this report;

 Opportunistic sampling - reptiles, especially snakes, are incredibly elusive and difficult to observe. Consequently, all possible opportunities to observe reptiles are taken in order www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 8 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application to augment the standard sampling procedures described above. This will include talking to local people and staff at the site and reviewing photographs of reptiles and amphibians that the other biodiversity specialists may come across while on site. Herpetofauna distributional and species data was obtained from the following information sources:

 South African Reptile Conservation Assessment (SARCA) (sarca.adu.org);

 A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa (Alexander & Marais, 2007);

 Field guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa (Branch, 1998);

 Atlas and Red list of Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Bates et al., 2014);

 A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa (du Preez & Carruthers, 2009);

 Animal Demography Unit (ADU) - FrogMAP (frogmap.adu.org.za);

 Atlas and Red Data Book of Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mintner et al., 2004); and

 Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs (Measey, 2011). 5.2.5 Dry Season Fieldwork

The dry season fieldwork and sample sites were placed within targeted areas (i.e. target sites) perceived as ecologically sensitive based on the preliminary interpretation of satellite imagery and GIS analysis (which included the latest applicable biodiversity datasets) available prior to the fieldwork.

The focus of the fieldwork was therefore to maximise coverage and navigate to each target site (primarily the prospecting areas) in the field in order to perform specialist assessmentsfor the project area. Emphasis was placed on sensitive habitats, especially those overlapping orwithin close proximity the project area. Due to the timing of the survey, morphological structures used to identify flora, such as inflorescences and flowers, are either limited or absent, thus affecting the floral species identified.

At each sample site notes were made regarding current impacts (e.g. livestock grazing, erosion etc.), subjective recording of dominant vegetation species and any sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, outcrops etc.) present. In addition, opportunistic observations were made while navigating through the project area. Effort was made to cover all the different habitat types within the limits of time and access. The geographic location of sample sites and site coverage are shown under the Results section.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 9 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 5.3 Wetlands 5.3.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping

The wetland areas are delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines, a cross section is presented in Figure 2. The outer edges of the wetland areas were identified by considering the following four specific indicators:

 The Terrain Unit Indicator helps to identify those parts of the landscape where wetlands are more likely to occur;

 The Soil Form Indicator identifies the soil forms, as defined by the Soil Classification Working Group (1991), which are associated with prolonged and frequent saturation.

o The soil forms (types of soil) found in the landscape were identified using the South African soil classification system namely; Soil Classification: A Taxonomic System for South Africa (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991);

 The Soil Wetness Indicator identifies the morphological "signatures" developed in the soil profile as a result of prolonged and frequent saturation; and

 The Vegetation Indicator identifies hydrophilic vegetation associated with frequently saturated soils.

Vegetation is used as the primary wetland indicator. However, in practise the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used in a confirmatory role.

Figure 2: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis et al. 2013) 5.3.2 Wetland Delineation

The wetland indicators described above are used to determine the boundaries of the wetlands within the project area. These delineations are then illustrated by means of maps accompanied by descriptions. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 10 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 5.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment

Wetland Functionality refers to the ability of wetlands to provide healthy conditions for the wide variety of organisms found in wetlands as well as humans. Eco Services serve as the main factor contributing to wetland functionality.

The assessment of the ecosystem services supplied by the identified wetlands was conducted per the guidelines as described in WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al. 2008). An assessment was undertaken that examines and rates the following services according to their degree of importance and the degree to which the services are provided (Table 2).

Table 2: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied

Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied

< 0.5 Low

0.6 - 1.2 Moderately Low

1.3 - 2.0 Intermediate

2.1 - 3.0 Moderately High

> 3.0 High

5.3.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status (PES) of wetlands

The overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, and then to convert the impact scores to a Present Ecological Status (PES) score. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of impact of individual activities/occurrences and then separately assessing the intensity of impact of each activity in the affected area. The extent and intensity are then combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact. The Present State categories are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2008) Impact Description Impact Score Range PES Category None Unmodified, natural 0 to 0.9 A Largely Natural with few modifications. A slight change in Small ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of 1.0 to 1.9 B natural habitats and biota may have taken place. Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem Moderate processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place, but 2.0 to 3.9 C the natural habitat remains predominantly intact. Largely Modified. A large change in ecosystem processes Large 4.0 to 5.9 D and loss of natural habitat and biota has occurred. Seriously Modified. The change in ecosystem processes Serious 6.0 to 7.9 E and loss of natural habitat and biota is great, but some www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 11 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable.

Critical Modification. The modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been Critical 8.0 to 10 F modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

5.3.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity of Wetlands

The method used for the EIS determination was adapted from the method as provided by DWS (1999) for floodplains. The method takes into consideration PES scores obtained for WET- Health as well as function and service provision to enable the assessor to determine the most representative EIS category for the wetland feature or group being assessed. A series of determinants for EIS are assessed on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no importance and 4 indicates very high importance. The mean of the determinants is used to assign the EIS category as listed in Table 4, (Rountree et al., 2012).

Table 4: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories

EIS Category Range of Mean Recommended Ecological Management Class

Very High 3.1 to 4.0 A

High 2.1 to 3.0 B

Moderate 1.1 to 2.0 C

Low Marginal < 1.0 D

5.3.6 Ecological Classification and Description

The National Wetland Classification Systems (NWCS) developed by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) will be considered for this study. This system comprises a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetland based on the principles of the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach at higher levels, and then also includes structural features at the lower levels of classification (Ollis et al . 2013).

5.4 Protected Area’s Buffer As defined under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 Of 2003, approximately 7.2 million hectares or 5.9% of the surface area of South Africa is recognized as protected areas. Fifty six percent of this total area is made up by 21 national parks. These range in size from 1 915 671 ha (Kruger National Park) to 2 662 ha (Wilderness National Park), with a total area (excluding marine areas) of approximately 3.8 million hectares.

In terms of section 20(2) of the Act a national park may be declared to:

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 12 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Protect:

o Areas of national or international importance for their biodiversity;

o Areas which contain viable, representative samples of South Africa's natural systems, scenic areas or cultural heritage sites; or

o The ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems;

 Prevent exploitation or occupation inconsistent with the protection of the ecological integrity of the area;

 Provide spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and tourism opportunities which are environmentally compatible; and

 Contribute to economic development, where feasible. Unfortunately, due to the rate and extent of development in the country, these national parks are becoming increasingly isolated from the wider natural areas. This is leading to the values of many of the national parks being impacted negatively from activities outside the national parks;

 Extinction of populations of animals outside of a national park due to their isolation from the national park population;

 Excessive disturbance in a national park due to a development on its border; and where the national park is used for access to that development. In addition to affecting national park values some developments may have negative regional economic impacts including;

 Excessive development which negates the primary attraction of the national park; and

 Development clustered round a national park which success is due to the intrinsic value of the national park, but which has negative effects on the national park (e.g. ribbon development along the Crocodile River on the border of the Kruger National Park). Therefore, the concept of a buffer zone around national parks has been established. This buffer's function is to reduce or mitigate the negative influences of activities taking place outside the parks on the parks and, to better integrate parks into their surrounding landscapes. This concept has been widely recommended, including in the operational guidelines of UNESCO's World Heritage Convention.

Therefore, the purpose of a buffer zone is to: Protect the purpose and values of the national park, which is to be explicitly defined in the management plan submitted in terms of section 39(2) of the Act;

 Protect important areas of high value for biodiversity and/or to society where these extend beyond the boundary of the Protected Area;

 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972; and www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 13 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Assist adjacent and affected communities to secure appropriate and sustainable benefits from the national park and buffer zone area itself by promoting a conservation economy, ecotourism and its supporting infrastructure and services, and sustainability through properly planned harvesting. A buffer zone may be established around a national park when considered necessary for the proper conservation and effective protection of the national park in achieving its objectives. The buffer zone is an area surrounding a national park which has complementary legal and management restrictions placed on its use and development, aimed at providing an extra layer of protection to the integrity of the national park. This should include the immediate setting of the national park, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the national park and its protection.

A special case is made in the Biodiversity Policy for paying attention to areas adjacent to national parks, given that activities occurring in such areas may be critical to the protected area's success. Furthermore, the ecological landscape is often a continuum between designated protected areas and surrounding regions. The viability of protected areas is thus dependent upon the extent to which such areas are socially, economically, and ecologically integrated into the surrounding region. This fact is also recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity, which has a specific provision aimed at promoting sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas.

As for the buffer zone allocated to the identified wetland areas, the “Preliminary Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries” (Macfarlane et al . 2014) was used to determine the appropriate buffer zone for the proposed activity.

5.5 Impact Assessment Potential impacts were evaluated against the data captured during the fieldwork to identify relevance to the project area, specifically the proposed prospecting footprint area. The relevant impacts were then subjected to a prescribed impact assessment methodology (as provided by the client). The details of this methodology can be provided on request.

Impacts were assessed in terms of the construction, operational, decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure phases. The operational phase refers to that phase of the project where the prospecting is being conducted and once complete, the decommissioning phase will begin.

It should be noted that the impacts described are not exhaustive, and more impacts may be identified at a later stage as more project specific information becomes available. Mitigation measures were only applied to impacts deemed relevant based on the impact analysis. 6 Limitations

The following limitations should be noted for the study:

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 14 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  As per the scope of work, the fieldwork component of the assessment comprised of one assessment only, which was conducted during the dry season. During this period the majority of floral species are not flowering, and this presents a major limitation to the identification of plant species within the project area;

 This study has not assessed any temporal trends for the respective seasons;  The assessment was based on the results of a single dry season survey only, and information provided should be interpreted accordingly;

 Field assessments were completed to assess as much of the site as possible with focus on the proposed directly impacted areas (prospecting sites);

 Taking into account the on-site seasonal conditions, a conservative approach was adopted in assessing the ecological integrity and functioning of the wetland systems;

 Only wetlands that were likely to be impacted upon by proposed development activities were assessed in the field. Wetlands located within a 500m radius of the sites but not in a position within the landscape to be measurably affected by the developments were not considered as part of this assessment;

 Assumptions have been made that potential wetland areas identified over desktop studies are characterised by wetland conditions and have therefore been deemed to be wetland areas;

 The GPS used for water resource delineations is accurate to within five meters. Therefore, the wetland delineation plotted digitally may be offset by at least five meters to either side; and

 Despite these limitations, a comprehensive desktop study was conducted, in conjunction with the detailed results from the surveys, and as such there is a moderately high level of confidence in the information provided. 7 Project Area

7.1 General Land Use and Cover The land uses surrounding the project area consists predominantly of agricultural land, natural areas, livestock and game farming. Infrastructure such as secondary tar roads, gravel roads and homesteads, occur within the proximity of the project area.

The following infrastructure exists within the project area and surroundings:

 Significant portions of the project area are currently being utilised for agriculture, predominantly maize and/or sunflower monocultures;

 Game farming – some of the properties adjacent to the prospecting area are currently being used for large game farming;

 Farm housing / dwellings; www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 15 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Various secondary gravel access roads; and

 Electrical infrastructure, including various Eskom and Telkom transmission lines.

7.2 Soils and Geology The extreme northern parts of this region are characterised by sandstone and mudstone from the Ecca Group as well as the Beaufort Group which forms Vertic, melanic and red soils and is dominated by the Dc land type. Dolerite is common in some areas which forms clayey soils typical of the Ea land type, Mucina & Rutherford (2006).

According to the land type database (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972 - 2006), the project area consists of the Bd 21 and Dc 10 land types, see Figure 3. The Bd 21 land type is characterised by plinthic catena, upland duplex and margalitic soils which rarely occur. Eutrophic, red soils are not widespread throughout the project area. The Dc 10 land type is characterised by prismacutanic and/or pedocutanic diagnostic horizons with the addition of one or more of the following; vertic, melanic and red structured diagnostic horizons.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 16 Biodiversity and wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Figure 3: Land types associated with the project area

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 17 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

7.3 Climate According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), this region is characterised by summer rainfall and has a mean annual precipitation of 562mm. The mean annual temperature for this region is approximately 15.2°C and has an average frost incidence of 43days a year, see Figure 4.

Figure 4: Climate diagram for the project area, Mucina and Rutherford (2006).

7.4 Project Area in Relation to the Free State Biodiversity Plan 7.4.1 Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan

It is important to note that the Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map accounts for terrestrial fauna and flora only. The inclusion of the aquatic component was limited to the Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA) catchments (included in the cost layer and for the identification of Ecological Support Areas (ESAs)) and wetland clusters (included in the ESAs only).

A CBA is considered a significant and ecologically sensitive area and needs to be kept in a pristine or near-natural state to ensure the continued functioning of ecosystems (SANBI, 2017). A CBA represents the best choice for achieving biodiversity targets. ESAs are not essential for achieving targets, but they play a vital role in the continued functioning of ecosystems and often are essential for proper functioning of adjacent CBAs.

According to the Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan, three of the proposed prospecting areas are situated areas which are classified as ‘Degraded’ (Figure 5). The remaining borehole site is situated in an area which is classified as ‘Other’. Both these areas have been extensively altered from their natural condition, mostly due to agricultural transformation of the landscape.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 18 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 5: The project area superimposed on the Free State Terrestrial CBA spatial data (BGIS, 2018) www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 19

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 7.5 National Biodiversity Assessment The National Biodiversity Assessment 2011 (NBA) provides an assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems, including headline indicators and national maps for the terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. The NBA 2011 was led by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in partnership with a range of organisations, including the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), CSIR and SANParks. It follows on from the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004, broadening the scope of the assessment to include key thematic issues as well as a spatial assessment. The NBA 2011 includes a summary of spatial biodiversity priority areas that have been identified through systematic biodiversity plans at national, provincial and local level.

The two headline indicators assessed in the NBA are ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Driver et al., 2011).

7.5.1 Ecosystem Threat Status

Ecosystem threat status outlines the degree to which ecosystems are still intact or alternatively losing vital aspects of their structure, function and composition, on which their ability to provide ecosystem services ultimately depends (Driver et al., 2011). Ecosystem types are categorised as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) or Least Threatened (LT), based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that remains in good ecological condition (Driver et al., 2011).

The proposed project area was superimposed on the terrestrial ecosystem threat status (Figure 6). As seen in Figure 6, the project area according to the NBA (2011) falls entirely within one ecosystem, which is listed as a Least Threatened (LT).

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 20 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 6: The project area showing the ecosystem threat status of the associated terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018) www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 21 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 7.5.2 Ecosystem Protection Level Ecosystem protection level indicate whether ecosystems are adequately protected or under- protected. Ecosystem types are categorised as not protected, poorly protected, moderately protected or well protected, based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that occurs within a protected area recognised in the Protected Areas Act (Driver et al., 2011).

The project area was superimposed on the ecosystem protection level map to assess the protection status of terrestrial ecosystems associated with the development (Figure 7). Based on Figure 7 the terrestrial ecosystems associated with the proposed project area are rated as not protected . This means that this ecosystem type (and associated habitats) are not well protected anywhere in the country (such as in nationally protected areas).

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 22 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 7: The project area showing the level of protection of terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018)

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 23 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 7.6 Project Area in Relation to Protected Areas Formally protected areas refer to areas protected either by national or provincial legislation. Based on the SANBI (2010) Protected Areas Map and the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) the project area does not overlap with, nor will it impact upon, any formally protected area.

7.7 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (NFEPA) Status In an attempt to better conserve aquatic ecosystems, South Africa has recently categorised its river systems according to set ecological criteria (i.e. ecosystem representation, water yield, connectivity, unique features, and threatened taxa) to identify Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) (Driver et al. 2011). The FEPAs are intended to be conservation support tools and envisioned to guide the effective implementation of measures to achieve the National Environment Management Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) biodiversity goals (Nel et al. 2011). There are no true-FEPA wetlands or rivers identified within the project area or adjacent to any of the proposed prospecting areas (Figure 8).

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 24 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Figure 8: The project area in relation to the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (BGIS, 2018) www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 25 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

7.8 The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines (2013) was developed by the Department of Mineral Resources, the Chamber of Mines, the South African National Biodiversity Institute and the South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum, with the intention to find a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. The Guideline is envisioned as a tool to “foster a strong relationship between biodiversity and mining which will eventually translate into best practice within the mining sector. In identifying biodiversity priority areas which have different levels of risk against mining, the Guideline categorises biodiversity priority areas into four categories of biodiversity priority areas in relation to their importance from a biodiversity and ecosystem service point of view as well as the implications for mining in these areas:

A) Legally protected areas, where mining is prohibited;

B) Areas of highest biodiversity importance, which are at the highest risk for mining;

C) Areas of high biodiversity importance, which are at a high risk for mining; and

D) Areas of moderate biodiversity importance, which are at a moderate risk for mining. Table 5 shows the four different categories and the implications for mining within each of these categories.

The Guideline provides a tool to facilitate the sustainable development of South Africa’s mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on the country’s biodiversity and ecosystem services. It provides the mining sector with a practical, user- friendly manual for integrating biodiversity considerations into the planning processes and managing biodiversity during the operational phases of a mine, from exploration through to closure. The Guideline provides explicit direction in terms of where mining-related impacts are legally prohibited, where biodiversity priority areas may present high risks for mining projects, and where biodiversity may limit the potential for mining.

Overall, proponents of a mining activity in biodiversity priority areas should demonstrate that:

 There is significant cause to undertake mining – by commenting on whether the biodiversity priority area coincides with mineral or petroleum reserves that are strategically in the national interest to exploit. Reference should also be made to whether alternative deposits or reserves exist that could be exploited in areas that are not biodiversity priority areas or are less environmentally sensitive areas;

 Through the process of a rigorous EIA and associated specialist biodiversity studies the impacts of the proposed mining are properly assessed following good practice. It is critical that sufficient time and resources are budgeted to do so early in the planning and impact assessment process, including appointing appropriate team of people with the relevant skills and knowledge as required by legislation;

 Cumulative impacts have been taken into account; www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 26 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application  The mitigation hierarchy has been systematically applied and alternatives have been rigorously considered;

 The issues related to biodiversity priority areas have been incorporated into a robust EMP as the main tool for describing how the mining or prospecting operation’s environmental impacts are to be mitigated and managed; and

 Good practice environmental management is followed, and monitoring and compliance enforcement is ensured.

Table 5: The mining and biodiversity guidelines categories

Category Biodiversity priority areas Risk for Implications for mining mining A. Legally • Protected areas Mining Mining projects cannot commence as mining is legally protected (including National prohibited prohibited. Although mining is prohibited in Protected Parks, Nature Areas, it may be allowed in Protected Environments if Reserves, World both the Minister of Mineral Resources and Minister of Heritage Sites, Environmental Affairs approve it. Protected In cases where mining activities were conducted lawfully in Environments, Nature protected areas before Section 48 of the Protected Areas Reserves) Act (No. 57 of 2003) came into effect, the Minister of Areas declared Environmental Affairs may, after consulting with the Minister under Section 49 of of Mineral Resources, allow such mining activities to the Mineral and continue, subject to prescribed conditions that reduce Petroleum environmental impacts. Resources Development Act (No. 28 of 2002)

B. Highest • Critically endangered and Highest risk Environmental screening, environmental impact assessment biodiversity endangered ecosystems for mining (EIA) and their associated specialist studies should focus on importance • Critical Biodiversity confirming the presence and significance of these biodiversity Areas (or features, and to provide site-specific basis on which to apply the equivalent areas) mitigation hierarchy to inform regulatory decision-making for from provincial mining, water use licenses, and environmental authorisations. spatial biodiversity If they are confirmed, the likelihood of a fatal flaw for new plans mining projects is very high because of the significance • River and wetland of the biodiversity features in these areas and the Freshwater Ecosystem associated ecosystem services. These areas are viewed as Priority Areas (FEPAs) and necessary to ensure protection of biodiversity, environmental a 1km buffer around these sustainability, and human well-being. FEPAs An EIA should include the strategic assessment of • Ramsar Sites optimum, sustainable land use for a particular area and will determine the significance of the impact on biodiversity. This assessment should fully take into account the environmental sensitivity of the area, the overall environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of mining, as well as the potential strategic importance of the minerals to the country. Authorisations may well not be granted. If granted, the authoris ation may set limits on allowed activities and impacts and may specify biodiversity offsets that would be written into license agreements and/or authorisations.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 27 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

C. High • Protected area buffers High risk for These areas are important for conserving biodiversity, for biodiversity (including buffers mining supporting or buffering other biodiversity priority areas, and for importance around National maintaining important ecosystem services for particular Parks, World Heritage communities or the country as a whole. Sites* and Nature An EIA should include an assessment of Reserves) optimum, sustainable land use for a • Transfrontier particular area and will determine the Conservation Areas significance of the impact on biodiversity. (remaining areas Mining options may be limited in these areas, and outside of formally limitations for mining projects are possible. proclaimed protected Authorisations may set limits and specify biodiversity areas) offsets that would be written into license agreements • Other identified and/or authorisations. priorities from provincial spatial biodiversity plans • High water yield areas • Coastal Protection Zone • Estuarine functional zone

D. Moderate • Ecological support areas Moderate These areas are of moderate biodiversity value. biodiversity • Vulnerable ecosystems risk for EIAs and their associated specialist studies should focus on importance • Focus areas mining confirming the presence and significance of these biodiversity for protected features, identifying features (e.g. threatened species) not area included in the existing datasets, and on providing site-specific expansion information to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy. (land-based Authorisations may set limits and specify biodiversity offsets that and offshore would be written into license agreements and/or authorisations. protection)

According to the above guidelines, the project area is not classed as being of significant biodiversity importance and does not represent a risk to mining (Figure 9).

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 28 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 9: The project area superimposed on the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines spatial dataset (BGIS,2018)

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 29 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 8 Results & Discussion

8.1 Desktop Assessment 8.1.1 Vegetation Assessment The overall project area is situated within the grassland biome. This biome is centrally located in southern Africa, and adjoins all except the desert, fynbos and succulent Karoo biomes (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Major macroclimatic traits that characterise the grassland biome include:

a) Seasonal precipitation; and b) The minimum temperatures in winter (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The grassland biome is found chiefly on the high central plateau of South Africa, and the inland areas of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. The topography is flat and rolling but includes the escarpment itself. Altitude varies from near sea level to 2 850 m above sea level.

Grasslands are dominated by a single layer of grasses. The amount of cover depends on rainfall and the degree of grazing. The grassland biome experiences summer rainfall and dry winters with frost (and fire), which are unfavourable for tree growth. Thus, trees are typically absent, except in a few localized habitats. Geophytes (bulbs) are often abundant. Frosts, fire and grazing maintain the grass dominance and prevent the establishment of trees.

8.1.1.1 Vegetation Types

The grassland biome comprises many different vegetation types. The overall project area is situated within two vegetation types, namely the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland (Gh10) and Central Free State Grassland (Gh6) according to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) (Figure 10). The four prospecting sites are situated entirely within one vegetation type, the Central Free State Grassland vegetation type.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 30

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Figure 10: The project area showing the vegetation type based on the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland (BGIS,2017) www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 31

Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.1.2 Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland

The Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type is found in North-West and Free State Provinces. This vegetation type typically comprises of plains-dominated landscape with some scattered, slightly irregular undulating plains and hills. Mainly low-tussock grasslands with an abundant karroid element. Dominance of Themeda triandra is an important feature of this vegetation unit. Locally low cover of T. triandra and the associated increase in Elionurus muticus , Cymbopogon pospischilii and Aristida congesta is attributed to heavy grazing and/or erratic rainfall (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

8.1.1.2.1 Important Plant Taxa Important plant taxa are those species that have a high abundance, a frequent occurrence or are prominent in the landscape within a particular vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The following species are important in the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland.

Graminoids: Anthephora pubescens (d), Aristida congesta (d), Chloris virgata (d), Cymbopogon caesius (d), Cynodon dactylon (d), Digitaria argyrograpta (d), Elionurus muticus (d), Eragrostis chloromelas (d), E. lehmanniana (d), E. plana (d), E. trichophora (d), Heteropogon contortus (d), Panicum gilvum (d), Setaria sphacelata (d), Themeda triandra (d), Tragus berteronianus (d), Brachiaria serrata, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis curvula, E. obtusa, E. superba, Panicum coloratum, Pogonarthria squarrosa, Trichoneura grandiglumis, Triraphis andropogonoides (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Herbs: Stachys spathulata (d), Barleria macrostegia, Berkheya onopordifolia var. onopordifolia, Chamaesyce inaequilatera, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Helichrysum caespititium, Hermannia depressa, Hibiscus pusillus, Monsonia burkeana, Rhynchosia adenodes, Selago densiflora, Vernonia oligocephala (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Geophytic Herbs : Bulbine narcissifolia, Ledebouria marginata. Succulent Herb: Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Low Shrubs : Felicia muricata (d), Pentzia globosa (d), Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum, Helichrysum dregeanum, H. paronychioides, Ziziphus zeyheriana (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Endemic Taxon Herb: Lessertia phillipsiana .

8.1.1.2.2 Conservation Status of the Vegetation Type According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type is classified as Endangered. The national target for conservation protection for both these vegetation types is 24%, but only 0.3% statutorily conserved in the Bloemhof Dam, Schoonspruit, Sandveld, Faan Meintjies, Wolwespruit and Soetdoring Nature Reserves. More than 63% transformed for cultivation (ploughed for commercial crops) and the rest under strong grazing pressure from cattle and sheep.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 32 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.1.3 Central Free State Grassland

The Central Free State Grassland vegetation type is found in the Free State and marginally into Gauteng Province. This vegetation type typically comprises of undulating plains supporting short grassland, in natural condition dominated by Themeda triandra while Eragrostis curvula and E. chloromelas become dominant in degraded habitats. Dwarf karoo bushes establish in severely degraded clayey bottomlands. Overgrazed and trampled low- lying areas with heavy clayey soils are prone to Acacia karroo encroachment (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

8.1.1.3.1 Important Plant Taxa Important plant taxa are those species that have a high abundance, a frequent occurrence or are prominent in the landscape within a particular vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The following species are important in the Central Free State Grassland.

Graminoids: Aristida adscensionis (d), A. congesta (d), Cynodon dactylon (d), Eragrostis chloromelas (d), E. curvula (d), E. plana (d), Panicum coloratum (d), Setaria sphacelata (d), Themeda triandra (d), Tragus koelerioides (d), Agrostis lachnantha, Andropogon appendiculatus, Aristida bipartita, A. canescens, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Cynodon transvaalensis, Digitaria argyrograpta, Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis lehmanniana, E. micrantha, E. obtusa, E. racemosa, E. trichophora, Heteropogon contortus, Microchloa caffra, Setaria incrassata, Sporobolus discosporus (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Herbs: Berkheya onopordifolia var. onopordifolia, Chamaesyce inaequilatera, Conyza pinnata, Crabbea acaulis, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Hermannia depressa, Hibiscus pusillus, Pseudognaphalium luteo-album, Salvia stenophylla, Selago densiflora, Sonchus dregeanus (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Geophytic Herbs : Oxalis depressa, Raphionacme dyeri (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Succulent Herb: Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Low Shrubs : Felicia muricata (d), Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum, Helichrysum dregeanum, Melolobium candicans, Pentzia globose (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

8.1.1.3.2 Conservation Status of the Vegetation Type According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), Central Free State Grassland vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable. The national target for conservation protection for both these vegetation types is 24%, but only small portions enjoy statutory conservation (Willem Pretorius, Rustfontein and Koppies Dam Nature Reserves) as well as some protection in private nature reserves. Almost a quarter of the area has been transformed either for cultivation or by building of dams (Allemanskraal, Erfenis, Groothoek, Koppies, Kroonstad, Lace Mine, Rustfontein and Weltevrede). No serious infestation by alien flora has been observed, but encroachment of dwarf karoo shrubs becomes a problem in the degraded southern parts of this vegetation unit.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 33 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.1.4 Plant Species of Conservation Concern

Based on the Plants of Southern Africa (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) database, 576 plant species are expected to occur in the project area. Figure 11 shows the extent of the grid that was used to compile the expected species list based on the Plants of Southern Africa (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) database. The list of expected plant species is provided in Appendix A. Of the 576-plant species, none is listed as being a Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) (Figure 11).

Project Location

Figure 11: Map showing the grid drawn to compile an expected species list (BODATSA- POSA, 2016) 8.1.2 Faunal Assessment 8.1.2.1 Avifauna

Based on the South African Bird Atlas Project, Version 2 (SABAP2) database, 266 bird species are expected to occur in the vicinity of the project area (pentads 2735_2720; 2735_2725; 2735_2730; 2740_2720; 2740_2725; 2740_2730; 2745_2720; 2745_2725; 2745_2730; 2735_2725; 2735_2730; 2735_2735; 2740_2725; 2740_2735; 2745_2725; 2745_2730; 2745_2735; 2735_2730; 2735_2735; 2735_2740; 2740_2735; 2740_2740; 2735_2730; 2745_2735; 2745_2740). The full list of potential bird species is provided in Appendix B.

Of the expected bird species, twenty-two (22) species are listed as SCC either on a regional scale or international scale (Table 6). The SCC include the following:

 Four (4) species that are listed as Endangered (EN) on a regional basis;

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 34 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

 Six (6)) species that are listed as Vulnerable (VU) on a regional basis; and

 Twelve (12) species that are listed as Near Threatened (NT) on a regional basis.

Conservation Status Likelihood Species Common Name Regional of IUCN (2017) Occurrence (SANBI, 2016) Afrotis afra Korhaan, Southern Black VU VU Moderate Alcedo semitorquata Kingfisher, Half-collared NT LC Moderate Anthropoides paradiseus Crane, Blue NT VU Low Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew LC NT Low Certhilauda brevirostris Lark, Agulhas Long-billed NT NR High Ciconia abdimii Stork, Abdim's NT LC Moderate Ciconia nigra Stork, Black VU LC Moderate Circus macrourus Harrier, Pallid NT NT Moderate Circus maurus Harrier, Black EN VU Moderate Coracias garrulus Roller, European NT LC Moderate Cursorius rufus Courser, Burchell's VU LC Low Eupodotis caerulescens Korhaan, Blue LC NT Moderate Glareola nordmanni Pratincole, Black-winged NT NT Low Gyps coprotheres Vulture, Cape EN EN Low Mycteria ibis Stork, Yellow-billed EN LC Low Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa NT NT Low Phalacrocorax capensis Cormorant, Cape EN EN Low Phoeniconaias minor Flamingo, Lesser NT NT Low Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater NT LC Low Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial EN VU Moderate Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird VU VU High Tyto capensis Grass-owl, African VU LC Moderate

Afrotis afra (Southern Black Korhaan) is listed as Vulnerable (VU) on a regional and global scale (IUCN, 2017). They are endemic to the South-Western side of South Africa. Their habitat varies from non-grassy areas to the Fynbos biome, Karoo biome and the western coastline of South Africa. The main threat to them is habitat loss, in an eight year span they loss 80% of their range due to agricultural developments. Their diet consists of insects, small reptiles and plant material, including seeds and green shoots (Hockey et al. 2005). There is some grassland habitat in the vicinity of the project area and there is a moderate likelihood of occurrence.

Alcedo semitorquata (Half-collared Kingfisher) is listed as Near Threatened (NT) on a regional scale and occurs across a large range. This species generally prefers narrow rivers, streams, and estuaries with dense vegetation onshore, but it may also move into coastal lagoons and lakes. It mainly feeds on fish (IUCN, 2017). The possibility of occurrence is

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 35 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application regarded as low due to the fact that there is little suitable habitat for this species in the prospecting area.

Anthropoides paradiseus (Blue Crane) is listed as NT on a regional scale and as VU on a global scale. This species has declined, largely owing to direct poisoning, power-line collisions and loss of its grassland breeding habitat owing to afforestation, mining, agriculture and development (IUCN, 2017). This species breeds in natural grass- and sedge-dominated habitats, preferring secluded grasslands at high elevations where the vegetation is thick and short. Due to the presence of limited open grassland areas and crops where this species may forage, the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.

Calidris ferruginea (Curlew Sandpiper) is migratory species which breeds on slightly elevated areas in the lowlands of the high Arctic and may be seen in parts of South Africa during winter. During winter, the species occurs at the coast, but also inland on the muddy edges of marshes, large rivers and lakes (both saline and freshwater), irrigated land, flooded areas, dams and saltpans (IUCN, 2017). Due to the absence of these habitat types within the project area the likelihood of occurrence of this species was rated as low.

Certhilauda brevirostris (Agulhas long-billed lark) is listed as Near Threatened (NT) on a regional scale but has not yet been evaluated by IUCN. The species is endemic to South Africa and generally they prefer recently ploughed fields, shrubland punctuated with Renosterbos ( Dicerothamnus rhinocerotis ) and dwarf Karoo shrubland on clay substrate. Mainly eats insects supplemented with seeds. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is considered to be high.

Ciconia abdimii (Abdim's Stork) is listed as NT on a local scale and the species is known to be found in open grassland and savanna woodland often near water but also in semi-arid areas, gathering beside pools and water-holes. They tend to roost in trees or cliffs (IUCN, 2017). The absence of any wet areas means that the likelihood of occurrence is rated as low.

Ciconia nigra (Black Stork) is native to South Africa, and inhabits old, undisturbed, open forests. They are known to forage in shallow streams, pools, marshes swampy patches, damp meadows, flood-plains, pools in dry riverbeds and occasionally grasslands, especially where there are stands of reeds or long grass (IUCN, 2017). It is unlikely that this species would breed in the project area due to the lack of forested areas, however some suitable foraging habitat remains in the form of the open grasslands, and as such the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.

Circus macrourus (Pallid Harrier) is listed as NT on a regional and global scale, and overwinters in semi-desert, scrub, savanna and wetlands. The species is migratory, with most birds wintering in sub-Saharan Africa or south-east Asia (IUCN, 2017). The species is most likely only to use the area as a migratory route or a temporary overwintering location from August to March, the likelihood of occurrence is moderate.

Coracias garrulous (European Roller) is a winter migrant from most of South-central Europe and Asia occurring throughout sub-Saharan Africa (IUCN, 2017). The European Roller has a preference for bushy plains and dry savannah areas (IUCN, 2017). There is a moderate chance of this species occurring in the project area as they prefer to forage in open/disturbed agricultural areas. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 36 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Cursorius rufus (Burchell's Courser) is categorised as vulnerable on a regional scale. It inhabits open short-sward grasslands, dry savannas, fallow fields, overgrazed or burnt grasslands and pastures, bare or sparsely vegetated sandy or gravelly deserts, stony areas dotted with small shrubs and saltpans (IUCN, 2017). The species is threatened in the south of its range by habitat degradation as a result of poor grazing practices and agricultural intensification. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is rated as moderate.

Eupodotis caerulescens (Blue Korhaan) is listed as near threatened according to the IUCN (2017). Their moderately rapid decline is accredited to habitat loss that is a result of intensive agriculture. They are found in high grassveld in close proximity to water, usually above an altitude of 1 500m (del Hoyo, et al. 1996). The species nests in bare open ground, situated in thick grass or cropland. Based on the required habitat the likelihood of occurrence of this species is rated as moderate.

Glareola nordmanni (Black-winged Pratincole) is a migratory species which is listed as NT both globally and regionally. This species has a very large range, breeding mostly in Europe and Russia, before migrating to southern Africa. Overall population declines of approximately 20% for this species are suspected (IUCN, 2017). This species generally occurs near water and damp meadows, or marshes overgrown with dense grass. Due to its migratory nature, this species will only be present in South Africa for a few months during the year and will not breed locally. There is a small amount of suitable habitat within the project area and adjacent to it and as such the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.

Gyps coprotheres (Cape Vulture) is listed as Endangered (EN) on both a regional and global scale. Cape Vultures are long-lived carrion-feeders specialising on large carcasses, they fly long distances over open country, although they are usually found near steep terrain, where they breed and roost on cliffs (IUCN, 2017). Individuals may be seen foraging within the area but are unlikely to be resident and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is rated as low.

Mycteria ibis (Yellow-billed Stork) is listed as EN on a regional scale and Least Concern (LC) on a global scale. This species is migratory and has a large distributional range which includes much of sub-Saharan Africa. It is typically associated with freshwater ecosystems, especially wetlands and the margins of lakes and dams (IUCN, 2017). The lack of extensive water bodies within the project area creates a low possibility that this species may occur there.

Oxyura maccoa (Maccoa Duck) has a large northern and southern range, South Africa is part of its southern distribution. During the species’ breeding season, it inhabits small temporary and permanent inland freshwater lakes, preferring those that are shallow and nutrient-rich with extensive emergent vegetation such as reeds ( Phragmites spp .) and cattails ( Typha spp .) on which it relies for nesting (IUCN, 2017). The lack of extensive water bodies within the project area creates a low possibility that this species may occur there.

Phalacrocorax capensis (Cape Cormorant) is endemic to the southwestern coast of Africa, but during the non-breeding season they spread inland and up the east coast of South Africa. The IUCN as well as Birdlife South Africa lists these birds as endangered, and the main cause of the decline is as a result of the decline of the epipelagic fish stock, oil spills and avian cholera. Due to the lack of suitable habitat and extensive agriculture in the area, the likelihood of occurrence for this species is rated as low.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 37 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Phoeniconaias minor (Lesser Flamingo) is listed as NT on a global and regional scale whereas Phoenicopterus roseus (Greater Flamingo) is listed as NT on a regional scale only. Both species have similar habitat requirements and the species breed on large undisturbed alkaline and saline lakes, salt pans or coastal lagoons, usually far out from the shore after seasonal rains have provided the flooding necessary to isolate remote breeding sites from terrestrial predators and the soft muddy material for nest building (IUCN, 2017). Due to the absence of its preferred habitat within the project area, the likelihood of occurrence is low.

Polemaetus bellicosus (Martial eagle) is listed as EN on a regional scale and VU on a global scale (Table 2). This species has an extensive range across much of sub-Saharan Africa, but populations are declining due to deliberate and incidental poisoning, habitat loss, reduction in available prey, pollution and collisions with power lines (IUCN, 2017). It inhabits open woodland, wooded savanna, bushy grassland, thorn-bush and, in southern Africa, more open country and even sub-desert (IUCN, 2017). With the absence of large trees for roosting and nesting this species may only use the site for foraging and thus there is a moderate chance of this species occurring.

Sagittarius serpentarius (Secretary bird) occurs in sub-Saharan Africa and inhabits grasslands, open plains, and lightly wooded savanna. It is also found in agricultural areas and sub-desert (IUCN, 2017). The likelihood of occurrence is rated as high due to the presence of grassland areas surrounding the project area as well as the agricultural areas in which this species may forage.

Tyto capensis (African Grass-owl) is rated as Vulnerable (VU) on a regional basis. The distribution of the species includes the eastern parts of South Africa. The species is generally solitary, but it does also occur in pairs, in moist grasslands where it roosts (IUCN, 2017). The species prefers thick grasses around wetlands and rivers which are not present in the project area. Furthermore, this species specifically has a preference for nesting in dense stands of the grass species Imperata cylindrica . None of this grass species is evident within the project area and as such the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.

8.1.2.1.1 Important Bird Areas Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are the sites of international significance for the conservation of the world's birds and other conservation significant species as identified by BirdLife International. These sites are also all Key Biodiversity Areas; sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity (Birdlife, 2017).

According to Birdlife International (2017), the selection of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) is achieved through the application of quantitative ornithological criteria, grounded in up-to-date knowledge of the sizes and trends of bird populations. The criteria ensure that the sites selected as IBAs have true significance for the international conservation of bird populations and provide a common currency that all IBAs adhere to, thus creating consistency among, and enabling comparability between, sites at national, continental and global levels.

No IBAs occurs within the proximity of the proposed project area. The nearest IBA to the project area is the Willem Pretorius Nature Reserve which is situated approximately 82 km’s south-west of the project area.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 38 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.2.2 Mammals

The IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) lists 73 mammal species that could be expected to occur within the vicinity of the project area (Appendix C). Of these species, 8 are medium to large conservation dependant species, such as Ceratotherium simum (Southern White Rhinoceros) and Equus quagga (Plains Zebra) that, in South Africa, are generally restricted to protected areas such as game reserves. These species are not expected to occur in the project area and are removed from the expected SCC list. They are however still included in Appendix C.

Of the remaining 65 small to medium sized mammal species, ten (10) are listed as being of conservation concern on a regional or global basis (Table 7).

The list of potential species includes:

 One (1) that is listed as Endangered (EN) on a regional basis;

 Four (4) that are listed as Vulnerable (VU) on a regional basis; and

 Five (5) that are listed as Near Threatened (NT) on a regional scale (Table 7).

Table 7: List of mammal species of conservation concern that may occur in the project area as well as their global and regional conservation statuses (IUCN, 2017; SANBI, 2016)

Conservation Status Likelihood Species Common name Regional of IUCN (2017) (SANBI, 2016) occurrence Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter NT NT Low Atelerix frontalis South Africa Hedgehog NT LC Moderate Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat VU VU Moderate Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter VU NT Low Leptailurus serval Serval NT LC High Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog EN EN Low Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat VU EN Moderate Panthera pardus Leopard VU VU Low Parahyaena brunnea Brown Hyena NT NT Moderate Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel NT LC Moderate

Aonyx capensis (Cape Clawless Otter) is the most widely distributed otter species in Africa (IUCN, 2017). This species is predominantly aquatic, and it is seldom found far from water. Based on the absence of any perennial rivers or wetlands within the project area the likelihood of occurrence of this species occurring in the project area is considered to be low.

Atelerix frontalis (South African Hedgehog) has a tolerance of a degree of habitat modification and occurs in a wide variety of semi-arid and sub-temperate habitats (IUCN, 2017). Based on the Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2016), A. frontalis populations are decreasing due to the threats of electrocution, veld fires, road collisions, predation from domestic pets and illegal harvesting. Although the species is cryptic and therefore not often seen, there is some suitable habitat in the project area and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 39 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Felis nigripes (Black-footed cat) is endemic to the arid regions of southern Africa. This species is naturally rare, has cryptic colouring is small in size and is nocturnal. These factors have contributed to a lack of information on this species. The habitat in the project area can be considered to be optimal for the species and the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.

Hydrictis maculicollis (Spotted-necked Otter) inhabits freshwater habitats where water is un- silted, unpolluted, and rich in small to medium sized fishes (IUCN, 2017). No suitable habitat is available in the project area for this species and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is moderate.

Leptailurus serval (Serval) occurs widely through sub-Saharan Africa and is commonly recorded from most major national parks and reserves (IUCN, 2017). The Serval’s status outside reserves is not certain, but they are inconspicuous and may be common in suitable habitat as they are tolerant of farming practices provided there is cover and food available. In sub-Saharan Africa, they are found in habitat with well-watered savanna long-grass environments and are particularly associated with reedbeds and other riparian vegetation types. Due to the presence of some natural grassland areas, the likelihood of occurrence for this species is rated as high.

Lycaon pictus (African Wild Dog) is categorised as Endangered on both a regional and an international scale. Population size is continuing to decline as a result of ongoing habitat fragmentation, conflict with human activities, and infectious disease. African Wild Dogs are generalist predators, occupying a range of habitats including short-grass plains, semi-desert, bushy savannas and upland forest. This species mainly occur in recognised protected areas but a few free ranging groups can still be found in South Africa. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is rated as low.

Panthera pardus (Leopard) has a wide distributional range across Africa and Asia, but populations have become reduced and isolated, and they are now extirpated from large portions of their historic range (IUCN, 2017). Impacts that have contributed to the decline in populations of this species include continued persecution by farmers, habitat fragmentation, increased illegal wildlife trade, excessive harvesting for ceremonial use of skins, prey base declines and poorly managed trophy hunting (IUCN, 2017). Although known to occur and persist outside of formally protected areas, the densities in these areas are considered to be low. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is regarded as low.

Parahyaena brunnea (Brown Hyaena) is endemic to southern Africa. This species occurs in dry areas, generally with annual rainfall less than 100 mm, particularly along the coast, semi- desert, open scrub and open woodland savanna. Given its known ability to persist outside of formally protected areas the likelihood of occurrence of this species in the project area is moderate to good. This species is known to persist outside of protected areas and even within agricultural lands and as such the likelihood of occurrence is regarded as moderate.

Poecilogale albinucha (African Striped Weasel) is usually associated with savanna habitats, although it probably has a wider habitat tolerance (IUCN, 2017). Due to its secretive nature, it is often overlooked in many areas where it does occur. There is sufficient habitat for this species in the project area and the likelihood of occurrence of this species is therefore considered to be moderate.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 40 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.2.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles & Amphibians)

8.1.2.3.1 Reptiles Based on the IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) and the ReptileMap database provided by the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, 2017) twenty-eight (28) reptile species are expected to occur in the project area (Appendix D). Two reptile species of conservation concern is expected to be present in the project area (Table 8).

Smaug giganteus (Sungazer or ‘Ouvolk’) is categorised as Vulnerable on both a regional and an international scale. It is endemic to South Africa, where it is found only in the grasslands of the northern Free State and the southwestern parts of Mpumalanga (IUCN, 2017). Habitat loss due to agriculture is a continuing threat. Large portions of the grassland habitat are underlain by coal beds of varying quality and extent, and exploitation of coal for fuel has and will result in further habitat loss. The likelihood of finding the species in the project area is high.

Chamaesaura aenea ( Coppery Grass Lizard) is categorised as near threatened on both a international and a regional scale. A population reduction of over 20% in the last 18 years (three generations) is inferred from the transformation of large parts of the Grassland Biome. They are threatened by transformation of land for crop farming and plantations, overgrazing by livestock, infrastructural development, frequent anthropogenic fires and use of pesticides. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is rated as moderate.

8.1.2.3.2 Amphibians Based on the IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) and the AmphibianMap database provided by the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, 2017) twenty (20) amphibian species are expected to occur in the project area (Appendix E).

One (1) amphibian species of conservation concern could be present in the project area according to the above-mentioned sources (Table 8).

Table 8: Herpetofaunal species of conservation concern which may occur in the project area

Conservation Status Likelihood Species Common Name of Regional IUCN (2017) Occurrence (SANBI, 2016) Reptiles Smaug giganteus Sungazer VU VU Moderate Chamaesaura aenea Coppery Grass Lizard NT NT Moderate Amphibians Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog NT LC Moderate

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 41 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

The Giant Bull Frog ( Pyxicephalus adspersus ) is a species of conservation concern that may possibly occur in the project area. The Giant Bull Frog is listed as near threatened on a regional scale. It is a species of drier savannahs. It is fossorial for most of the year, remaining buried in cocoons. They emerge at the start of the rains, and breed in shallow, temporary waters in pools, pans and ditches (IUCN, 2017). There appears to be minimal suitable habitat for this species in the project area and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is regarded as low.

8.1.3 Wetland Assessment

8.1.3.1 NFEPA Wetlands

The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al. 2011) were used to determine the presence of NFEPA wetlands. Five (5) wetland NFEPA types have been identified within the project area, namely channelled valley bottom, depression, wetland flat, seep and unchannelled valley bottom wetlands, see Figure 12. All of the above mentioned NFEPA wetlands are located outside of the 500m assessment boundary.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 42 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Figure 12: Illustration of the NFEPA wetlands surrounding the project area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 43 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.1.3.2 Inland Water Areas

The topographical layer from the “2727” quarter degree square was used during the desktop assessment to determine any additional areas that might indicate potential wet areas. This desktop data set indicated the presence of various “Dam” and “Non-Perennial pans” throughout the greater project area, see Figure 13. These inland water areas are located outside of the 500m assessment boundary.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 44 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 13: Inland water areas identified within range of the proposed activity www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 45 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

8.2 Field Survey The project area was ground-truthed on foot, which included spot checks in pre-selected areas to validate desktop data. Photographs were recorded during the site visits and some are provided under the Results section in this report. All site photographs are available on request.

8.2.1 Vegetation Assessment The vegetation assessment was conducted throughout the extent of the project prospecting footprint. A total of 12 tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species were recorded in the project area during the field assessment (Table 9). Alien/Exotic/Invader plant species appear in blue text, NEMBA Category 1 Plants in green text.

The plant species recorded in the below table are plants observed within the area while accessing the four different bore hole locations, three of the four bore holes were placed in agricultural fields that consisted of either Maize or Sunflower and did not contain any natural vegetation.

Table 9:Trees, shrubs and weeds recorded at the proposed project area (species name in red are listed species) Threat status Species SA Endemic NEMBA Category (SANBI, 2017) Not Indigenous; Bidens pilosa Naturalised Cynodon dactylon NEMBA Category 2 Eucalyptus sp NEMBA Category 1b Gomphocarpus fruticosus LC No Imperata cylindrica LC No Melinis repens LC No Polygala hottentotta LC No Not Indigenous; Schkuhria pinnata Naturalised Not Indigenous; Tagetes minuta Naturalised Themeda triandra LC No Vachellia karoo LC No Verbena bonariensis NEMBA Category 1b 8.2.1.1 Alien and Invasive Plants

Declared weeds and invader plant species have the tendency to dominate or replace the canopy or herbaceous layer of natural ecosystems, thereby transforming the structure, composition and function of these systems. Therefore, it is important that these plants are controlled and eradicated by means of an eradication and monitoring programme. Some invader plants may also degrade ecosystems through superior competitive capabilities to exclude native plant species.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 46 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) is the most recent legislation pertaining to alien invasive plant species. In August 2014, the list of Alien Invasive Species was published in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (Government Gazette No 78 of 2014). The Alien and Invasive Species Regulations were published in the Government Gazette No. 37886, 1 August 2014. The legislation calls for the removal and / or control of alien invasive plant species (Category 1 species). In addition, unless authorised thereto in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), no land user shall allow Category 2 plants to occur within 30 meters of the 1:50 year flood line of a river, stream, spring, natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently, lake, dam or wetland. Category 3 plants are also prohibited from occurring within proximity to a watercourse.

Below is a brief explanation of the three categories in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA):

 Category 1a: Invasive species requiring compulsory control. Remove and destroy. Any specimens of Category 1a listed species need, by law, to be eradicated from the environment. No permits will be issued.

 Category 1b: Invasive species requiring compulsory control as part of an invasive species control programme. Remove and destroy. These plants are deemed to have such a high invasive potential that infestations can qualify to be placed under a government sponsored invasive species management programme. No permits will be issued.

 Category 2: Invasive species regulated by area. A demarcation permit is required to import, possess, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept as a gift any plants listed as Category 2 plants. No permits will be issued for Category 2 plants to exist in riparian zones.

 Category 3: Invasive species regulated by activity. An individual plant permit is required to undertake any of the following restricted activities (import, possess, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept as a gift) involving a Category 3 species. No permits will be issued for Category 3 plants to exist in riparian zones. Note that according to the regulations, a person who has under his or her control a category 1b listed invasive species must immediately:

 Notify the competent authority in writing

 Take steps to manage the listed invasive species in compliance with:

o Section 75 of the Act;

o The relevant invasive species management programme developed in terms of regulation 4; and

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 47 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application o Any directive issued in terms of section 73(3) of the Act. Two (2) Category 1b invasive plant species were recorded within the project area and must therefore be removed by implementing an alien invasive plant management programme in compliance of section 75 of the Act as stated above. The NEMBA listed species identified within the project area are marked in green (Table 9).

8.2.2 Fauna 8.2.2.1 Avifauna

Thirty (30) bird species were recorded in the project area during the August 2018 survey based on either direct observations, vocalisations, or the presence of visual tracks & signs (Table 10) (Figure 14). No SCC species were observed in the project areas, as the habitat is favourable the likelihood of finding SCC is still rated as high.

Table 10: A list of avifaunal species recorded for the project area

Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common Unlisted LC Afrotis afraoides Korhaan, Northern Black Unlisted LC Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian Unlisted LC Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed Unlisted LC Cercotrichas paena Scrub-robin, Kalahari Unlisted LC Colius colius Mousebird, White-backed Unlisted LC Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled Unlisted LC Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled Unlisted LC Corvus albus Crow, Pied Unlisted LC Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered Unlisted LC Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed Unlisted LC Granatina granatina Waxbill, Violet-eared Unlisted LC Hirundo spilodera Cliff-swallow, South African Unlisted LC Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy Unlisted LC Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) Unlisted LC Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape Unlisted LC Passer domesticus Sparrow, House Unlisted LC Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed Unlisted LC Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow Unlisted LC Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape Unlisted LC Pternistis swainsonii Spurfowl, Swainson's Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 48 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

Pycnonotus nigricans Bulbul, African Red-eyed Unlisted LC Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed Unlisted LC Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African Unlisted LC Scleroptila levaillantoides Francolin, Orange River Unlisted LC Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing Unlisted LC Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred Unlisted LC Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue Unlisted LC Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced Unlisted LC Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 49 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Application

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 50 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 8.2.2.2 Mammals

Overall, mammal diversity in the project area was moderate, with eight (8) mammal species being recorded during the August 2018 survey based on direct observations, camera trap photographs and/or the presence of visual tracks & signs (Figure 15).

No species of SCC were observed in the project area, but due to the habitat type it is very likely that other SCC’s could occur here.

Table 11: Mammal species recorded in the project area during the May 2018 survey

Conservation Status Species Common name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Canis mesomelas Black -backed Jackal LC LC Caracal caracal Caracal LC LC Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey LC LC Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC LC Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat LC LC Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC LC Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC LC Xerus inauris Cape Ground Squirrel LC LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 51 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 15: Some of the mammal species observed in the project area: A) Cape Serotine Bat Neoromicia capensis, B) Yellow Mongoose Cynictis penicillate, C) Vervet Monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus, D) Common Duiker Sylvicapra grimmia, E) Steenbok Raphicerus campestris, F) Black-backed Jackal Canis mesomelas

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 52 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

8.2.2.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles & Amphibians)

Herpetofauna diversity was considered to be high with four (4) reptile species and one (1) amphibian species being observed or recorded in the project area during the August 2018 survey (Table 12). Figure 16 shows some of the reptile and amphibian species which were recorded in the project area.

Table 12: List of all herpetofauna recorded within the project area

Conservation Status Species Common name Regional (Bates Global (IUCN, et al., 2014) 2017) Reptiles Namibiana gracilior Slender Thread Snake LC LC Panaspis wahlbergii Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink LC Unlisted Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake LC Unlisted Smaug giganteus Sungazer VU VU Amphibians Schismaderma carens Red Toad LC LC

Figure 16: Some of the herptofauna found in the project area: A) Red toad (Schismaderma carens), B) Slender Thread Snake (Namibiana gracilior), C) Scale of a Sungazer (Smaug giganteus), D) Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink (Panaspis wahlbergii)

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 53 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

8.2.3 Wetlands

8.2.3.1 Wetland Delineation and Description

The wetland areas were delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines. The extent of the delineated wetland areas is presented in Figure 18. During the field survey, one floodplain wetland, one dam, various artificial drainage channels and various depression were identified. The latter mentioned is the only water course taken into consideration for this particular study. The dam and artificial drainage channels have been deemed not to be wetland areas given their anthropogenic nature whereas the floodplain wetland is located a few meters outside of the 500m assessment boundary and has therefore not been taken into consideration for this particular study.

The depression (HGM 1) is mostly covered in grass species and characterised by very few hydrophytes. These depressions mainly collect water from overland flow after high rainfall events and store water for long periods due to the nature of the hydromorphic soils making up the wetland area’s soil profiles.

Figure 17: Evidence of HGM units identified for the project

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 54 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 18: Delineation of wetlands within project area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 55 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

8.2.3.2 Wetland Unit Identification

The wetland classification as per SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al . 2013) is presented in Table 13. One wetland type was identified within the project assessment boundary, namely a Depression (HGM 1).

Table 13: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al. 2013)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Wetland DWS NFEPA Wet Veg Landscape System System 4A 4B 4C Ecoregion/s Group/s Unit

Dry Highveld Without HGM 1 Inland Highveld Grassland Group Bench Depression Endoheric channelled 4 inflow

8.2.3.3 Wetland Unit Setting

HGM 1, as mentioned in Table 13, is located on the “bench” landscape unit. Depressions are inward draining basins with an enclosing topography which allows for water to accumulate within the system. Depressions, in some cases, are also fed by lateral sub-surface flows in cases where the dominant geology allows for these types of flows. Figure 19 presents a diagram of HGM 1, showing the dominant movement of water into, through and out of the system.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 56 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 19: Amalgamated diagram of HGM 1, highlighting the dominant water inputs, throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) 8.2.3.4 Wetland Indicators

8.2.3.4.1 Hydromorphic Soils

According to (DWAF, 2005), soils are the most important characteristic of wetlands in order to accurately identify and delineate wetland areas. During the survey, a Sepane soil form was identified within the depressions (HGM 1).

The Sepane soil form consists of an Orthic A-horizon on top of a Pedocutanic B-horizon which is underlain by an unspecified material with signs of wetness, see Figure 20. A Pedocutanic B-horizon is enriched with clay which more often than not is formed by illuviation which ensures a well-developed structure. Variation in the unspecified material is an indication of saturated/hydromorphic conditions due to oxidation and reduction processes.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 57 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 20: Examples of the soil types identified within the delineated wetland boundaries (Sepane soil form) 8.2.3.4.2 Hydrophytes

Vegetation plays a considerable role in identifying, classifying and accurately delineating wetlands, (DWAF, 2005). During the site visit, two dominant plant species were identified within the delineated wetlands, namely Themeda triandra and Juncus spp., of which only the latter is known to be a hydrophyte, see Figure 21.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 58 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 21: Hydrophytes within HGM 1 8.2.3.5 General Functional Description of Wetland Types

According to (Kotze et al. 2008), the generally impermeable nature of depressions and their inward draining features are the main reasons why the streamflow regulation ability of these systems is mediocre. Regardless of the nature of depressions in regard to trapping all sediments entering the system, sediment trapping is another ecosystem service that is not deemed as one of the essential services provided by depressions, even though some systems might contribute to a lesser extent. The reason for this phenomenon is due to winds picking up sediments within pans during dry seasons which ultimately leads to the removal of these sediments and the deposition thereof elsewhere. The assimilation of nitrates, toxicants and phosphates are some of the higher rated ecosystem services for depressions. This latter statement can be explained by continues precipitation and dissolving of minerals and other contaminants during dry and wet seasons respectively, (Kotze et al., 2009).

It is however important to note that the descriptions of the above-mentioned functions are merely typical expectations. All wetland systems have different properties and therefore, the ecosystem services rated high for these systems on site might differ slightly to those expectations.

8.2.3.6 Wetland Ecological Functional Assessment

The ecosystem services provided by the wetlands identified on site was assessed and rated using the WET-EcoServices method (Kotze et al. 2008). The summarised results for HGM 1 www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 59 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application is illustrated in Table 14. The average ecosystem services score has been determined to be “Intermediate”. For HGM 1, an “Intermediate” level of threats towards the wetland is expected in the near future. The wetland is surrounded by crop fields, which is likely to be increased in extent in the future. This will result in an increase in run-off water during rainfall events, which will be channelled into the wetland, subsequently causing various disruptions. The level of opportunities however is dismal, with a low score of “1” due to the poor functionality of this HGM unit.

Table 14: The ecosystem services provided by the HGM type Wetland Unit HGM 1 Flood attenuation 2.1 Streamflow regulation 0.8 Sediment trapping 1.4 Water Quality Phosphate assimilation 2.2 enhancement Nitrate assimilation 1.6 benefits benefits Toxicant assimilation 2.0

Indirect Benefits Erosion control 2.8 Carbon storage 1.3 Regulatingsupporting and Biodiversity maintenance 0.7

Provisioning of water for human use 0.3 Provisioning of harvestable resources 1.2 ing

benefits Provisioning of cultivated foods 1.2 Provision Cultural heritage 1.0 Direct Benefits Direct Benefits

Ecosystem Services Supplied by Wetlands by Ecosystem Wetlands Supplied Services Tourism and recreation 0.3 Cultural benefits Education and research 1.0 Overall 19.9 Average Eco Services Score 1.3 Threats 2 Opportunities 1

Table 14 illustrates the ecosystem services rated “High” for the delineated wetland with summarised descriptions of these ecosystem services. In total, three ecosystem services have been scored “High” scores for HGM 1, including flood attenuation, phosphate assimilation and erosion control. Flood attenuation has been scored high due to the gentle slope of the wetland, the presence of depressional features and the frequency with which storm flows spread across the HGM unit. Phosphate assimilation has been rated high due to the frequency of which this wetland receives high concentrations of phosphates (given the application of fertilizer within the catchment) and the possibility of low flows throughout the HGM unit. HGM 1 is characterised by a high ecosystem service score for erosion control given very little evidence of erosion, surface roughness and the gentle slope of the wetland allowing low energy overland flow.

Table 15 indicates a “Intermediate” ecosystem service score for the “Indirect Benefits” offered by the delineated wetlands. This score indicates that this wetland has the ability to enhance water quality to a degree. Direct benefits have been rated “Moderately Low” due to the inability of the HGM unit to sustain the surrounding community directly (consumption of water or cultivated crops) and also that this wetland provides no religious or cultural benefits. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 60 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

HGM has been scored “Moderately Low” for the maintenance of biodiversity due to the lack of habitat within the delineated wetlands as well as the lack of unique species within and surrounding the wetlands.

Table 15: Direct and indirect benefits obtained from ecosystem services Summary of Services HGM 1 Indirect Benefits (including water quality enhancement) 1.8 Direct Benefits (including cultural and life sustaining benefits) 0.8 Biodiversity Maintenance 0.7

8.2.3.7 The Ecological Health Assessment

The PES for the assessed HGM types is presented in Table 16. The hydrology component for HGM 1 has been determined to be “Seriously Modified” mainly due to the extent of bare areas within the wetland’s catchment. The geomorphological component of this HGM unit has been rated “Largely Natural” given the fact that the only component altering the geomorphological modification is that of changes in run-off characteristics within the HGM unit’s catchment. The vegetation component (with a modification score of “Seriously Modified”), similarly, is affected by the extent of crop fields within the HGM unit’s catchment. Therefore, the crop fields within the HGM unit’s catchment is the main aspect responsible for all forms of modification within the wetland’s catchment. The overall PES for HGM 1 has been determined to be “Largely Modified”, which emphasises substantial modification.

Table 16: Summary of the scores for the wetland PES

Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Wetland Area (ha) Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score E: Seriously B: Largely E: Seriously HGM 1 15 6.5 1.7 6.0 Modified Natural Modified Overall PES Score 5.0 Overall PES Class D: Largely Modified

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 61 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 22: Crop fields within the HGM unit’s catchment 8.2.3.8 The EIS Assessment of the Remaining Wetland Areas

The wetland EIS assessment was applied to the HGM units described in the previous section in order to assess the levels of sensitivity and ecological importance of the wetland. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 17.

For HGM 1, a “Moderate” EIS score has been determined to be applicable to the delineated wetlands. The only aspects contributing to this score is the fact that the vegetation within this region has been labelled as endangered, Mucina & Rutherford (2006). The only components contributing to the “Moderate” hydrological/functional importance score is that of the high scores rated for these wetlands in regard to flood attenuation, phosphate assimilation and erosion control. A “Low” direct human benefits score has been calculated for HGM 1 given the lack of provisioning functions provided by the HGM unit.

Table 17: The EIS results for the delineated HGM types Importance Wetland Importance & Sensitivity HGM 1 Ecological importance and sensitivity 1.4 Hydrological/functional importance 1.8 Direct human benefits 0.3

8.2.3.9 Buffer Requirements

The “Preliminary Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries” (Macfarlane et al . 2014) was used to determine the appropriate buffer zone for

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 62 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application the proposed activity. No wetland areas have been identified within the 500m assessment boundaries by means of desktop studies. The threats calculated by means of the latter mentioned tool is illustrated in Table 18. None of the threats posed by the proposed activity are expected to exceed “Low” significance, which has therefore ensured a conservative buffer of 15m for the proposed exploration activities.

In accordance with the buffer zone guidelines for wetlands, rivers and estuaries (Macfarlane and Bredin, 2017) a minimum buffer width of 15m and 10m is recommended for prospecting and exploratory drilling. This is based on the assumption that there will be a commitment to rehabilitate and manage buffer zones to ensure that these areas function optimally. Additional mitigation measures would also typically need to be implemented to reduce some of the key threats that pose a risk to water resources.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 63 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Table 18: Buffer determination- Threats posed by the proposed exploration activities

Threat Posed by the proposed land use / activity Specialist Rating Refined Class Alteration to surface runoff flow volumes Very Low Very Low Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) Very Low Very Low Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity Low Low Increased nutrient inputs Very Low Very Low Inputs of toxic organic contaminants Very Low Very Low Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants Low Low Alteration of acidity (pH) Very Low Very Low

Construction Phase Construction Phase Increased inputs of salts (salinization) N/A N/A Change (elevation) of water temperature Low Low Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) Very Low Very Low Alteration to flow volumes Low Low Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) Low Low Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity Low Low Increased nutrient inputs Very Low Very Low Inputs of toxic organic contaminants Low Low Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants Low Low Alteration of acidity (pH) Low Low

Operational Phase Increased inputs of salts (salinization) Low Low Change (elevation) of water temperature Low Low Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) Very Low Very Low

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 64 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 23: Wetland buffer requirements www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 65 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 9 Potential Impacts

9.1 Methodology Potential impacts were evaluated against the data captured during the fieldwork to identify relevance to the project area, specifically the proposed prospecting footprint. The relevant impacts were then subjected to a prescribed impact assessment methodology (as provided by the client, Shango). The details of this methodology can be provided on request.

9.2 Purpose and Scope The standard impact assessment methodology may be used in the capture of generic anticipated impacts and potential mitigation measures for Basic Assessment Reports and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports. The methodology described herein complies with the requirements of the EIA Regulations (2014), promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). The methodology of impact assessment described herein must be used in relation to the Impact Assessment Rating Matrix Tool (as provided by the client).

9.3 Current Impacts During the field survey, the current impacts that are having a negative impact on the area were identified, and are listed below;

 Extensive agriculture;

 Presence of alien and invasive plant species;

 Secondary roads with the associated noise disturbance, road mortalities and litter;

 Power lines within the vicinity of the project area;

 Livestock (predominantly free ranging cattle and goats);

 Erosion; and

 Gullies.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 66 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Key impacts commonly associated with prospecting activities on terrestrial biodiversity and wetlands are discussed below. The listed activities are merely indicative, and the proposed developments may either have additional or fewer activities depending on the circumstances. It should be noted that these categories, with associated impact descriptions is not exhaustive, and more impacts may be identified at a later stage as more information becomes available.

9.4 Identification of Additional Impacts The proposed development is associated with the prospecting activities, namely the drilling of boreholes. The proposed construction may result in loss and disturbance of habitats and displacement of fauna and flora as well as the loss or degradation of wetlands.

The removal of natural vegetation to accommodate prospecting will reduce the habitat available for fauna species and may reduce animal populations and species compositions within the area. Furthermore, due to the sensitivity of soil layers the threat of erosion is can be significant even from relatively low-impact activities such as borehole drilling.

Land clearing destroys local wildlife habitat and can lead to the loss of local breeding grounds, nesting sites and wildlife movement corridors such as rivers, streams and drainage lines, or other locally important features.

The potential impacts associated with the various project stages are discussed below.

9.4.1 Construction Phase The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:

 Loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of a Vulnerable vegetation type), and the possibility of soil erosion. Potential impacts on faunal communities include:

 Displacement of faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to habitat loss, disturbance, poaching (due to increased human presence) and/or direct mortalities.

Potential impacts on wetlands:

 Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activties; and

 Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals. 9.4.2 Operational Phase The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:

 Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable vegetation community by alien invasive plant species and on-going erosion; and www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 67 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Potential leaks, discharges, litter, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment. Potential impacts on faunal communities include:

 Continued displacement and fragmentation of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching).

Potential impacts on wetlands include:

 Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies; and

 Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals. 9.4.3 Decommissioning The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:

 Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable vegetation community by alien invasive plant species; Potential impacts on faunal communities include:

 Continued displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching).

Potential impacts on wetlands include:

 Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies; and

 Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals. 9.4.4 Rehab and Closure The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:

 Encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable vegetation community by alien invasive plant species and potential re-establishment of natural species that were removed. The nature of the erosion will depend on the amount of successful vegetation establishment. Potential impacts on faunal communities include:

 Displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to rehabilitation of the anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation, rehabilitation resulting in the faunal species potentially re-establishing within the area.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 68 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Potential impacts on wetlands include:

 Rehabilitating degraded wetland areas (including catchment) to such a degree that functionality of these wetlands is fully restored. 10 Assessment of Significance

10.1 Construction Phase Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 19 and Figure 24. Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna can be seen in Table 20 and Figure 25 whereas that of the wetlands are illustrated in Table 21 to Table 22 and Figure 26 to Figure 27.

Table 19: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation

Loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of a Impact Name Vulnerable vegetation type), and the possibility of soil erosion. Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.1 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 69 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 24: Radar indicting the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation Table 20: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna

Displacement of faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due Impact Name to habitat loss, disturbance, poaching (due to increased human presence) and/or direct mortalities. Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 2 3 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 1 2 2 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.2

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 70 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50

Figure 25: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna Table 21: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)

Impact Name Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Construction www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 71 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 5 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 72 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 26: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 22: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals

Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,25 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 73 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50

Figure 27: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

10.2 Operational Phase Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 23, Table 24, Figure 28 and Figure 29 whereas that of wetlands are illustrated in Table 26 to Table 27 and Figure 31 Figure 32.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 74 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna can be seen in Table 25 and Figure 30.

Table 23: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation

Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable Impact Name vegetation community by alien invasive plant species and on-going erosion. Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 4 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 3 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 3 2 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -12,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.1 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 75 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 28: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation Table 24: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation and potential leaks, discharges, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment

Potential leaks, discharges, litter, pollutant from development into the Impact Name surrounding environment. Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 4 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -11,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.1 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 76 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00

Figure 29: Radar indicating vegetation and potential impacts of leaks, discharges, pollutant from the development into the surrounding environment Table 25: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna

Continued displacement and fragmentation of the faunal community (including Impact Name threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching). Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 77 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Duration of 2 2 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.2 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50

Figure 30: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 78 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table 26: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)

Impact Name Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 5 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9,75 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4,00

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 79 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 31: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 27: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals Alternative 0 Phase Operational Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9.00 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4.00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 80 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4.00

Figure 32: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

10.3 Decommissioning Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 28 and Figure 33.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 81 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna can be seen in Table 29 and Figure 34 and in Table 30 to Table 31 and Figure 35 to Figure 36 for wetlands.

Table 28: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation

Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable Impact Name vegetation community by alien invasive plant species. Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 4 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 3 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -11,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.1 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 82 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 33: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation Table 29: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna

Continued displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected Impact Name species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching). Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 2 1 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 1 2 2 Impact Impact Duration of 1 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -7,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.2 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -2,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 83 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -2,50

Figure 34: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna Table 30: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)

Impact Name Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of -1 -1 Magnitude of 5 2 www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 84 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9.00 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4,00

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 85 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 35: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 31: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,25 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4.00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 86 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4.00

Figure 36: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)

10.4 Rehab and Closure Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 32 and Figure 37.

Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna can be seen in Table 33 and Figure 38 and in Table 34 and Figure 39. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 87 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Table 32: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation

Encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Vulnerable vegetation Impact Name community by alien invasive plant species and potential re-establishment of natural species that were removed. Alternative 0 Phase Rehab and closure Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 3 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 4 1 3 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -13,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.1 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1 Low: Issue not raised in public responses

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 88 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 37: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation Table 33: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna

Displacement of the faunal community due to rehabilitation of the anthropogenic Impact Name disturbances and habitat degradation, rehabilitation resulting in the faunal species potentially re-establishing within the area. Alternative 0 Phase Rehab and closure Environmental Risk Pre - Post - Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 1 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9,00 Mitigation Measures See section 11.1.2 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -2,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 89 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -2,50

Figure 38: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna Table 34: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands

Rehabilitating degraded wetland areas (including catchment) to such a degree that Impact Name functionality of these wetlands is fully restored Alternative 0 Phase Rehabilitation and closure Environmental Risk

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 90 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Pre - Post - Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of +1 +1 3 3 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 3 3 1 1 Impact Impact Duration of -1 -1 Probability 3 3 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) +7,25 Mitigation Measures See section 12.1.3 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) +7,25 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1

Low: Issue not raised in public responses

The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.

Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance +7,25

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 91 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Figure 39: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) 11 Impact Assessment Results

The qualitative impact assessment results with mitigation measures is available on request as a comprehensive Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

From the summary it is clear that the overall environmental significant rating is ‘Low Negative’ without mitigation for the construction phases of the project, and this remains at a significance ‘Low Negative’ for all of the listed activities following the implementation of mitigation measures and recommendations.

During the operational phase of the project, two listed activities are considered to pose a ‘Medium Negative’ risk without mitigation. Some of the impacts considered for the operational phase of the project could be mitigated, and the significance rating decreases to a ‘Low Negative’ risk level. The operational impact on faunal species represented a ‘Low Negative’ risk, pre- and post-mitigation.

Similarly, as for the operational phase, selected impacts anticipated for the decommissioning, closure and rehabilitation phase could be mitigated and the significance decreases to a ‘Low Negative’ for all the listed activities. Rehabilitation of the project area after the operational phase

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 92 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application is expected to have a positive outcome given the restoration of wetland areas after the degradation thereof. 12 Mitigation Measures

12.1 Mitigation Measure Objectives The focus of mitigation measures should be to reduce the significance of potential impacts associated with the prospecting and thereby to:

 Further loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of a Vulnerable vegetation type). Possible erosion due to the loss of the vegetation layer is included;

 Prevent the loss of the faunal community (including potentially occurring species of conservation concern) associated with this vegetation community; and

 To prevent a loss of wetland functionality within the project area. 12.1.1 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Vegetation Communities & CBAs From an ecologically perspective the development is situated within areas that are already somewhat disturbed. Although somewhat disturbed, it has been shown that these areas support some faunal species, including SCC and there is a moderate likelihood that other SCC may occur here.

Recommended mitigation and rehabilitation measures include the following:

 As far as possible, the proposed prospecting (including access routes) should be placed in areas that have already been disturbed, and no further loss of primary or secondary vegetation should be permitted;

 It is recommended that areas to be developed be specifically demarcated so that during the construction phase, only the demarcated areas be impacted upon (including temporarily demarcating the defined project area) and preventing movement of workers into surrounding natural areas;

 The duration of the prospecting should be minimized to as short term as possible, in order to reduce the period of disturbance on fauna and flora. For the impact assessment matrix this period of time was reduced to a period of less than one year;

 Areas of indigenous vegetation, even secondary communities, should under no circumstances be fragmented or disturbed further or used as an area for dumping of waste;

 Due to the sensitivity of the soil layer and the associated risk of erosion, any access roads that may be built, should (if possible) be constructed during the dry season and

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 93 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application ideally all prospecting should occur only in this season in order to prevent run-off and erosion;

 Borehole drilling areas and dumping areas should completely avoid any trees, where possible (especially any protected tree species);

 Any areas of natural, indigenous vegetation should be declared a ‘no-go’ area during the construction and operational phases and all efforts must be made to prevent access to this area from construction workers, machinery, domestic animals and the general public;

 Where possible, existing access routes and walking paths must be made use of, and new routes limited;

 All laydown, storage areas etc should be restricted to within the project area;

 A qualified environmental control officer must be on site when construction begins to identify species that will be directly disturbed and to relocate fauna/flora that is found during construction (including all reptiles and amphibians);

 All livestock (including cattle, pigs, goats, domestic dogs and cats) must be kept out of the project area at all times;

 Rehabilitation must include re-filling or capping of oreholes, and the area must be re- vegetated with plant and grass species which are endemic to this vegetation type; and

 Areas that are denuded during construction need to be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation to prevent erosion during flood events. This will also reduce the likelihood of encroachment by alien invasive plant species. 12.1.2 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Faunal Communities Recommended mitigation and rehabilitation measures for faunal community’s hinge largely on protecting their habitats and ensuring it remains intact.

12.1.2.1 Important Faunal Mitigation Measure:

It is vitally important that before construction begins, that a suitably qualified ECO inspect the site for presence of Sungazer Lizards. These are a Vulnerable species that is endemic to South Africa. Due to the fact that this species was recorded in the overall farm portion for the proposed prospecting this mitigation measure is of utmost importance. These lizards will not be present in existing agricultural fields, but one of the boreholes is proposed in a portion of natural vegetation and this site must be carefully checked for the presence of these lizards, or their burrows. These lizards cannot be successfully removed and relocated, and this is therefore not a valid mitigation measure. The only alternative would be to re-consider the placement of this particular borehole should these lizards be recorded at this particular location.

In additional to this the following measures are recommended: www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 94 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  If any faunal species are recorded during construction, activities should temporarily cease, and an appropriate specialist should be consulted to identify the correct course of action;

 The duration of the prospecting should be minimized to as short term as possible, in order to reduce the period of disturbance on fauna and flora;

 During vegetation clearance, methods should be employed to minimize potential harm to fauna species. Clearing has to take place in a phased and slow manner, commencing from the interior of the site progressing outwards towards the boundary to maximize potential for mobile species to move to adjacent areas;

 Prior and during vegetation clearance any larger fauna species noted should be given the opportunity to move away from the construction machinery;

 Fauna species such as frogs and reptiles that have not moved away should be carefully and safely removed to a suitable location beyond the extent of the development footprint by a suitably qualified ECO trained in the handling and relocation of animals;

 Temporary signage should be erected around the project area to prevent workers and members of the public from entering the surrounding farm portions and environments.

 Waste management must be a priority and all waste must be collected and stored adequately. It is recommended that all waste be removed from site on a weekly basis to prevent rodents and pests entering the site;

 No trapping, killing, poaching, snaring or poisoning of any wildlife is to be allowed on site, including snakes, birds, snakes, lizards, frogs, insects or mammals; and

 Construction activities and vehicles could cause spillages of lubricants, fuels and construction material. All vehicles and equipment must be maintained, and all re-fuelling and servicing of equipment is to take place in demarcated areas outside of the project area.

12.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Wetlands 12.1.3.1 Impact Specific Mitigation Measures

Drilling of holes;

 Ensure that the drilling and supporting aspects avoid the wetland and buffer areeas.

Compaction via heavy vehicles and drill rigs;

 Rip all compacted areas within the drilling footprint areas; and

 Revegetate the ripped areas with indigenous grass species.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 95 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Ablution facilities;

 Ensure that hygienic and functioning temporary ablution facilities are present on site;

 Ensure that all ablution facilities on-site be cleaned regularly;

 Monitor all ablution facilities daily to ensure that no leaks take pace; and

 Establish an area suitable for such ablution facilities outside of the recommended buffer zone.

Storage of waste material, chemicals and fuel;

 Laydown yards, camps and storage areas must be beyond the 30m buffer zone. Where possible;

 All chemicals and toxicants to be used for the construction must be stored outside the recommended buffer zone and in a bunded area;

 No dumping of construction material on-site may take place; and

 All waste generated on-site during construction must be adequately managed. Separation and recycling of different waste materials should be supported.

Domestic and industrial waste;

 Store all relevant waste material in bunded areas outside the recommended buffer zones; and

 Ensure that waste material be removed weekly.

Spills and leaks;

 All machinery and equipment should be inspected regularly for faults and possible leaks, these should be serviced off-site;

 The contractors used for the project should have spill kits available to ensure that any fuel or oil spills are clean-up and discarded correctly; and

 Have action plans on site, and training for contactors and employees in the event of spills, leaks and other impacts to the aquatic systems.

Backfilling material;

 Store all excavated material in safe storage yards outside of the recommended buffer zones; and

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 96 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Backfill the relevant material to such an extent that a heap of excess soil is available on top of the drilled cavity. This will ensure that the cavity is continuously filled during subsidence.

12.1.3.2 General Mitigation Measures

The following general mitigation measures are provided:

 Prevent uncontrolled access of vehicles through the water resources;

 All contractors and employees should undergo induction which is to include a component of environmental awareness. The induction is to include aspects such as the need to avoid littering, the reporting and cleaning of spills and leaks and general good “housekeeping”; and

 Any exposed earth should be rehabilitated promptly by planting suitable vegetation (vigorous indigenous grasses) to protect the exposed soil. 13 Conclusion

From an ecological perspective the proposed prospecting developments are situated predominantly within disturbed and semi-disturbed habitats. Although somewhat disturbed, it is believed these areas may still support some faunal species and there is a moderate likelihood that SCC may occur there. Wetland depressions are located within the 500m assessment boundaries which represent further sensitive areas.

The proposed development is associated with prospecting activities, namely the drilling of four boreholes in the areas identified in this report. The proposed activities will result in limited direct loss and destruction of habitats (including a Vulnerable vegetation type), possible direct mortalities and displacement of fauna and flora. Due to the already disturbed nature of the prospecting areas and the distance from the proposed activities to the delineated wetlands, the impact on flora and fauna in the area is regarded as low to low-negative. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures and recommendations in this report must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the impacts associated with the proposed prospecting will remain at a low-negative level.

It is vitally important that before construction begins, a suitably qualified ECO inspect the site for presence of Sungazer Lizards. These are a Vulnerable species that is endemic to South Africa. Due to the fact that this species was recorded in the overall farm portion for the proposed prospecting this mitigation measure is of utmost importance. These lizards will not be present in existing agricultural fields, but one of the boreholes is proposed in a portion of natural vegetation and this site must be carefully checked for the presence of these lizards, or their burrows. These lizards cannot be successfully removed and relocated, and this is therefore not a valid mitigation measure. The only alternative would be to reconsider the placement of this particular borehole should these lizards be recorded at this particular location.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 97 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application In the event that environmental authorisation is issued for this project, proven ecological (or environmental) controls and mitigation measures must be entrenched in the management framework.

The following further conclusions regarding biodiversity were reached based on the results of this assessment:

 According to the Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan, three of the proposed prospecting areas are situated areas which are classified as ‘Degraded’. The remaining borehole site is situated in an area which is classified as ‘Other’. Both these areas have been extensively altered from their natural condition, mostly due to agricultural transformation of the landscape;

 The proposed project area was superimposed on the terrestrial ecosystem threat status. As seen in the project area according to the NBA (2011) falls entirely within one ecosystem, which is listed as a Least Threatened (LT);

 The project area was superimposed on the ecosystem protection level map to assess the protection status of terrestrial ecosystems associated with the development. Based on this data the terrestrial ecosystems associated with the proposed project area are rated as not protected . This means that this ecosystem type (and associated habitats) are not well protected anywhere in the country (such as in nationally protected areas);

 There are no true-FEPA wetlands or rivers were identified within the project area or adjacent to any of the proposed prospecting areas;

 According to the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines (2013), the project area is not classed as being of significant biodiversity importance and does not represent a risk to mining; and

 The four prospecting sites are situated entirely within one vegetation type, the Central Free State Grassland vegetation type. According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), this vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable.

The following further conclusions regarding wetlands were reached based on the results of this assessment:

 One HGM unit has been identified within the 500m assessment boundaries, namely a depression;

 These depressions are endorheic without channelled inflow and are located on benches where run-off water tends to accumulate;

 A Sepane soil form was identified with Juncus spp. occurring within some of the delineated wetlands;

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 98 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application  Three ecosystem services have been determined to have “high” functionality, namely flood attenuation, phosphate assimilation and erosion control; and

 HGM 1 has been scored a “Seriously Modified” score for the hydrology and vegetation component with the geomorphological component being scored “Largely natural”. The overall PES score has been determined to be “Largely Modified” indicating substantial modification due to crop fields.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 99 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application 14 References

ADU (Animal Demography Unit). (2017). Virtual Museum.(Accessed: Feb 2018).

Alexander, G. & Marais, J. (2007). A guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.

Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J & de Villiers, M.S. (Eds). (2014). Atlas and Red List of Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

BGIS. (Biodiversity GIS) (2017). http://bgis.sanbi.org/ . (Accessed: June 2018).

BirdLife (2017). Important Bird Areas Factsheet: Chelmsford Dam Nature Reserve. http://www.birdlife.org (Accessed: June 2018).

Bonn Convention (1979). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. www.cms.int/sites/default/files/instrument/CMS-text.en_.PDF (Accessed: June 2018).

BODATSA-POSA (2016). Plants of South Africa - an online checklist. POSA ver. 3.0. http://newposa.sanbi.org/ . (Accessed: June 2018).

Branch, W.R. (1998) Field Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.

CBD (convention on Biological Diversity). (1993). https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf . (Accessed: June 2018).

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) (1973). www.cites.org . (Accessed: June 2018).

DEA. (2015). National land cover data for SA. https://egis.environment.gov.za/national_land_cover_data_sa (Accessed: June 2018).

Del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A., Fishpool, L.D.C., Boesman, P. & Kirwan, G.M. (1996). HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 2: Passerines. Lynx Editions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) 2005. Final draft: A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and Riparian areas.

Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J., Funke, N. (2011). Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 100 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Du Preez, & Carruthers, V. (2009) A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Eskom (2015). Taylor MR, Peacock F, Wanless RM (Eds). The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

EWT. (2016). Mammal Red List 2016. www.ewt.org.za (Accessed: June 2018).

Fish, L., Mashau, A.C., Moeaha, M.J., Nembudani, M.T. (2015). Identification Guide to Southern African Grasses: An Identification Manual with Keys, Descriptions, and Distributions. SANBI, Pretoria.

FrogMap (2017). The Southern African Frog Atlas Project (SAFAP, now FrogMAP). http://vmus.adu.org.za (Accessed in May 2016).

Griffiths, C., Day, J. & Picker, M. (2016). Freshwater Life: A Field Guide to the Plants and Animals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryan, P.G. (Eds). (2005). Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of thfiguree John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.

Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryna, P.G. (eds.) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.

IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed: November 2017).

Johnson, S. & Bytebier, B. (2015). Orchids of South Africa: A Field Guide. Struik publishers, Cape Town.

Kotze DC, Marneweck GC, Batchelor AL, Lindley DC, Collins NB. 2008. A Technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. Mondi Wetland Project.

Land Type Survey Staff. (1972 - 2006). Land Types of South Africa: Digital Map (1:250 000 Scale) and Soil Inventory Databases. Pretoria: ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate, and Water.

Lu, S. (2002). Biology and conservation of the threatened Karkloof blue butterfly Orachrysops ariadne (Butler) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). University of Natal, Durban.

Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. Goge, C. (2008). WET-Health, A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health.

Macfarlane, D.M., Dickens, J. & Von Hase, F. (2009). Development of a methodology to determine the appropriate buffer zone width and type for developments associated with wetlands, watercourses and estuaries.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 101 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Macfarlane, D.M., Dickens, J. and Von Hase, F. (2009). Development of a methodology to determine the appropriate buffer zone width and type for developments associated with wetlands, watercourses and estuaries Deliverable 1: Literature Review. INR Report No: 400/09.

Macfarlane, D.M. and Bredin, I. (2017). Buffer zone guidelines for rivers, wetlands and estuaries. Part 1: Technical manual. WRC Report No. TT 715-1-17.

MammalMap (2017). http://mammalmap.adu.org.za/ (Accessed: June 2018).

Measey, G.J. (2011). Ensuring a Future for South Africa's Frogs: A Strategy for Conservation Research. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Minter, L., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kloepfer, D. (2004). Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institute Avian Demography Unit, Washington; Cape Town.

Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Coterrill, F.D.P. & Schoeman, C. (2010). Bats of southern and central Africa: a biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.). (2006). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelizia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria South African.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. & Powrie, L.W. (Eds.). (2007). Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:1 000 000 scale sheet maps. 2nd ed. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

NBA. (2011). Terrestrial Formal Protected Areas. http://bgis.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: August 2017).

NBA. (2012). Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat Status 2012. http://bgis.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: September 2017)

NBF (2009). National Biodiversity Framework. www.environment.gov.za (Accessed: June 2018).

Nel, J. L., Driver, A., Strydom, W. F., Maherry, A. M., Petersen, C. P., Hill, L., Roux, D. J., Nienaber, S., van Deventer, H., Swartz, E. R. and Smith-Adao, L. B. (2011). Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources, WRC Report No. TT 500/11. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

NPAES (2011). National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy. www.environment.gov.za (Accessed: June 2018).

Ollis DJ, Snaddon CD, Job NM, and Mbona N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series 22. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 102 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Pooley, E. (1998): A Field Guide to Wild Flowers: KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Region. The Flora Publications Trust; ABC Bookshop, Durban.

Raimonde, D. (2009). Red list of South African Plants. SANBI, Pretoria.

RAMSAR. (1971). The RAMSAR convention. www.ramsar.org (Accessed: June 2018).

Rautenbach, A., Dickerson, T. & Schoeman, M.C. (2014). Diversity of rodent and shrew assemblages in different vegetation types of the savannah biome in South Africa: no evidence for nested subsets or competition. African Journal of Ecology, 52:30-40.

Rountree MW, Malan H and Weston B (editors). 2012. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). Joint Department of Water Affairs/Water Research Commission Study. Report No XXXXXXXXX. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

SABAP2 (Bird Atlas Project). (2018). http://vmus.adu.org.za/ . Accessed: June 2018.

SANBI. (2010). SANBI Biodiversity Series 14: National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for 2008. www.sanbi.org/documents/sanbi-biodiversity-series-14-national-protected-area- expansion-strategy-for-2008/ (Accessed: June 2018).

SANBI. (2013). Grassland Ecosystem Guidelines: landscape interpretation for planners and managers. http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org (Accessed: June 2018).

SANBI. (2016). Red List of South African Plants version 2017.1. Redlist.sanbi.org (Accessed: August 2018).

SANBI. (2017). Technical guidelines for CBA Maps: Guidelines for developing a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas & Ecological Support Areas using systematic biodiversity planning. Driver, A., Holness, S. & Daniels, F. (Eds). 1 st Edition. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

SARCA (2018). South African Reptile Conservation Assessment. http://sarca.adu.org.za/ (Accessed: June 2018).

Skinner J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. (2005). The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (New Edition). Cambridge University Press. South Africa.

Soil Classification Working Group. (1991). Soil Classification A Taxonomic system for South Africa. Pretoria: The Department of Agricultural Development.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 103 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. (1994). A field guide to the tracks and signs of Southern, Central East African Wildlife. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Taylor, P. (1998). The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press, Durban.

Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (Eds). (2015). The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2004). Gids tot die grasse van Suider-Afrika. Second Edition. Briza Publikasies, Pretoria.

Van Wyk, B. & Van Wyk, P. (1997). Field guide to trees of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Van Wyk, B. & Malan, S. (1997). Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld: Also Useful in Adjacent Grassland and Bushveld, Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Van Wyk, B-E., Van Oudtshoorn, B. & Gericke, N. (2013). Medicinal Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

Van Wyk, B-E. & Smith, G.F. (2014). Guide to the Aloes of South Africa. Briza Publishers, Pretoria.

UNFCC. (1994). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. (Accessed: June 2018).

APPENDIX A: Floral species expected to occur in the project area

Family Taxon Author IUCN Ecology

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 104 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Asteraceae Acanthospermum glabratum (DC.) Wild not Indigenous; Naturalised Amaranthaceae Aerva leucura Moq. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Afroscirpoides dioeca (Kunth) Garcia-Madr. Indigenous; Endemic Agrostis lachnantha var. Poaceae Nees LC Indigenous lachnantha Albuca fastigiata var. Hyacinthaceae Dryand. Indigenous fastigiata (Ker Gawl.) Hyacinthaceae Albuca prasina Indigenous; Endemic J.C.Manning & Goldblatt Hyacinthaceae Albuca setosa Jacq. Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Albuca shawii Baker Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Albuca sp. (Ker Gawl.) Hyacinthaceae Albuca virens subsp. virens Indigenous J.C.Manning & Goldblatt Asphodelaceae Aloe ecklonis Salm-Dyck LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Aloe grandidentata Salm-Dyck LC Indigenous (Baker) Boatwr. & Asphodelaceae Aloe subspicata Indigenous J.C.Manning Amaranthaceae Alternanthera pungens Kunth not Indigenous; Naturalised not Indigenous; Naturalised; Amaranthaceae Alternanthera sessilis (L.) DC. Invasive Amaranthus hybridus Amaranthaceae L. not Indigenous; Naturalised subsp. hybridus Amaranthaceae Amaranthus thunbergii Moq. LC Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Ammocharis coranica (Ker Gawl.) Herb. LC Indigenous Anacampserota Anacampseros sp. ceae Boraginaceae Anchusa azurea Mill. not Indigenous; Naturalised Boraginaceae Anchusa capensis Thunb. LC Indigenous Boraginaceae Anchusa riparia A.DC. LC Indigenous Poaceae Andropogon appendiculatus Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Anthephora pubescens Nees LC Indigenous Anthospermum rigidum Rubiaceae Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous subsp. pumilum Anthospermum rigidum Rubiaceae Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous subsp. rigidum Aponogetonace Aponogeton junceus Lehm. LC Indigenous ae Scrophulariacea Aptosimum elongatum Engl. LC Indigenous e Scrophulariacea Aptosimum indivisum Burch. ex Benth. LC Indigenous e Scrophulariacea Aptosimum procumbens (Lehm.) Steud. LC Indigenous e not Indigenous; Naturalised; Apocynaceae Araujia sericifera Brot. Invasive Asteraceae Arctotis arctotoides (L.f.) O.Hoffm. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Arctotis microcephala (DC.) Beauverd LC Indigenous Asteraceae Arctotis venusta Norl. LC Indigenous Papaveraceae Argemone ochroleuca Sweet not Indigenous; Naturalised; www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 105 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application subsp. ochroleuca Invasive Fabaceae Argyrolobium collinum Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Argyrolobium humile E.Phillips LC Indigenous; Endemic Fabaceae Argyrolobium molle Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Aristida adscensionis L. LC Indigenous Poaceae Aristida bipartita (Nees) Trin. & Rupr. LC Indigenous Aristida canescens subsp. Poaceae Henrard LC Indigenous canescens Aristida congesta subsp. Poaceae Roem. & Schult. LC Indigenous barbicollis Aristida congesta subsp. Poaceae Roem. & Schult. LC Indigenous congesta Aristida diffusa subsp. Poaceae Trin. LC Indigenous burkei Aristida stipitata subsp. Poaceae Hack. LC Indigenous graciliflora Asteraceae Artemisia afra var. afra Jacq. ex Willd. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Asclepias aurea (Schltr.) Schltr. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Asclepias gibba var. gibba (E.Mey.) Schltr. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Asclepias gibba var. media (E.Mey.) Schltr. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Asclepias stellifera Schltr. LC Indigenous Asparagaceae Asparagus bechuanicus Baker LC Indigenous Asparagaceae Asparagus cooperi Baker LC Indigenous Asparagaceae Asparagus laricinus Burch. LC Indigenous Asparagaceae Asparagus setaceus (Kunth) Jessop LC Indigenous Asparagaceae Asparagus suaveolens Burch. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Aspidoglossum biflorum E.Mey. LC Indigenous Asplenium adiantum-nigrum Aspleniaceae L. LC Indigenous var. adiantum -nigrum not Indigenous; Naturalised; Amaranthaceae Atriplex semibaccata R.Br. Invasive Poaceae Avena sativa L. NE not Indigenous; Naturalised Anacampserota Avonia recurvata subsp. (Schonland) Indigenous; Endemic ceae buderiana G.D.Rowley Anacampserota (E.Mey. ex Fenzl) Avonia ustulata Indigenous; Endemic ceae G.D.Rowley Acanthaceae Barleria macrostegia Nees Indigenous Elatinaceae Bergia pentheriana Keissl. LC Indigenous Berkheya onopordifolia var. (DC.) O.Hoffm. ex Burtt Asteraceae LC Indigenous onopordifolia Davy Asteraceae Berkheya radula (Harv.) De Wild. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Bidens pilosa L. not Indigenous; Naturalised Blepharis integrifolia var. Acanthaceae (L.f.) E.Mey. ex Schinz LC Indigenous integrifolia Acanthaceae Blepharis subvolubilis C.B.Clarke Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Boophone disticha (L.f.) Herb. LC Indigenous Poaceae Brachiaria eruciformis (Sm.) Griseb. LC Indigenous

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 106 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Poaceae Brachiaria serrata (Thunb.) Stapf LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Brachystelma foetidum Schltr. LC Indigenous Brachystelma Apocynaceae (Schltr.) N.E.Br. LC Indigenous ramosissimum Aizoaceae Braunsia apiculata (Kensit) L.Bolus LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Bromus catharticus Vahl NE not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Bromus sp. Amaryllidaceae Brunsvigia radulosa Herb. LC Indigenous Bryaceae Bryum argenteum Hedw. Indigenous Bryaceae Bryum pycnophyllum (Dixon) Mohamed Indigenous Bryaceae Bryum turbinatum (Hedw.) Turner Indigenous Scrophulariacea Buddleja saligna Willd. LC Indigenous e Asphodelaceae Bulbine abyssinica A.Rich. LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine asphodeloides (L.) Spreng. LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine capitata Poelln. LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine frutescens (L.) Willd. LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine narcissifolia Salm-Dyck LC Indigenous Bulbostylis hispidula subsp. Cyperaceae (Vahl) R.W.Haines LC Indigenous pyriformis Cyperaceae Bulbostylis humilis (Kunth) C.B.Clarke LC Indigenous Brassicaceae Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. not Indigenous; Naturalised Cyperaceae Carex glomerabilis V.I.Krecz. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Carex spartea Wahlenb. Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Cestrum aurantiacum Lindl. Invasive not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Cestrum parqui L'Her. Invasive Scrophulariacea Chaenostoma patrioticum (Hiern) Kornhall LC Indigenous e Fabaceae Chamaecrista biensis (Steyaert) Lock LC Indigenous Chascanum pinnatifidum Verbenaceae (L.f.) E.Mey. Indigenous var. pinnatifidum Chasmatophyllum (Haw.) Dinter & Aizoaceae LC Indigenous musculinum Schwantes Pteridaceae Cheilanthes hirta var. hirta Sw. LC Indigenous Amaranthaceae Chenopodium album L. not Indigenous; Naturalised Amaranthaceae Chenopodium carinatum R.Br. not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Chloris virgata Sw. LC Indigenous Agavaceae Chlorophytum fasciculatum (Baker) Kativu Indigenous Cineraria erodioides var. Asteraceae DC. LC Indigenous erodioides Ranunculaceae Clematis brachiata Thunb. LC Indigenous Cucurbitaceae Coccinia sessilifolia (Sond.) Cogn. LC Indigenous (Baker) J.C.Manning & Colchicaceae Colchicum burkei Indigenous; Endemic Vinn.

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 107 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Colchicum melanthoides (Willd.) J.C.Manning & Colchicaceae Indigenous subsp. melanthoides Vinn. Commelina africana var. Commelinaceae L. LC Indigenous africana Commelina africana var. Commelinaceae L. LC Indigenous lancispatha Commelinaceae Commelina benghalensis L. LC Indigenous Commelinaceae Commelina livingstonii C.B.Clarke LC Indigenous Nyctaginaceae Commicarpus pentandrus (Burch.) Heimerl LC Indigenous Commicarpus Nyctaginaceae plumbagineus var. (Cav.) Standl. LC Indigenous plumbagineus Apiaceae Conium chaerophylloides (Thunb.) Sond. LC Indigenous Convolvulus Convolvulaceae Peter LC Indigenous; Endemic boedeckerianus Convolvulaceae Convolvulus dregeanus Choisy LC Indigenous; Endemic Convolvulaceae Convolvulus sagittatus Thunb. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronquist not Indigenous; Naturalised Asteraceae Conyza podocephala DC. Indigenous Malvaceae Corchorus asplenifolius Burch. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Cordylogyne globosa E.Mey. LC Indigenous (Willd.) Groeninckx & Rubiaceae Cordylostigma virgata Indigenous Dessein Caryophyllacea Corrigiola litoralis subsp. L. Indigenous e litoralis Asteraceae Cotula anthemoides L. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Cotula australis (Spreng.) Hook.f. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Cotula sp. Acanthaceae Crabbea acaulis N.E.Br. Indigenous Crassula capitella subsp. Crassulaceae Thunb. Indigenous nodulosa Crassula corallina subsp. Crassulaceae Thunb. Indigenous; Endemic corallina Crassulaceae Crassula deltoidea Thunb. Indigenous; Endemic Crassula lanceolata subsp. (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Endl. ex Crassulaceae Indigenous; Endemic lanceolata Walp. Crassula lanceolata subsp. (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Endl. ex Crassulaceae LC Indigenous transvaalensis Walp. Crassulaceae Crassula natalensis Schonland Indigenous; Endemic Crassula setulosa var. Crassulaceae Harv. NE Indigenous setulosa Crassulaceae Crassula tabularis Dinter Indigenous; Endemic Crassulaceae Crassula vaillantii (Willd.) Roth not Indigenous; Naturalised (Burm.f.) Milne-Redh. & Amaryllidaceae Crinum bulbispermum LC Indigenous Schweick. Fabaceae Crotalaria burkeana Benth. LC Indigenous Crotalaria distans subsp. Fabaceae Benth. LC Indigenous distans Crotalaria sphaerocarpa Fabaceae Perr. ex DC. LC Indigenous subsp. sphaerocarpa www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 108 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Crotalaria virgulata subsp. Fabaceae Klotzsch LC Indigenous grantiana Cucumis myriocarpus Cucurbitaceae Naudin LC Indigenous subsp. myriocarpus Cucurbitaceae Cucumis zeyheri Sond. LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Convolvulaceae Cuscuta campestris Yunck. Invasive (Pers.) Sprague ex Apiaceae Cyclospermum leptophyllum not Indigenous; Naturalised Britton & P.Wilson Cycnium tubulosum subsp. Orobanchaceae (L.f.) Engl. LC Indigenous tubulosum Poaceae Cymbopogon caesius (Hook. & Arn.) Stapf LC Indigenous Poaceae Cymbopogon dieterlenii Stapf ex E.Phillips LC Indigenous Poaceae Cymbopogon pospischilii (K.Schum.) C.E.Hubb. NE Indigenous Poaceae Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. LC Indigenous Poaceae Cynodon hirsutus Stent LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Cynodon transvaalensis Burtt Davy LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Cyperus congestus Vahl LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Cyperus denudatus L.f. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Cyperus difformis L. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis Lam. not Indigenous; Naturalised Cyperus esculentus var. Cyperaceae L. LC Indigenous esculentus Cyperaceae Cyperus fastigiatus Rottb. LC Indigenous Cyperus longus var. Cyperaceae L. NE Indigenous tenuiflorus Cyperaceae Cyperus marginatus Thunb. LC Indigenous Cyperus obtusiflorus var. Cyperaceae Vahl LC Indigenous flavissimus Cyperaceae Cyperus rigidifolius Steud. LC Indigenous Cyperus rupestris var. Cyperaceae Kunth LC Indigenous rupestris Cyperaceae Cyperus semitrifidus Schrad. LC Indigenous (Steud.) C.Archer & Cyperaceae Cyperus uitenhagensis LC Indigenous Goetgh. Cyperaceae Cyperus usitatus Burch. LC Indigenous Poaceae Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Datura ferox L. Invasive not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Datura stramonium L. Invasive Aizoaceae Delosperma mahonii (N.E.Br.) N.E.Br. LC Indigenous Aizoaceae Delosperma sp. Asteraceae Denekia capensis Thunb. LC Indigenous Apiaceae Deverra burchellii (DC.) Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Caryophyllacea Dianthus micropetalus Ser. Indigenous e Acanthaceae Dicliptera clinopodia Nees Indigenous

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 109 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Acanthaceae Dicliptera leistneri K.Balkwill Indigenous; Endemic Dicoma anomala subsp. Asteraceae Sond. LC Indigenous anomala Asteraceae Dicoma macrocephala DC. LC Indigenous Poaceae Digitaria argyrograpta (Nees) Stapf LC Indigenous Poaceae Digitaria eriantha Steud. LC Indigenous Poaceae Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. NE not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Digitaria ternata (A.Rich.) Stapf LC Indigenous Poaceae Digitaria tricholaenoides Stapf LC Indigenous Diheteropogon amplectens Poaceae (Nees) Clayton LC Indigenous var. amplectens Asteraceae Dimorphotheca zeyheri Sond. LC Indigenous Diospyros austro-africana Ebenaceae De Winter Indigenous var. rubriflora Diospyros lycioides subsp. Ebenaceae Desf. Indigenous lycioides Hyacinthaceae Dipcadi ciliare (Zeyh. ex Harv.) Baker Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Dipcadi marlothii Engl. Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Dipcadi viride (L.) Moench Indigenous Fabaceae Dolichos angustifolius Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Drimia capensis (Burm.f.) Wijnands Indigenous; Endemic Hyacinthaceae Drimia elata Jacq. Indigenous (Baker) J.C.Manning & Hyacinthaceae Drimia intricata Indigenous Goldblatt Hyacinthaceae Drimia multisetosa (Baker) Jessop Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Drimia sp. Iridaceae Duthieastrum linifolium (E.Phillips) M.P.de Vos LC Indigenous; Endemic Acanthaceae Dyschoriste burchellii (Nees) Kuntze Indigenous (Pers.) J.C.Manning & Acanthaceae Dyschoriste setigera Indigenous; Endemic Goldblatt Poaceae Echinochloa colona (L.) Link LC Indigenous Poaceae Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. LC Indigenous Poaceae Echinochloa holubii (Stapf) Stapf LC Indigenous Boraginaceae Ehretia alba Retief & A.E.van Wyk LC Indigenous Poaceae Ehrharta erecta var. erecta Lam. LC Indigenous Ehrharta erecta var. Poaceae Lam. LC Indigenous natalensis Cyperaceae Eleocharis dregeana Steud. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Eleocharis limosa (Schrad.) Schult. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Elephantorrhiza elephantina (Burch.) Skeels LC Indigenous Eleusine coracana subsp. Poaceae (L.) Gaertn. LC Indigenous africana Poaceae Elionurus muticus (Spreng.) Kunth LC Indigenous (Licht. ex Roem. & Poaceae Enneapogon cenchroides LC Indigenous Schult.) C.E.Hubb. Poaceae Enneapogon scoparius Stapf LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 110 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Equisetum ramosissimum Equisetaceae Desf. LC Indigenous subsp. ramosissimum Poaceae Eragrostis biflora Hack. ex Schinz LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis capensis (Thunb.) Trin. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis chloromelas Steud. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis gummiflua Nees LC Indigenous Eragrostis lehmanniana var. Poaceae Nees LC Indigenous lehmanniana Poaceae Eragrostis micrantha Hack. LC Indigenous Munro ex Ficalho & Poaceae Eragrostis obtusa LC Indigenous Hiern Poaceae Eragrostis plana Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis planiculmis Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis pseudobtusa De Winter NE Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Eragrostis racemosa (Thunb.) Steud. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis sp. Poaceae Eragrostis superba Peyr. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis trichophora Coss. & Durieu LC Indigenous Asteraceae Eriocephalus karooicus M.A.N.Mull. LC Indigenous; Endemic Ruscaceae Eriospermum porphyrium Archibald LC Indigenous Ruscaceae Eriospermum schinzii Baker LC Indigenous Erpodiaceae Erpodium beccarii Mull.Hal. Indigenous Fabaceae Erythrina zeyheri Harv. LC Indigenous Eucomis autumnalis subsp. Hyacinthaceae (Mill.) Chitt. NE Indigenous clavata Orchidaceae Eulophia clitellifera (Rchb.f.) Bolus LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Eulophia ovalis var. bainesii Lindl. LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Eulophia ovalis var. ovalis Lindl. LC Indigenous Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia clavarioides Boiss. LC Indigenous; Endemic Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia epicyparissias E.Mey. ex Boiss. LC Indigenous Euphorbia inaequilatera var. Euphorbiaceae Sond. NE Indigenous inaequilatera Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia prostrata Aiton NE not Indigenous; Naturalised Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia pseudotuberosa Pax LC Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Euryops empetrifolius DC. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eustachys paspaloides (Vahl) Lanza & Mattei LC Indigenous Fabroniaceae Fabronia pilifera Hornsch. Indigenous Convolvulaceae Falkia oblonga Bernh. ex C.Krauss Indigenous Asteraceae Felicia fascicularis DC. LC Indigenous Felicia muricata subsp. Asteraceae (Thunb.) Nees LC Indigenous muricata Cyperaceae Fuirena coerulescens Steud. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Galinsoga parviflora Cav. not Indigenous; Naturalised

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 111 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Galium capense subsp. Rubiaceae Thunb. LC Indigenous capense Gazania krebsiana subsp. Asteraceae Less. LC Indigenous arctotoides Gazania krebsiana subsp. Asteraceae Less. LC Indigenous serrulata Asteraceae Geigeria aspera var. aspera Harv. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Geigeria brevifolia (DC.) Harv. LC Indigenous Geigeria burkei subsp. Asteraceae Harv. NE Indigenous burkei Amaryllidaceae Gethyllis transkarooica D.Mull.-Doblies LC Indigenous Gisekia pharnacioides var. Gisekiaceae L. LC Indigenous pharnacioides Gladiolus dalenii subsp. Iridaceae Van Geel LC Indigenous dalenii Gladiolus permeabilis Iridaceae D.Delaroche LC Indigenous subsp. edulis Asteraceae Gnaphalium confine Harv. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Gnaphalium filagopsis Hilliard & B.L.Burtt LC Indigenous Scrophulariacea Gomphostigma virgatum (L.f.) Baill. LC Indigenous e Amaranthaceae Gomphrena celosioides Mart. not Indigenous; Naturalised Malvaceae Grewia flava DC. LC Indigenous (Willd. ex Roem. & Amaranthaceae Guilleminea densa not Indigenous; Naturalised Schult.) Moq. Celastraceae Gymnosporia buxifolia (L.) Szyszyl. LC Indigenous Orchidaceae Habenaria epipactidea Rchb.f. LC Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Haemanthus montanus Baker LC Indigenous Asteraceae Haplocarpha scaposa Harv. LC Indigenous Poaceae Harpochloa falx (L.f.) Kuntze LC Indigenous Helichrysum Asteraceae DC. LC Indigenous argyrosphaerum Asteraceae Helichrysum caespititium (DC.) Harv. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum dregeanum Sond. & Harv. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum melanacme DC. LC Indigenous Helichrysum nudifolium var. Asteraceae (L.) Less. LC Indigenous nudifolium Helichrysum pumilio subsp. (O.Hoffm.) Hilliard & Asteraceae LC Indigenous; Endemic pumilio B.L.Burtt Asteraceae Helichrysum rugulosum Less. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Helichrysum zeyheri Less. LC Indigenous Poaceae Helictotrichon sp. Poaceae Helictotrichon turgidulum (Stapf) Schweick. LC Indigenous Boraginaceae Heliotropium lineare (A.DC.) Gurke LC Indigenous (Poir.) Stapf & Poaceae Hemarthria altissima LC Indigenous C.E.Hubb. Aizoaceae Hereroa glenensis (N.E.Br.) L.Bolus LC Indigenous; Endemic Malvaceae Hermannia depressa N.E.Br. LC Indigenous

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 112 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Malvaceae Hermannia oblongifolia (Harv.) Hochr. LC Indigenous; Endemic Malvaceae Hermannia quartiniana A.Rich. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hermannia sp. Asteraceae Hertia ciliata (Harv.) Kuntze LC Indigenous Poaceae Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem. & Schult. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hibiscus calyphyllus Cav. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hibiscus microcarpus Garcke LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hibiscus pusillus Thunb. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hibiscus trionum L. not Indigenous; Naturalised (Houtt.) H.Rob., Skvarla Asteraceae Hilliardiella capensis Indigenous & V.A.Funk (DC.) Swelank. & Asteraceae Hilliardiella elaeagnoides Indigenous J.C.Manning Poaceae Hyparrhenia anamesa Clayton LC Indigenous Poaceae Hyparrhenia dregeana (Nees) Stapf ex Stent LC Indigenous Poaceae Hyparrhenia hirta (L.) Stapf LC Indigenous Hypoxis argentea var. Hypoxidaceae Harv. ex Baker LC Indigenous argentea Fisch., C.A.Mey. & Ave- Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis hemerocallidea LC Indigenous Lall. Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis iridifolia Baker LC Indigenous Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis rigidula var. rigidula Baker LC Indigenous Asteraceae Ifloga glomerata (Harv.) Schltr. LC Indigenous Indigofera cryptantha var. Fabaceae Benth. ex Harv. LC Indigenous cryptantha Fabaceae Indigofera filipes Benth. ex Harv. LC Indigenous Spreng. ex Eckl. & Fabaceae Indigofera zeyheri LC Indigenous Zeyh. Convolvulaceae Ipomoea bolusiana Schinz LC Indigenous Convolvulaceae Ipomoea oblongata E.Mey. ex Choisy LC Indigenous Ipomoea obscura var. Convolvulaceae (L.) Ker Gawl. LC Indigenous obscura Convolvulaceae Ipomoea oenotheroides (L.f.) Raf. ex Hallier f. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Isolepis setacea (L.) R.Br. LC Indigenous Scrophulariacea Jamesbrittenia atropurpurea (Benth.) Hilliard LC Indigenous e subsp. atropurpurea Scrophulariacea Jamesbrittenia aurantiaca (Burch.) Hilliard LC Indigenous e Scrophulariacea Jamesbrittenia sp. e Juncaceae Juncus exsertus Buchenau LC Indigenous Juncaceae Juncus punctorius L.f. LC Indigenous Justicia orchioides subsp. Acanthaceae L.f. Indigenous; Endemic glabrata Crassulaceae Kalanchoe rotundifolia (Haw.) Haw. Indigenous Kewaceae Kewa bowkeriana (Sond.) Christenh. LC Indigenous Poaceae Koeleria capensis (Steud.) Nees LC Indigenous

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 113 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Rubiaceae Kohautia amatymbica Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Kyllinga alata Nees LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Kyllinga alba Nees LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Kyllinga erecta var. erecta Schumach. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Kyllinga pulchella Kunth LC Indigenous (Thunb.) J.C.Manning & Hyacinthaceae Lachenalia ensifolia Indigenous; Endemic Goldblatt Asteraceae Lactuca inermis Forssk. LC Indigenous Hydrocharitace Lagarosiphon muscoides Harv. LC Indigenous ae Verbenaceae Lantana rugosa Thunb. Indigenous Lapeirousia plicata subsp. Iridaceae (Jacq.) Diels Indigenous foliosa Boraginaceae Lappula heteracantha Ledeb. not Indigenous; Naturalised Thymelaeaceae Lasiosiphon burchellii Meisn. LC Indigenous; Endemic Thymelaeaceae Lasiosiphon capitatus (L.f.) Burtt Davy LC Indigenous Thymelaeaceae Lasiosiphon kraussianus (Meisn.) Meisn. Indigenous Asteraceae Lasiospermum pedunculare Lag. LC Indigenous; Endemic Hyacinthaceae Ledebouria cooperi (Hook.f.) Jessop Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Ledebouria marginata (Baker) Jessop LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Ledebouria ovatifolia (Baker) Jessop Indigenous; Endemic Hyacinthaceae Ledebouria sp. Poaceae Leersia hexandra Sw. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Leobordea divaricata Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Lepidium africanum subsp. Brassicaceae (Burm.f.) DC. LC Indigenous africanum Poaceae Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth LC Indigenous Lessertia frutescens subsp. (L.) Goldblatt & Fabaceae LC Indigenous frutescens J.C.Manning Lessertia frutescens subsp. (L.) Goldblatt & Fabaceae LC Indigenous microphylla J.C.Manning not Indigenous; Cultivated; Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum W.T.Aiton Naturalised; Invasive (Engl.) Eb.Fisch., Linderniaceae Linderniella nana Indigenous Schaferh. & Kai Mull. Verbenaceae Lippia scaberrima Sond. Indigenous Fabaceae Listia heterophylla E.Mey. LC Indigenous Boraginaceae Lithospermum cinereum A.DC. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Litogyne gariepina (DC.) Anderb. LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Lobelia sonderiana (Kuntze) Lammers LC Indigenous Fabaceae Lotononis sp. N.E.Br. Fabaceae Lotononis sparsiflora (E.Mey.) B.-E.van Wyk LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium arenicola Miers LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium cinereum Thunb. LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium ferocissimum Miers LC Indigenous

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 114 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Solanaceae Lycium hirsutum Dunal LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium horridum Thunb. LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium pilifolium C.H.Wright LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium schizocalyx C.H.Wright LC Indigenous Malva parviflora var. Malvaceae L. not Indigenous; Naturalised parviflora Marsileaceae Marsilea macrocarpa C.Presl LC Indigenous Marsileaceae Marsilea sp. Hyacinthaceae Massonia jasminiflora Burch. ex Baker LC Indigenous Medicago laciniata var. Fabaceae (L.) Mill. NE not Indigenous; Naturalised laciniata Poaceae Melica decumbens Thunb. LC Indigenous Poaceae Melinis nerviglumis (Franch.) Zizka LC Indigenous Melinis repens subsp. Poaceae (Willd.) Zizka LC Indigenous repens Fabaceae Melolobium calycinum Benth. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Melolobium obcordatum Harv. LC Indigenous Oleaceae Menodora africana Hook. LC Indigenous Mentha longifolia subsp. Lamiaceae (L.) Huds. LC Indigenous polyadena Poaceae Microchloa kunthii Desv. LC Indigenous Phrymaceae Mimulus gracilis R.Br. LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis jalapa L. Invasive Geraniaceae Monsonia angustifolia E.Mey. ex A.Rich. LC Indigenous Iridaceae Moraea pallida (Baker) Goldblatt LC Indigenous Iridaceae Moraea simulans Baker LC Indigenous Scrophulariacea Nemesia fruticans (Thunb.) Benth. LC Indigenous e Rubiaceae Nenax microphylla (Sond.) T.M.Salter LC Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Nerine hesseoides L.Bolus LC Indigenous; Endemic (Ker Gawl.) T.Durand & Amaryllidaceae Nerine laticoma LC Indigenous Schinz not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca Graham Invasive Nidorella resedifolia subsp. Asteraceae DC. LC Indigenous resedifolia Asteraceae Nolletia ciliaris (DC.) Steetz LC Indigenous Asteraceae Nolletia rarifolia (Turcz.) Steetz LC Indigenous; Endemic not Indigenous; Naturalised; Onagraceae Oenothera tetraptera Cav. Invasive Asteraceae Oncosiphon piluliferus (L.f.) Kallersjo LC Indigenous Ophioglossacea Ophioglossum sp. e Apocynaceae Orbea lutea subsp. lutea (N.E.Br.) Bruyns LC Indigenous Ornithogalum juncifolium Hyacinthaceae Jacq. Indigenous var. juncifolium Poaceae Oropetium capense Stapf LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 115 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Orchidaceae Orthochilus leontoglossus (Rchb.f.) Bytebier Indigenous Asteraceae Osteospermum leptolobum (Harv.) Norl. LC Indigenous; Endemic Osteospermum muricatum Asteraceae E.Mey. ex DC. LC Indigenous subsp. muricatum Osteospermum scariosum Asteraceae DC. NE Indigenous var. scariosum Asteraceae Osteospermum spinescens Thunb. LC Indigenous Oxalidaceae Oxalis depressa Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Oxalidaceae Oxalis latifolia Kunth Invasive Rubiaceae Pachystigma pygmaeum (Schltr.) Robyns LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum coloratum L. LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum schinzii Hack. LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum sp. Poaceae Panicum stapfianum Fourc. LC Indigenous Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Poir. NE notIndigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Paspalum distichum L. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Pavonia burchellii (DC.) R.A.Dyer LC Indigenous Geraniaceae Pelargonium sidoides DC. LC Indigenous Pellaea calomelanos var. Pteridaceae (Sw.) Link LC Indigenous calomelanos (Nees) T.Durand & Poaceae Pennisetum sphacelatum LC Indigenous Schinz not Indigenous; Naturalised; Poaceae Pennisetum villosum R.Br. ex Fresen. NE Invasive Asteraceae Pentzia calcarea Kies LC Indigenous Asteraceae Pentzia globosa Less. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Pentzia viridis Kies LC Indigenous; Endemic Polygonaceae Persicaria hystricula (J.Schust.) Sojak LC Indigenous Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Gray not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Phalaris canariensis L. NE not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Phragmites australis (Cav.) Steud. LC Indigenous Phyllanthus Phyllanthaceae L. LC Indigenous maderaspatensis Phyllanthus parvulus var. Phyllanthaceae Sond. LC Indigenous parvulus not Indigenous; Naturalised; Solanaceae Physalis viscosa L. Invasive Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata L. LC Indigenous Plantaginaceae Plantago major L. not Indigenous; Naturalised (S.Moore) V.A.Funk & Asteraceae Platycarphella parvifolia LC Indigenous; Endemic H.Rob. Poaceae Pogonarthria squarrosa (Roem. & Schult.) Pilg. LC Indigenous Caryophyllacea Pollichia campestris Aiton Indigenous e Polygalaceae Polygala hottentotta C.Presl LC Indigenous Polygala transvaalensis Polygalaceae Chodat LC Indigenous subsp. transvaalensis www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 116 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Potamogetonac Potamogeton crispus L. LC Indigenous eae Potamogetonac Potamogeton nodosus Poir. LC Indigenous eae Potamogetonac Potamogeton pectinatus L. LC Indigenous eae Pottiaceae Pseudocrossidium crinitum (Schultz) R.H.Zander Indigenous Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae (L.) Hilliard & B.L.Burtt LC not Indigenous; Naturalised luteoalbum Pseudoleskeopsis Leskeaceae (Mull.Hal.) Ther. Indigenous claviramea Pedaliaceae Pterodiscus speciosus Hook. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Pycreus chrysanthus (Boeck.) C.B.Clarke LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Cultivated; Fagaceae Quercus robur L. Naturalised; Invasive Ranunculaceae Ranunculus multifidus Forssk. LC Indigenous Ranunculaceae Ranunculus trichophyllus Chaix LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Raphionacme hirsuta (E.Mey.) R.A.Dyer LC Indigenous Fabaceae Rhynchosia adenodes Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Rhynchosia confusa Burtt Davy NE Indigenous Fabaceae Rhynchosia holosericea Schinz LC Indigenous Rhynchosia minima var. Fabaceae (L.) DC. NE Indigenous prostrata Rhynchosia nervosa var. Fabaceae Benth. ex Harv. LC Indigenous nervosa Fabaceae Rhynchosia totta var. totta (Thunb.) DC. LC Indigenous Ricciaceae Riccia angolensis Steph. Indigenous Ricciaceae Riccia okahandjana S.W.Arnell Indigenous Ricciaceae Riccia simii Perold Indigenous Rorippa fluviatilis var. Brassicaceae (E.Mey. ex Sond.) Thell. LC Indigenous fluviatilis Brassicaceae Rorippa nudiuscula Thell. LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Rubia petiolaris DC. LC Indigenous Rubus ludwigii subsp. Rosaceae Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous ludwigii Polygonaceae Rumex lanceolatus Thunb. LC Indigenous Polygonaceae Rumex sagittatus Thunb. LC Indigenous Aizoaceae Ruschia hamata (L.Bolus) Schwantes LC Indigenous Aizoaceae Ruschia rigens L.Bolus LC Indigenous; Endemic Aizoaceae Ruschia sp. Salix mucronata subsp. Salicaceae Thunb. LC Indigenous mucronata Amaranthaceae Salsola calluna Fenzl ex C.H.Wright LC Indigenous; Endemic Amaranthaceae Salsola glabrescens Burtt Davy LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Amaranthaceae Salsola kali L. Invasive Amaranthaceae Salsola sp. Lamiaceae Salvia repens var. repens Burch. ex Benth. LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 117 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Salvia repens var. Lamiaceae Burch. ex Benth. LC Indigenous transvaalensis Lamiaceae Salvia runcinata L.f. LC Indigenous Lamiaceae Salvia stenophylla Burch. ex Benth. Indigenous; Endemic not Indigenous; Naturalised; Lamiaceae Salvia verbenaca L. LC Invasive Ruscaceae Sansevieria aethiopica Thunb. LC Indigenous Dipsacaceae Scabiosa columbaria L. LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Schizocarphus nervosus (Burch.) Van der Merwe Indigenous Asteraceae Schkuhria pinnata (Lam.) Kuntze ex Thell. not Indigenous; Naturalised Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus decipiens (Nees) J.Raynal LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus muricinux (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Scleria sp. Anacardiaceae Searsia dentata (Thunb.) F.A.Barkley Indigenous (E.Mey. ex Sond.) Anacardiaceae Searsia discolor Indigenous Moffett Anacardiaceae Searsia erosa (Thunb.) Moffett Indigenous Anacardiaceae Searsia lancea (L.f.) F.A.Barkley Indigenous Searsia pyroides var. Anacardiaceae (Burch.) Moffett Indigenous gracilis Searsia pyroides var. Anacardiaceae (Burch.) Moffett Indigenous pyroides Searsia rigida var. Anacardiaceae (Mill.) F.A.Barkley Indigenous margaretae Anacardiaceae Searsia rigida var. rigida (Mill.) F.A.Barkley Indigenous Anacardiaceae Searsia zeyheri (Sond.) Moffett Indigenous; Endemic Gentianaceae Sebaea exigua (Oliv.) Schinz LC Indigenous (E.Mey. ex Choisy) Convolvulaceae Seddera capensis LC Indigenous Hallier f. Scrophulariacea Selago sp. e Asteraceae Senecio asperulus DC. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Senecio consanguineus DC. LC Indigenous Senecio laevigatus var. Asteraceae Thunb. LC Indigenous; Endemic laevigatus Asteraceae Senecio reptans Turcz. LC Indigenous; Endemic Senna italica subsp. Fabaceae Mill. LC Indigenous arachoides Amaranthaceae Sericorema remotiflora (Hook.f.) Lopr. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Seriphium plumosum L. Indigenous Fabaceae Sesbania transvaalensis J.B.Gillett LC Indigenous Poaceae Setaria incrassata (Hochst.) Hack. LC Indigenous (Nees) T.Durand & Poaceae Setaria nigrirostris LC Indigenous Schinz Poaceae Setaria sp. Setaria sphacelata var. (Schumach.) Stapf & Poaceae LC Indigenous sphacelata C.E.Hubb. ex M.B.Moss Poaceae Setaria sphacelata var. torta (Schumach.) Stapf & LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 118 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application C.E.Hubb. ex M.B.Moss Malvaceae Sida chrysantha Ulbr. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Sida dregei Burtt Davy LC Indigenous Brassicaceae Sisymbrium orientale L. not Indigenous; Naturalised Anacardiaceae Smodingium argutum E.Mey. ex Sond. LC Indigenous; Endemic Solanaceae Solanum campylacanthum Hochst. ex A.Rich. Indigenous Solanaceae Solanum lichtensteinii Willd. LC Indigenous Solanaceae Solanum retroflexum Dunal LC Indigenous Solanaceae Solanum rostratum Dunal not Indigenous; Naturalised Solanaceae Solanum supinum Dunal Indigenous; Endemic not Indigenous; Naturalised; Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Invasive Malvaceae Sphaeralcea bonariensis (Cav.) Griseb. not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Sporobolus discosporus Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Sporobolus fimbriatus (Trin.) Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Sporobolus oxyphyllus Fish LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Sporobolus sp. Poaceae Sporobolus tenellus (Spreng.) Kunth LC Indigenous Lamiaceae Stachys hyssopoides Burch. ex Benth. LC Indigenous Lamiaceae Stachys spathulata Burch. ex Benth. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae Stenostelma capense Schltr. LC Indigenous Orobanchaceae Striga elegans Benth. LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Asteraceae Tagetes minuta L. Invasive Anacampserota Talinum caffrum (Thunb.) Eckl. & Zeyh. Indigenous ceae Tarchonanthus Asteraceae L. LC Indigenous camphoratus Fabaceae Tephrosia multijuga R.G.N.Young LC Indigenous Lamiaceae Teucrium trifidum Retz. LC Indigenous Poaceae Themeda triandra Forssk. LC Indigenous Thesium costatum var. Santalaceae A.W.Hill LC Indigenous costatum Santalaceae Thesium hirsutum A.W.Hill LC Indigenous; Endemic Asteraceae Tolpis capensis (L.) Sch.Bip. LC Indigenous Trachyandra asperata var. Asphodelaceae Kunth LC Indigenous asperata Trachyandra asperata var. Asphodelaceae Kunth LC Indigenous basutoensis Trachyandra asperata var. Asphodelaceae Kunth LC Indigenous macowanii Trachyandra asperata var. Asphodelaceae Kunth LC Indigenous nataglencoensis Asphodelaceae Trachyandra laxa var. rigida (N.E.Br.) Oberm. LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Trachyandra saltii (Baker) Oberm. Indigenous Asphodelaceae Trachyandra saltii var. saltii (Baker) Oberm. LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 119 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Poaceae Trachypogon spicatus (L.f.) Kuntze LC Indigenous Poaceae Tragus berteronianus Schult. LC Indigenous Poaceae Tragus koelerioides Asch. LC Indigenous Poaceae Tragus racemosus (L.) All. LC Indigenous Trianthema triquetra subsp. Aizoaceae Willd. ex Spreng. NE Indigenous triquetra Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris L. LC Indigenous Trichodesma angustifolium Boraginaceae Harv. LC Indigenous subsp. angustifolium Poaceae Trichoneura grandiglumis (Nees) Ekman LC Indigenous Trichostomum Pottiaceae Bruch Indigenous brachydontium Trifolium africanum var. Fabaceae Ser. NE Indigenous africanum Poaceae Triraphis andropogonoides (Steud.) E.Phillips LC Indigenous Iridaceae Tritonia laxifolia (Klatt) Benth. ex Baker LC Indigenous Alliaceae Tulbaghia acutiloba Harv. LC Indigenous; Endemic Alliaceae Tulbaghia sp. Typhaceae Typha capensis (Rohrb.) N.E.Br. Indigenous not Indigenous; Cultivated; Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia Jacq. Naturalised; Invasive Poaceae Urochloa mosambicensis (Hack.) Dandy LC Indigenous Poaceae Urochloa panicoides P.Beauv. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Vachellia karroo (Hayne) Banfi & Gallaso LC Indigenous Vahlia capensis subsp. Vahliaceae (L.f.) Thunb. Indigenous capensis Vahlia capensis subsp. Vahliaceae (L.f.) Thunb. Indigenous vulgaris Vangueria infausta subsp. Rubiaceae Burch. LC Indigenous infausta Verbenaceae Verbena aristigera S.Moore not Indigenous; Naturalised not Indigenous; Naturalised; Verbenaceae Verbena brasiliensis Vell. Invasive Verbenaceae Verbena officinalis L. not Indigenous; Naturalised Plantaginaceae Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. LC Indigenous Fabaceae Vicia sp. Campanulacea Wahlenbergia androsacea A.DC. LC Indigenous e Campanulacea Wahlenbergia denticulata (Burch.) A.DC. LC Indigenous e var. denticulata Campanulacea Wahlenbergia undulata (L.f.) A.DC. LC Indigenous e Solanaceae Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal LC Indigenous not Indigenous; Naturalised; Asteraceae Xanthium spinosum L. Invasive not Indigenous; Naturalised; Asteraceae Xanthium strumarium L. Invasive Apocynaceae Xysmalobium brownianum S.Moore LC Indigenous Asteraceae Zinnia peruviana (L.) L. not Indigenous; Naturalised

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 120 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application Ziziphus mucronata subsp. Rhamnaceae Willd. Indigenous mucronata Rhamnaceae Ziziphus zeyheriana Sond. Indigenous Fabaceae Zornia milneana Mohlenbr. LC Indigenous

APPENDIX B: Avifaunal species expected to occur in the project area

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 121 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional IUCN (2017) (SANBI, 2016) Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common Unlisted LC Acrocephalus arundinaceus Reed-warbler, Great Unlisted LC Acrocephalus baeticatus Reed-warbler, African Unlisted Unlisted Acrocephalus gracilirostris Swamp-warbler, Lesser Unlisted LC Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common Unlisted LC Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African Unlisted LC Afrotis afra Korhaan, Southern Black VU VU Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite Unlisted Unlisted Alcedo semitorquata Kingfisher, Half-collared NT LC Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian Unlisted LC Amadina erythrocephala Finch, Red-headed Unlisted LC Amandava subflava Waxbill, Orange-breasted Unlisted Unlisted Anas capensis Teal, Cape Unlisted LC Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed Unlisted LC Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape Unlisted LC Anas sparsa Duck, African Black Unlisted LC Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed Unlisted LC Anhinga rufa Darter, African Unlisted LC Anthoscopus minutus Penduline-tit, Cape Unlisted LC Anthropoides paradiseus Crane, Blue NT VU Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African Unlisted LC Anthus leucophrys Pipit, Plain-backed Unlisted LC Anthus similis Pipit, Long-billed Unlisted LC Anthus vaalensis Pipit, Buffy Unlisted LC Apus affinis Swift, Little Unlisted LC Apus apus Swift, Common Unlisted LC Apus barbatus Swift, African Black Unlisted LC Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped Unlisted LC Apus horus Swift, Horus Unlisted LC Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey Unlisted LC Ardea goliath Heron, Goliath Unlisted LC Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed Unlisted LC Ardea purpurea Heron, Purple Unlisted LC Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco Unlisted LC Asio capensis Owl, Marsh Unlisted LC Batis pririt Batis, Pririt Unlisted LC Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 122 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Bubo africanus Eagle-owl, Spotted Unlisted LC Bubulcus ibis Egret, Cattle Unlisted LC Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted Unlisted LC Buteo rufofuscus Buzzard, Jackal Unlisted LC Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Steppe Unlisted Unlisted Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped Unlisted LC Calendulauda sabota Lark, Sabota Unlisted LC Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew LC NT Calidris minuta Stint, Little LC LC Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar, European Unlisted LC Caprimulgus pectoralis Nightjar, Fiery-necked Unlisted LC Caprimulgus rufigena Nightjar, Rufous-cheeked Unlisted LC Centropus burchellii Coucal, Burchell's Unlisted Unlisted Centropus superciliosus Coucal, White-browed Unlisted LC Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar Unlisted LC Cercomela sinuata Chat, Sickle-winged Unlisted LC Cercotrichas coryphoeus Scrub-robin, Karoo Unlisted LC Cercotrichas paena Scrub-robin, Kalahari Unlisted LC Certhilauda benguelensis Lark, Benguela Long-billed Unlisted Unlisted Certhilauda brevirostris Lark, Agulhas Long-billed NT NR Certhilauda curvirostris Lark, Cape Long-billed Unlisted LC Certhilauda semitorquata Lark, Eastern Long-billed Unlisted LC Certhilauda subcoronata Lark, Karoo Long-billed Unlisted LC Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied Unlisted LC Chalcomitra amethystina Sunbird, Amethyst Unlisted LC Charadrius hiaticula Plover, Common Ringed Unlisted LC Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz's Unlisted LC Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded Unlisted LC Chersomanes albofasciata Lark, Spike-heeled Unlisted LC Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered Unlisted LC Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged Unlisted LC Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diderick Unlisted LC Chrysococcyx klaas Cuckoo, Klaas's Unlisted LC Ciconia abdimii Stork, Abdim's NT LC Ciconia ciconia Stork, White Unlisted LC Ciconia nigra Stork, Black VU LC Cinnyris talatala Sunbird, White-bellied Unlisted LC Circus macrourus Harrier, Pallid NT NT Circus maurus Harrier, Black EN VU Cisticola aridulus Cisticola, Desert Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 123 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Cisticola ayresii Cisticola, Wing-snapping Unlisted LC Cisticola chiniana Cisticola, Rattling Unlisted LC Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky, Neddicky Unlisted LC Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting Unlisted LC Cisticola lais Cisticola, Wailing Unlisted LC Cisticola textrix Cisticola, Cloud Unlisted LC Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant's Unlisted LC Clamator jacobinus Cuckoo, Jacobin Unlisted LC Colius colius Mousebird, White-backed Unlisted LC Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled Unlisted LC Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled Unlisted LC Columba livia Dove, Rock Unlisted LC Coracias garrulus Roller, European NT LC Corvus albus Crow, Pied Unlisted LC Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape Unlisted LC Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common Unlisted LC Creatophora cinerea Starling, Wattled Unlisted LC Crex crex Crake, Corn Unlisted LC Crithagra atrogularis Canary, Black-throated Unlisted LC Crithagra flaviventris Canary, Yellow Unlisted LC Crithagra mozambica Canary, Yellow-fronted Unlisted LC Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested Unlisted LC Cursorius rufus Courser, Burchell's VU LC Cursorius temminckii Courser, Temminck's Unlisted LC Cypsiurus parvus Palm-swift, African Unlisted LC Delichon urbicum House-martin, Common Unlisted LC Dendrocygna bicolor Duck, Fulvous Unlisted LC Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced Whistling Unlisted LC Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal Unlisted LC Egretta alba Egret, Great Unlisted LC Egretta ardesiaca Heron, Black Unlisted LC Egretta garzetta Egret, Little Unlisted LC Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed Unlisted LC Emberiza capensis Bunting, Cape Unlisted LC Emberiza flaviventris Bunting, Golden-breasted Unlisted LC Emberiza impetuani Bunting, Lark-like Unlisted LC Emberiza tahapisi Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted Unlisted LC Eremomela icteropygialis Eremomela, Yellow-bellied Unlisted LC Eremopterix leucotis Sparrowlark, Chestnut-backed Unlisted LC Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 124 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Estrilda erythronotos Waxbill, Black-faced Unlisted LC Euplectes afer Bishop, Yellow-crowned Unlisted LC Euplectes albonotatus Widowbird, White-winged Unlisted LC Euplectes ardens Widowbird, Red-collared Unlisted LC Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red Unlisted LC Euplectes progne Widowbird, Long-tailed Unlisted LC Eupodotis caerulescens Korhaan, Blue LC NT Falco amurensis Falcon, Amur Unlisted LC Falco naumanni Kestrel, Lesser Unlisted LC Falco rupicoloides Kestrel, Greater Unlisted LC Falco rupicolus Kestrel, Rock Unlisted LC Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed Unlisted LC Gallinago nigripennis Snipe, African Unlisted LC Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common Unlisted LC Geocolaptes olivaceus Woodpecker, Ground Unlisted NT Glareola nordmanni Pratincole, Black-winged NT NT Granatina granatina Waxbill, Violet-eared Unlisted LC Gyps coprotheres Vulture, Cape EN EN Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded Unlisted LC Haliaeetus vocifer Fish-eagle, African Unlisted LC Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged Unlisted LC Hippolais icterina Warbler, Icterine Unlisted LC Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated Unlisted LC Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped Unlisted LC Hirundo dimidiata Swallow, Pearl-breasted Unlisted LC Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock Unlisted Unlisted Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn Unlisted LC Hirundo semirufa Swallow, Red-breasted Unlisted LC Hirundo spilodera Cliff-swallow, South African Unlisted LC Indicator indicator Honeyguide, Greater Unlisted LC Indicator minor Honeyguide, Lesser Unlisted LC Ixobrychus minutus Bittern, Little Unlisted LC Ixobrychus sturmii Bittern, Dwarf Unlisted LC Jynx ruficollis Wryneck, Red-throated Unlisted LC Lagonosticta senegala Firefinch, Red-billed Unlisted LC Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy Unlisted LC Laniarius atrococcineus Shrike, Crimson-breasted Unlisted LC Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) Unlisted LC Lanius collurio Shrike, Red-backed Unlisted LC Lanius minor Shrike, Lesser Grey Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 125 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Larus cirrocephalus Gull, Grey-headed Unlisted LC Lybius torquatus Barbet, Black-collared Unlisted LC Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape Unlisted LC Malcorus pectoralis Warbler, Rufous-eared Unlisted LC Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant Unlisted Unlisted Melierax canorus Goshawk, Southern Pale Chanting Unlisted LC Merops apiaster Bee-eater, European Unlisted LC Merops bullockoides Bee-eater, White-fronted Unlisted LC Milvus migrans Kite, Black Unlisted LC Mirafra africana Lark, Rufous-naped Unlisted LC Mirafra apiata Lark, Cape Clapper Unlisted LC Mirafra cheniana Lark, Melodious LC LC Mirafra fasciolata Lark, Eastern Clapper Unlisted LC Mirafra marjoriae Lark, Agulhas Clapper Unlisted Unlisted Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape Unlisted LC Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted Unlisted LC Mycteria ibis Stork, Yellow-billed EN LC Myrmecocichla formicivora Chat, Anteating Unlisted LC Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern Unlisted LC Nilaus afer Brubru Unlisted LC Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted Unlisted LC Nycticorax nycticorax Night-Heron, Black-crowned Unlisted LC Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua Unlisted LC Oenanthe monticola Wheatear, Mountain Unlisted LC Oenanthe pileata Wheatear, Capped Unlisted LC Onychognathus morio Starling, Red-winged Unlisted LC Ortygospiza atricollis Quailfinch, African Unlisted LC Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa NT NT Parisoma subcaeruleum Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented Unlisted Unlisted Parus cinerascens Tit, Ashy Unlisted LC Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed Unlisted LC Passer domesticus Sparrow, House Unlisted LC Passer griseus Sparrow, Northern Grey-headed Unlisted LC Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape Unlisted LC Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed Unlisted LC Phalacrocorax capensis Cormorant, Cape EN EN Philomachus pugnax Ruff Unlisted LC Phoeniconaias minor Flamingo, Lesser NT NT Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater NT LC Phoeniculus purpureus Wood-hoopoe, Green Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 126 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow Unlisted LC Platalea alba Spoonbill, African Unlisted LC Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged Unlisted LC Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy Unlisted LC Plocepasser mahali Sparrow-weaver, White-browed Unlisted LC Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape Unlisted LC Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver, Southern Unlisted LC Podiceps cristatus Grebe, Great Crested Unlisted LC Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial EN VU Polyboroides typus Harrier-Hawk, African Unlisted LC Prinia flavicans Prinia, Black-chested Unlisted LC Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal Unlisted LC Pternistis swainsonii Spurfowl, Swainson's Unlisted LC Pterocles namaqua Sandgrouse, Namaqua Unlisted LC Pycnonotus nigricans Bulbul, African Red-eyed Unlisted LC Pytilia melba Pytilia, Green-winged Unlisted LC Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed Unlisted LC Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet, Pied Unlisted LC Rhinopomastus cyanomelas Scimitarbill, Common Unlisted LC Rhinoptilus africanus Courser, Double-banded Unlisted LC Riparia cincta Martin, Banded Unlisted LC Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated Unlisted LC Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird VU VU Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African Unlisted LC Scleroptila levaillantoides Francolin, Orange River Unlisted LC Scopus umbretta Hamerkop, Hamerkop Unlisted LC Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal Unlisted LC Spizocorys conirostris Lark, Pink-billed Unlisted LC Sporopipes squamifrons Finch, Scaly-feathered Unlisted LC Spreo bicolor Starling, Pied Unlisted LC Stenostira scita Flycatcher, Fairy Unlisted LC Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape Unlisted LC Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed Unlisted LC Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing Unlisted LC Struthio camelus Ostrich, Common Unlisted LC Sylvia borin Warbler, Garden Unlisted LC Sylvia communis Whitethroat, Common Unlisted LC Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed Unlisted LC Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little Unlisted LC Tachymarptis melba Swift, Alpine Unlisted LC

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 127 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African Unlisted LC Tchagra australis Tchagra, Brown-crowned Unlisted LC Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie Unlisted LC Terpsiphone viridis Paradise-flycatcher, African Unlisted LC Thalassornis leuconotus Duck, White-backed Unlisted LC Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Cliff-chat, Mocking Unlisted LC Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred Unlisted LC Trachyphonus vaillantii Barbet, Crested Unlisted LC Tricholaema leucomelas Barbet, Acacia Pied Unlisted LC Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood Unlisted LC Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common Unlisted LC Tringa stagnatilis Sandpiper, Marsh Unlisted LC Turdus olivaceus Thrush, Olive Unlisted LC Turdus smithi Thrush, Karoo Unlisted LC Turnix sylvaticus Buttonquail, Kurrichane Unlisted LC Tyto alba Owl, Barn Unlisted LC Tyto capensis Grass-owl, African VU LC Upupa africana Hoopoe, African Unlisted LC Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue Unlisted LC Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced Unlisted LC Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith Unlisted LC Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned Unlisted LC Vanellus senegallus Lapwing, African Wattled Unlisted LC Vidua chalybeata Indigobird, Village Unlisted LC Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed Unlisted LC Vidua paradisaea Paradise-whydah, Long-tailed Unlisted LC Vidua regia Whydah, Shaft-tailed Unlisted LC Zosterops pallidus White-eye, Orange River Unlisted LC Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape Unlisted LC

APPENDIX C: Mammal species expected to occur in the project area

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 128 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Conservation Status Species Common name Regional IUCN (2017) (SANBI, 2016) Aethomys ineptus Tete Veld Rat LC LC Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock rat LC LC Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest LC LC Antidorcas marsupialis Sclater's Shrew LC LC Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter NT NT Atelerix frontalis South Africa Hedgehog NT LC Atilax paludinosus Water Mongoose LC LC Canis mesomelas Black -backed Jackal LC LC Caracal caracal Caracal LC LC Ceratotherium simum White Rhinoceros NT NT Connochaetes gnou Black Wildebeest LC LC Connochaetes taurinus Blue Wildebeest LC LC Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey Musk Shrew LC LC Cryptomys hottentotus Common Mole-rat LC LC Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC LC Damaliscus pygargus Blesbok LC LC Desmodillus auricularis Short -tailed Gerbil LC LC Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros EN CR Eidolon helvum African Straw-colored Fruit Bat LC NT Elephantulus myurus Eastern Rock Sengi LC LC Eptesicus hottentotus Long-tailed Serotine Bat LC LC Felis nigripes Black -footed Cat VU VU Felis silvestris African Wildcat LC LC Genetta genetta Small-spotted Genet LC LC Gerbilliscus brantsii Highveld Gerbil LC LC Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld Gerbil LC LC Herpestes sanguineus Slender Mongoose LC LC Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted -necked Otter VU NT Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC LC Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose LC LC Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC LC Leptailurus serval Serval NT LC Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC LC Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC LC Lepus victoriae African Savanna Hare LC LC Lycaon pictus African Wild Dog EN EN Mastomys coucha Multimammate Mouse LC LC Mellivora capensis Honey Badger LC LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 129 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Mus musculus House Mouse Unlisted LC Mus orangiae Free State Pygmy Mouse NE Unlisted Myotis welwitschii Welwitsch's Hairy Bat LC LC Mystromys albicaudatus White -tailed Rat VU EN Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat LC LC Neoromicia zuluensis Aloe Bat LC LC Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced Bat LC LC Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC LC Otocyon megalotis Bat -eared Fox LC LC Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat (Fynbos type) LC LC Panthera pardus Leopard VU VU Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon LC LC Parahyaena brunnea Brown Hyaena NT NT Pedetes capensis Springhare LC LC Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog LC LC Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel NT LC Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC LC Proteles cristata Aardwolf LC LC Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC LC Rattus rattus House Rat Exotic (Not listed) LC Rhabdomys pumilio Xeric Four-striped Mouse LC LC Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat LC LC Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's Horseshoe Bat LC LC Scotophilus dinganii Yellow House Bat LC LC Steatomys krebsii Krebs's Fat Mouse LC LC Steatomys pratensis Fat Mouse LC LC Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew LC LC Suricata suricatta Suricate LC LC Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC LC Syncerus caffer African Buffalo LC LC Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat LC LC Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat LC LC Tragelaphus oryx Eland LC LC Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC LC Xerus inauris Cape Ground Squirrel LC LC

APPENDIX D: Reptile species expected to occur in the project area

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 130 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application

Conservation Status Species Common name Regional IUCN (SANBI, 2016) (2017) Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink LC LC Afroedura nivaria Drankensberg Flat Gecko LC LC Agama aculeata distanti Eastern Ground Agama LC LC Agama atra Southern Rock Agama LC LC Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater LC LC Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake LC LC Chamaeleo dilepis Common Flap-neck Chameleon LC LC Chamaesaura aenea Coppery Grass Lizard NT NT Dasypeltis scabra Common egg eater LC LC Duberria lutrix Common Slug-eater LC LC Elapsoidea sundevallii sundevallii Sundevall's Garter Snake LC Unlisted Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals LC LC Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake LC LC Lygodactylus capensis capensis Common Dwarf Gecko LC Unlisted Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko LC Unlisted Panaspis wahlbergii Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink LC Unlisted Prosymna ambigua Angolan Shovel-snout Unlisted LC Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout LC LC Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake LC LC Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake LC Unlisted rhombeatus Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Grass Snake LC LC Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake LC Unlisted Smaug giganteus Giant Dragon Lizard VU VU Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise LC LC Thelotornis capensis Southern Twig Snake LC LC Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink LC Unlisted Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink LC LC Trachylepis varia Variable Skink LC LC Varanus niloticus Water Monitor LC Unlisted

www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 131 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment

Kroonstad Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX E: Amphibian species expected to occur in the project area

Conservation Status Species Common name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Amietia angolensis Angola River Frog LC LC Amietia delalandii Delalande's River Frog LC Unlisted Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC LC Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog LC LC Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco LC LC Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina LC LC Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog LC LC Poyntonophrynus vertebralis Southern Pygmy Toad LC LC Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog NT LC Schismaderma carens African Red Toad LC LC Schismaderma carens Red Toad LC LC Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad LC LC Sclerophrys gutturalis Guttural Toad LC LC Sclerophrys poweri Power's Toad LC LC Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog LC LC Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog LC LC Tomopterna cryptotis Tremelo Sand Frog LC LC Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog LC LC Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog LC LC Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC LC