ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON FAUNA BIODIVERSITY BY THE INTENDED OPENCAST BERENICE COAL MINE, LIMPOPO PROVINCE

The fauna of the area of the proposed Berenice Opencast Coal Mine, Limpopo

Province

July 2016

Office 108, Domus Building, 57 Kasteel Street, Lynwood Glen, Pretoria, 0181. Tel: 073 406 8051/083 524 8738. Fax: 086 636 2035. Email: [email protected]

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 1

Copyright in all text and other matter is the exclusive property of the authors. It is a criminal offence to reproduce and/or use, without written consent, any matter, technical procedure and/or technique contained in this document. Criminal and civil proceedings will be taken as a matter of strict routine against any person and/or institution infringing the copyright of the author and/or proprietors. This document may not be modified other than by the author and when incorporated into overarching studies, it should be included in its entirety as an appendix to the main report.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 2

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON VERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY BY THE INTENDED OPENCAST BERENICE COAL MINE, LIMPOPO PROVINCE

Commissioned by: Universal Coal Development ll (Pty) Ltd

Conducted by:

EcoAgent CC PO Box 23355 Monument Park 0181 Tel 012 4602525 Fax 012 460 2525 Cell 082 5767046

Contributors: I.L. Rautenbach Ph.D., Pr.Sci.Nat. Zoologist / Mammalogist A. McKechnie Ph.D., Pr.Sci.Nat. Zoologist / Ornithologist J.C.P. van Wyk M.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat. Zoologist / Herpetologist G.J. Bredenkamp DSc., Pr. Sci.Nat. Ecologist

July 2016 Revised February 2017

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 3

Declaration of Professional Standing and Independence

We,

Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach (SACNASP # 400300/05), Andrew Edward McKechnie (SACNASP 400205/05) Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk (SACNASP # 400062/09) GeorgeJohannes Bredenkamp (SACNASP # 400086/83) declare that we:  hold higher degrees in the biological sciences, which allowed registration by S.A. Council for National Scientific Professions (SACNASP) as Professional Ecologists or Zoologists that sanction us to function independently as specialist scientific consultants;  declare that as per prerequisites of the Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003 this project was our own work from inception and reflects exclusively our observations and unbiased scientific interpretations, and executed to the best of our abilities;  abide by the Code of Ethics of the SACNASP;  are committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognize the need for economic development. Whereas we appreciate opportunities to learn through constructive criticism and debate, we reserve the right to form and hold our own opinions within the constraints of our training, experience and results and therefore will not submit willingly to the interests of other parties or change our statements to appease or unduly benefit them;  are subcontracted as specialist consultants for the project “An Environmental Impact Assessment on the Biodiversity by the Intended Opencast Berenice Opencast Coal Mine in ihe Waterpoort District North of the Zoutpansberg Mountain Range, Limpopo Province” as described in this report;  have no financial interest in the proposed development other than remuneration for the work performed;  do not have, and will not have in the future, any vested or conflicting interests in the proposed development;  undertake to disclose to the consultant and its client(s) as well as to the competent authority any material information that may have the potential to influence any decisions by the competent authority, as required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2006;  reserve the right to only transfer our intellectual property contained in this report to the client(s), (party or company that commissioned the work) on full payment of the contract fee. Upon transfer of the intellectual property, we recognise that written consent from the client will be required for any of us to release of any part of this report to third parties.  In addition, remuneration for services provided by us is not subjected to or based on approval of the proposed project by the relevant authorities responsible for authorising this proposed project.

I.L. Rautenbach J.C.P. van Wyk

A.E. McKechnie G.J. Bredenkamp

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 4

Disclaimer: Even though every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this report, environmental assessment studies are limited in scope, time and budget. Discussions and proposed mitigations are to some extent made on reasonable and informed assumptions built on bone fide information sources, as well as deductive reasoning. Deriving a 100% factual report based on field collecting and observations can only be done over several years and seasons to account for fluctuating environmental conditions and migrations. Since environmental impact studies deal with dynamic natural systems additional information may come to light at a later stage. The vegetation and fauna team can thus not accept responsibility for conclusions and mitigation measures made in good faith based on own databases or on the information provided at the time of the directive. Although the authors exercised due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, they accept no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies the authors against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by the author and by the use of this document. This report should therefore be viewed and acted upon with these limitations in mind.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Universal Coal Development ll (Pty) Ltd intends to to conduct mining and related activities on six farms in the Waterpoort District totaling approximately 7761 hectares to conduct opencast coal mining, located within the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, as designated by UNESCO.

The species richness of vertebrates is close to the historical state for this area. Some of the game species have been re-introduced and dynamically managed; only elephants and lions have not been re-introduced. It is concluded that no less than 437 species of vertebrates are resident or vagrants to the site (111 mammal species, 225 birds and 101 reptiles and amphibians). Of these 71 species (16%) are Red Listed, and therefore of significant conservation concern (Tables 2, 4 and 6). This remarkable species richness is comparable to many conservation areas, including the Kruger National Park, which is an International Heritage Site.

The Brak River and its flood plain system is Red Flagged and should not be compromised in any way, as the river system is regarded to be ecologically sensitive, forms a specific river habitat and migration route for some fauna species, particularly bird species.

The conservation sensitivity of the study area itself is rated as High, i.e. “Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, sensitive ecosystems or Red Data species, that should be conserved and no development allowed” (see Section 6.4). Not only is the historical vertebrate species richness near-intact, but ecological services (viz. connectivity and food chains) are judged to be in pristine condition. The site is part of a much larger area under active conservation. This is important since the population health of many vertebrate groups (for instance, large raptors) can be severely impaired by fragmentation.

Moreover, the site complies with Category 3 (Protected Natural Environment) described in Schedule 1 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003) as follows: The need to – a) protect an area for the (i) promotion or preservation of specific ecological processes, natural systems, natural beauty or species of indigenous wildlife, or (ii) preservation of biotic diversity in general; b) allow and support sustainable economic activities in the area; and c) develop and manage the area in the interest of conservation, education and sustained resource utilization.

The calculated ratings of eight different impacts of the operational mine varies between “High” and predominantly “Very high” (see Tables 7 – 13).

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disclaimer: ...... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 FIGURES ...... 8 TABLES ...... 8 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 10 2. ASSIGNMENT ...... 10 2.1. Initial preparations: ...... 11 2.2 Faunal assessment ...... 11 2.3. General ...... 11 3. RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND ...... 11 4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 12 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 12 5. STUDY AREA ...... 13 5.1 Regional setting ...... 13 5.2 Physical Environment ...... 13 5.3 Habitats ...... 14 6. METHODS ...... 25 6.1 Field Survey ...... 25 6.2 Desktop Survey ...... 25 6.3 Taxon-specific Requirements ...... 26 6.4 Assessment criteria ...... 28 6.5 Impact Assessment Criteria ...... 28 7. RESULTS ...... 29 7.1 MAMMALS ...... 29 7.1.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment...... 29 7.1.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species Richness ...... 30 7.1.3 Red Listed Mammal Species Identified: ...... 34 7.2 BIRDS ...... 37 7.2.1 General location and habitat assessment ...... 37 7.2.2 Avifauna occurring at the site ...... 37 7.2.3 Avifauna - threatened species ...... 37 7.3 HERPETOFAUNA ...... 49 7.3.1 Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment ...... 49 7.3.2 Expected and Observed Herpetofauna Species Richness: ...... 50 Threatened and Red-listed Reptile and Amphibian Species ...... 54 8. CONSERVATION STATUS AND PROJECTED IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 56 8.1 Conservation status ...... 56 8.2 Assessment perception ...... 56 8.3 Overview ...... 58 8.4 Major impacts of the proposed mining activities ...... 59 8.5 Quantitative impacts on vertebrates ...... 60 9. CONCLUSION ...... 67 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 69 11. LITERATURE CONSULTED ...... 69 12. CURRICULUM VITAE ...... 73 IGNATIUS LOURENS RAUTENBACH Ph.D., Pr. Nat. Sci...... 73 Andrew E. McKechnie ...... 76 JACOBUS CASPARUS PETRUS (JACO) ...... 78 ABRIDGED CURRICULUM VITAE: GEORGE JOHANNES BREDENKAMP ...... 80

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 7

FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality of the proposed opencast coal mine...... 10 Figure 2: Each of the 19 yellow pins indicate a sampling point at that specific position and the numbering correlates to the numbering of the text-image of each locality (Figures 3 – 21). Image courtesy of Google Earth ...... 14 Figure 3: Berenice 548 MS. Dense thorn-veld scrub on red clay soil. Canopy cover is < 3 meters in height and basal cover is scant...... 16 Figure 4: Berenice 548 MS. Scattered low scrub with calcareous rubble on the surface. A fairly good sour grass cover persist after the drought...... 16 Figure 5: Berenice 548 MS. Scattered Sesamothamnus ligardii on light-coloured compacted soil with imbedded fine gravel. Basal cover consists of weedy plants and sparse grass...... 17 Figure 6: Berenice 548 MS. A mix stand of Sheppard and mopane trees growing on a light compacted soil. Basal cover is dominated by weedy invaders...... 17 Figure 7: Berenice 548 MS. Atop a modest rocky ridge, offering adequate refuge for rupiculous mammals and reptiles...... 18 Figure 8: Berenice 548 MS. A good stand of dense mopane scrub, with dry grass on red sandy soil. .. 18 Figure 9: Berenice 548 MS. A north-westerly view over a low rocky ridge in mopane veld...... 19 Figure 10: Berenice 548 MS. The seasonally dry Brak River. The riparian zone is characterized by trees typical of that area but displaying more luxuriant growth...... 19 Figure 11: Berenice 548 MS. An open scrub and grassy plain...... 20 Figure 12: Gezelschap 395MS. A westerly view over fallow fields established on sandy soils. In the foreground a historical furrow for irrigating the fields...... 20 Figure 13: Gezelschap 395MS. Dense thicket on sandy soils. The scrub is < three meters in height, but is interspersed with mature trees of > five meter high canopies...... 21 Figure 14: A wooded rocky ridge at the border between Gezelschap 395MS, Matsuri 358 MS and Longford 354 MS...... 21 Figure 15: Gezelschap 395 MS on the border with Tamworth 406 MS. Low shrub on red clayey soils. 22 Figure 16: Doorvaart 355 MS. Stunted scrub on soil imbedded with calcareous rubble...... 22 Figure 17: Longford 354 MS. Mixed woodland interspersed with baobab trees. Baobabs enjoy statutory conservation privilege which requires a 200-meter buffer zone per tree should any form of development be considered in the vicinity...... 23 Figure 18: Longford 354 MS. A natural depression (Vleipan) that holds water after good rains. Water content is now stabilized by pumping subsurface water during dry seasons...... 23 Figure 19: Matsuri 358 MS. An exceptionally large leadwood tree on the bank of the Brak River. Leadwood trees are also Red Listed and cannot be destroyed or disturbed...... 24 Figure 20: Matsuri 358 MS. A > 100-year-old grave of a forgotten hunter killed by a lion. Note the diversified thicket and the compacted greyish soil...... 24 Figure 21: Doornvaart 355. Termitaria are evenly distributed throughout the extensive study site. The presence of these structures are indicative of an established ecosystem...... 25 Figure 22: Approximate extent of area included (white square) when generating the list of birds potentially occurring at the site of the proposed mine. Image courtesy of Google Earth, and inset map courtesy of Wikipedia...... 27

TABLES Table 1: Mammal diversity. The species observed or deduced to occupy the site. (Systematics and taxonomy as proposed by Bronner et.al [2003], Skinner & Chimimba [2005], Apps [2012] and Stuart & Stuart [2015])...... 30 Table 2. Red-listed mammals whose possible presence at the site of the proposed coal mine was evaluated during the assessment process...... 34 Table 3: Bird species recorded in the area considered for the desktop survey (see Figures 1 and 22). The current (2015) regional red data status (“RD” column) of each red-listed species is provided (NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered), and the likelihood of each species occurring along the power line route is rated as confirmed, high, medium or low...... 38 Table 4: Red-listed species whose possible presence at the site of the proposed coal mine was evaluated during the assessment process...... 47

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 8

Table 5: The Reptile and Amphibian species observed on or deduced to occupy the site...... 50 Table 6: Red List Reptile and Amphibian species deduced to occupy the site...... 55 Table 7: Direct impact on mammal and herpetofaunal communities...... 61 Table 8: Loss of mammal and herpetofaunal habitat and ecological structure...... 61 Table 9: Loss of avian habitats...... 62 Table 10: Increased disturbance of fauna by human activities...... 63 Table 11: Ground and surface water pollution...... 64 Table 12: Air pollution...... 66 Table 13: Power lines: collision and electrocution risk...... 66 Table 14: The impact ratings and numerical values of eight different impacts anticipated...... 68

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 9

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND EcoAgent Ecology and Biodiversity Specialists were commissioned to assess the environmental impact of developing and operating an opencast coal mine (named Berenice Coal Mine) on the Farms Berenice 548 MS, Celine 547 MS, Doorvaart 355 MS, Matsuri 358 MS and Longford 345 MS (with no coal on the farm Gezelschap 395 MS) (the [study] area). The initiative is driven by the Australian-registered Universal Coal Development II (Pty) Ltd Company. The to-be- affected cluster of farms comprises approximately 7761 hectares and is located north of the Soutpansberg Mountain range in the Waterpoort district between the towns of Alldays, Vivo and Musina (Limpopo Province) (Figure1). Specific localities are provided in Figures 3 – 21.

Figure 1: Locality of the proposed opencast coal mine(map provided by Environet Consulting) .

2. ASSIGNMENT Eco-Agent CC was appointed by Environet Consultants to undertake mammal, bird as well as reptile nd amphibian assessments of the 7761 hectares of Dry Sweet Bushveld to be affected by the development and operation of the Berenice Opencast Coal Mine site in the Waterpoort District between the Soutpansberg Mountain Range and the Limpopo River (Figure 1). This investigation is in accordance with the EIA Regulations No. R982-985, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 4 December 2014 emanating from Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as well as the National Water Act 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) and other relevant legislation. Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 10

The assignment is interpreted as follows: Compile a study of the vertebrate fauna of the site with emphasis on Red Data plant and vertebrate species that occur or may occur on the site. In order to compile this, the following had to be done:

2.1. Initial preparations: . Obtain all relevant maps and information on the natural environment of the area. . This includes information on Red Data vertebrate species that may occur in the area.

2.2 Faunal assessment . Compile lists of mammals, birds and herpetofauna that can be expected in the area . Present lists of the Red Data vertebrates that can be expected in the area. . Assess the quantitative and qualitative condition of suitable habitat for the Red Listed vertebrates that may occur in the area. . Assess the possibility of Red Listed fauna being present on the study site. . Compile a list of occurrences.

2.3. General . Identify and describe particular ecologically sensitive areas or systems / services. . Identify transformed areas in need of special treatment or management, e.g. bush encroachment, erosion, water pollution, degraded areas, reclamation areas. . Make recommendations on aspects that should be monitored during development.

3. RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND Environmental conservation is universally appreciated that a rapidly-growing and more demanding human population is continuing to place exponential stress on the Earth’s resources with irredeemable costs to ecosystems. It is also recognized that ecosystems are in fact nature’s ‘engine room’ to manufacture fundamental life-support products for plants, animals and humans. Environmental degradation ranges from mega-problems such as global warming, demand for power, land-use practices to smaller-scale issues such as indiscriminate use of household chemicals.

The new conservation awareness is settling at all levels ranging from consumers, school curricula, communities to governments. This new consciousness is typified by vigorous debate and empathy, and sometimes by decisiveness (viz. new legislation).

In South Africa a number of acts and regulations call developers (and by implication consumers), the scientific community and conservation agencies to task to minimise environmental impact. These include:

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996), The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983), The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989), The National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) as amended in 2010, The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 of 2004), Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 11

The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 of 2004), Draft List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009, The National Environmental Management: Waste Act [NEM:WA] (Act 59 of 2008), The National Forests Act, 2006 (Act 84 of 1998 as amended in 2006), The National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 0f 2003), The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, The National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), and The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Notice 733 of 2014.

The conduct of natural scientists is directed by The Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003). Nowadays a development prerogative is to precede new constructions by a multidisciplinary environmental investigation to assess the conservation costs. This is to ensure that best conservation practices are applied during the planning, construction and operational phases of new developments.

4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY  To assess qualitatively and quantitatively the significance of the fauna habitat components and current general conservation status of the site,  To recommend suitable buffer zones, if relevant,  To provide a list of vertebrate fauna species that do or might occur on site and that may be affected by the development, and to identify species of conservation concern,  To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on fauna of the study site, and  To provide management recommendations that might mitigate negative and enhance positive impacts, should the proposed development be approved,  Should wetlands are present, at least comment on their extent, composition and value as a primary habitat type for vertebrates.  To define the conservation status of the study site, and to  Calculate a significance (impact) rating for the proposed development,

Assumptions and Limitations The vertebrate team is SACNASP-registered and has sufficient experience and ample access to information sources to confidently compile lists of biota such as presented herein to support conclusions, conservation status, impact calculations and suggested mitigation measures based on site visits. In instances where doubt exists, a species is assumed to be a possible occupant (viz. Red rock rabbits, pygmy shews, pythons and bull frogs); -this approach renders the conclusions to be robust. In instances where the possible occurrence has significant ecological implications, an intensive survey is recommended. In view of the latter, it is highly unlikely that an intensive survey to augment this site visit will add significantly to the data base, and the additional costs are unlikely to warrant the effort.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 12

5. STUDY AREA 5.1 Regional setting The 7761 hectares study site comprises the cluster of six adjoining farms to be mined and falls in pristine Sweet Dry Bushveld north of the Soutpansberg Mountain Range (Figure 1). The entire area between the Soutpansberg Mountain and the Limpopo River has thus far escaped largescale destructive land-use practices and in toto its conservation profile can be rated as “Very High” (on par with the Kruger National Park) given the fact that the main agricultural income is generated from raising cattle and increasingly game farming on scientifically managed land. The climate and deep sandy soils of the region lend itself to tomato and citrus production and relatively small patches of land has been sacrificed for intensive production of these.

The following applies for the site:  The site does not fall within a formally protected area, but is relatively close to the Langjan Provincial Nature Reserve and the Mapungubwe National Park on the Limpopo River.  The site of the proposed mine falls within the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve (VBR). This is one of six biosphere reserves in South Africa, designated by UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere (MAB) programme (Pool-Stanvliet 2013). The three pillars of the MAB programme are conservation, development that is ecologically and culturally sustainable, and logistical support including research, monitoring, education and training (Pool-Stanvliet 2013).  However, the entire area is well managed for game farming within the constraints of the ecological constraints of a low-rainfall region; it is thus in a pristine ecological equilibrium.  There are four small pan wetlands. Water from the site itself drains into the Brak River that joins the Sand River that in turn drains into the Limpopo River.  There are poorly developed ridges that provide suitable habitat for rupiculous vertebrates such as dassies, red rock hares, Namaqualand mice, elephant shews and others.  The site is far outside any urban edge and appropriately generous buffer zones will apply.  The ecological processes and services unique to this specific ecosystem are fully operational (viz. food chains, connectivity, decomposition, energy cycles etc.).

5.2 Physical Environment Regional Climate The site has a summer rainfall regime with a mean annual precipitation of about 300 – 400mm. The climate is hot in summer (40ºC) and temperate during frost-free winters (0.9ºC).

Geology The general area is underlaid by the Archaean Beit Bridge Complex. Deep red/brown soils vary from loose sand to red soils with a measure of clay content.

Topography, drainage and soils Low ridges in an undulating landscape, often with surface calcareous rubble. The area drains eastwards and northwards towards the Limpopo River.

Land Use

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 13

The site is predominantly used for game-farming (that equates to vigorous nature conservation), and in the past some tomato and citrus.

Vegetation Types Mostert et al. (2009) define the vegetion of the district between the Soutpansberg Mountain and the Limpopo River as Soutpansberg Arid Northern Bushveld (one of eight major vegetation types described for the Soutpansberg-Blouberg region). Acocks (1953) define the floral assemblage as Dry Sweet Bushveld, whereas Mucina and Rutherford (2006) define the vegetation as Musina Mopane Bushveld vegetation type. It should be noted that mopane stands contribute poorly to the woody plant complex.

Connectivity Connectivity is natural for aerial vertebrates (birds and bats) and for small animals that could pass easily under game fences. Generally game species are contained by the perimeter fences.

5.3 Habitats

Figure 2: Each of the 19 yellow pins indicate a sampling point at that specific position and the numbering correlates to the numbering of the text-image of each locality (Figures 3 – 21). Image courtesy of Google Earth

Topographically the site itself and adjoining properties are on slightly undulating woodland plains.

It is unimaginable for an extensive site utilized on a sustainability principle not to be environmentally diversified. The Berenice Coal Mine site is indeed diversified, but within the broad context of a savannah. To augment descriptions of the presence, variation and characteristics of the various habitats, 19 sampling sites were randomly selected and assessed (Figure 2) and further elucidated in the legends of Figures 3-21.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 14

Arboreal habitat is predominant and offers numerous opportunities for tree-living vertebrates, such as for nesting, roosting sites, perches, nourishment and sanctuary. A wide variety of savannah trees are recorded and documented in the floral overview within the auspices of this assignment. Some of the trees are Red Listed (baobab, Sheppard trees, marula trees and lead- wood) and will require special attention given their statutory conservation status. By-and-large the horizon of the woodland is that of scrub or thicket with a height of < 3 meters and varies in density from sparse to almost impenetrably dense. In spite of the drought during the 2015-16 rainfall season, this habitat-type does not show signs of ecological stress and, given the present land-use practice it is in fact in a pristine conservation state.

The terrestrial major habitat type is equally extensive and is represented in a two-dimensional aspect by surface conditions. The soils are generally deep, fertile and red and could be either sandy or compacted as result of clay content. At places calcareous rubble is found on the surface. Termitaria are present throughout the study site: these structures are important components of a terrestrial habitat since they provide nourishment for specialized mammals such as aardvarks and aardwolves, and also refuge for creatures such as pygmy mice and dwarf shrews. As result of the drought during the 2015-16 summer, basal cover is currently sparse and largely restricted to weedy plants and sour grass. The conservation status of this habitat type is rated as high even though it is presently experiencing an ecological bottle-neck on account of drought conditions.

The undulating plains are here-and-there crested by low rocky ridges (randjies). These provide adequate habitat for specialist rupiculous vertebrates such as dassies, red rock rabbits, Namaqua rock rats and elephant shrews. The conservation status of this habitat type is rated as above-average in spite of the recent drought.

Wetland habitat is poorly developed and is represented by the seasonal Brak River, a few drainage lines, four seasonal pans and a few artificial watering points for game. The river’s riparian zone is poorly developed and is only lush during and after rains.

No deep caves suitable for cave-dwelling bats were recorded, although deep rock crevices may provide adequate roosting opportunities for some cave-dwelling bats. It is furthermore possible that man-made structures such as houses and sheds are used by bats.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 15

Figure 3: Berenice 548 MS. Dense thorn-veld scrub on red clay soil. Canopy cover is < 3 meters in height and basal cover is scant.

Figure 4: Berenice 548 MS. Scattered low scrub with calcareous rubble on the surface. A fairly good sour grass cover persist after the drought.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 16

Figure 5: Berenice 548 MS. Scattered Sesamothamnus ligardii on light-coloured compacted soil with imbedded fine gravel. Basal cover consists of weedy plants and sparse grass.

Figure 6: Berenice 548 MS. A mix stand of Sheppard and mopane trees growing on a light compacted soil. Basal cover is dominated by weedy invaders.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 17

Figure 7: Berenice 548 MS. Atop a modest rocky ridge, offering adequate refuge for rupiculous mammals and reptiles.

Figure 8: Berenice 548 MS. A good stand of dense mopane scrub, with dry grass on red sandy soil.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 18

Figure 9: Berenice 548 MS. A north-westerly view over a low rocky ridge in mopane veld.

Figure 10: Berenice 548 MS. The seasonally dry Brak River. The riparian zone is characterized by trees typical of that area but displaying more luxuriant growth.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 19

Figure 11: Berenice 548 MS. An open scrub and grassy plain.

Figure 12: Gezelschap 395MS. A westerly view over fallow fields established on sandy soils. In the foreground a historical furrow for irrigating the fields.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 20

Figure 13: Gezelschap 395MS. Dense thicket on sandy soils. The scrub is < three meters in height, but is interspersed with mature trees of > five meter high canopies.

Figure 14: A wooded rocky ridge at the border between Gezelschap 395MS, Matsuri 358 MS and Longford 354 MS.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 21

Figure 15: Gezelschap 395 MS on the border with Tamworth 406 MS. Low shrub on red clayey soils.

Figure 16: Doorvaart 355 MS. Stunted scrub on soil imbedded with calcareous rubble.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 22

Figure 17: Longford 354 MS. Mixed woodland interspersed with baobab trees. Baobabs enjoy statutory conservation privilege which requires a 200-meter buffer zone per tree should any form of development be considered in the vicinity.

Figure 18: Longford 354 MS. A natural depression (Vleipan) that holds water after good rains. Water content is now stabilized by pumping subsurface water during dry seasons.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 23

Figure 19: Matsuri 358 MS. An exceptionally large leadwood tree on the bank of the Brak River. Leadwood trees are also Red Listed and cannot be destroyed or disturbed.

Figure 20: Matsuri 358 MS. A > 100-year-old grave of a forgotten hunter killed by a lion. Note the diversified thicket and the compacted greyish soil.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 24

Figure 21: Doornvaart 355. Termitaria are evenly distributed throughout the extensive study site. The presence of these structures are indicative of an established ecosystem.

6. METHODS 6.1 Field Survey The EcoAgent team assessed the site on 14, 15 and 16 June 2016. The team also conducted desktop studies and used extensive data-bases for the district. During the field work mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs were identified by visual sightings through random transect walks and patrolling with a vehicle. No trapping or mist netting was conducted as the terms of reference did not require such intensive work. In addition, mammals were also identified by means of spoor, droppings, burrows or roosting sites, birds by their calls, old nests, moulted feathers, spoor, droppings and food remains, and herpetofauna by their calls. Owners and guides added significantly in compiling the list of occurrences – these claims were audited by known specific distribution ranges.

The weather during the visit was pleasantly warm, clear and with little wind.

The study site is located within a pristine savanna dominated district and can be considered highly sensitive.

6.2 Desktop Survey As many mammals and herpetofauna are either secretive, nocturnal, poikilothermic, hibernators and/or seasonal, and whereas some birds are seasonal migrants, distributional ranges and the presence of suitable habitats were used to deduce the presence or absence of such species

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 25 based on authoritative tomes, scientific literature, field guides, atlases and data bases. This can be done with a high level of confidence irrespective of season.

6.3 Taxon-specific Requirements Mammals: During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of Red Data and/or wetland-associated species such as Juliana’s golden mole (Neamblosomus juliana), Highveld golden mole (Amblysomus septentrionalis), Rough-haired golden mole (Chrysospalax villosus), African marsh rat (Dasymys incomtus), Angoni vlei rat (Otomys angoniensis), Vlei rat (Otomys irroratus), White-tailed rat (Mystromys albicaudatus), a member of shrews such as the Forest shrew (Myosorex varius), Southern African hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis), a number of bats such as the Short-eared trident bat (Cloeotis percivali), African clawless otter (Aonyx capensis), Spotted-necked otter (Lutra maculicollis), Marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosus), Brown hyena (Parahyaena brunnea), etc.

Birds: A desktop study was undertaken in which bird species that potentially occur at the site and in the surrounding areas were identified using data from the first and second South African Bird Atlas Projects (SABAP 1 and 2). SABAP 2 data are based on records for pentads (i.e., 5’ X 5’), where SABAP 1 data were based on quarter-degree grid cells (i.e., 15’ X 15’). A list of species potentially occurring at the site was developed using data for all the SABAP 2 pentads within which the project is located, plus surrounding pentads (Figure 1). The pentads at the four corners of this region are: NW: 2235_2920; NE: 2235_2935; SE: 2250_2935; SW: 2250_2920. The area considered during the desktop study is thus much larger than the area likely to be affected by the project (Figure 26). This approach is adopted to ensure that all species potentially occurring at the site, whether resident, nomadic, or migratory, are identified. Red- listed species were identified using the most recent (2015) edition of the Red Data Book for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor et al. 2015).

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 26

Figure 22: Approximate extent of area included (white square) when generating the list of birds potentially occurring at the site of the proposed mine. Image courtesy of Google Earth, and inset map courtesy of Wikipedia. Herpetofauna: During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of Red Data herpetofauna species in the Limpopo Province; (Minter, et al, 2004, Alexander & Marais, 2007, Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009 and Bates, et al, 2014) such as: Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus); Woodbush Flat Gecko (Afroedura multiporis multiporis); Muller’s Velvet Gecko (Homopholis mulleri); Granite Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus graniticolus); Methuen’s Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus methueni); Cryptic Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus nigropunctatus incognitus); Makgabeng Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus nigropunctatus montiscaeruli); Soutpansberg Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylusocellatus soutpansbergensis); Waterberg Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus waterbergensis); Soutpansberg Worm Lizard (Chirindia langi occidentalis) Soutpansberg Rock Lizard (Vhembelacerta rupicola); Coppery Grass Lizard (Chamaeasaura aenea); Large-scaled Grass Lizard (Chamaesaura macrolepis); Northern Crag Lizard (Pseudocordylus transvaalensis); Unexpected Flat Lizard (Platysaurus intermedius inopinus); Orange-Throated Flat Lizard (Platysaurus monotropis); Fitzsimons’ Flat Lizard (Platysaurus orientalis fitzimonsi); Eastwood’s Long-Tailed Seps (Tetradactylus eastwoodae); Stripe-Bellied Legless Skink (Acontias kgalagadi subtaeniatus); Richard’s Legless Skink (Acontias richardi); Woodbush Legless Skink (Acontias rieppeli); White-Bellied Dwarf Burrowing Skink (Scelotes limpopoensis albiventris); Striped Harlequin Snake (Homoroselaps dorsalis); Northern Forest Rain Frog (Breviceps sylvestris); Giant Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus);

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 27

6.4 Assessment criteria The conservation status of habitats within the study site can be assigned to one of five levels of sensitivity, i.e. High: Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, sensitive ecosystems or Red Data species, that should be conserved and no development allowed. Medium-high: Land where sections are disturbed but that is still ecologically sensitive to development/disturbance. Medium: Land on which low-impact development with limited impact on the ecosystem could be considered, but where it is still recommended that certain portions of the natural habitat be maintained as open spaces. Medium-low: Land on which small sections could be considered for conservation but where the area in general has little conservation value. Low: Land that has little conservation value and that could be considered for developed with little to no impact on the habitats or avifauna.

6.5 Impact Assessment Criteria The methods and format of the impact tables used in this report are in accordance to the requirements of the 2014 NEMA Regulations. This approach is more empirical and yields quantitative values ideal for comparative purposes. » The nature, which shall include a description of what causes the effect, what will be affected and how it will be affected. » The probability (P) of occurrence, which shall describe the likelihood of the impact actually occurring. Probability will be estimated on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is very improbable (probably will not happen), 2 is improbable (some possibility, but low likelihood), 3 is probable (distinct possibility), 4 is highly probable (most likely) and 5 is definite (impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures). » The duration (D), wherein it will be indicated whether:  the lifetime of the impact will be of a very short duration (0–1 years) – assigned a score of 1;  the lifetime of the impact will be of a short duration (2-5 years) - assigned a score of 2;  medium-term (5–15 years) – assigned a score of 3;  long term (> 15 years) - assigned a score of 4; or  permanent - assigned a score of 5; » The extent (E), wherein it will be indicated whether the impact will be local (limited to the immediate area or site of development) or regional, and a value between 1 and 5 will be assigned as appropriate (with 1 being low and 5 being high): » The magnitude (M), quantified on a scale from 0-10, where 0 is small and will have no effect on the environment, 2 is minor and will not result in an impact on processes, 4 is low and will cause a slight impact on processes, 6 is moderate and will result in processes continuing but in a modified way, 8 is high (processes are altered to the extent that they temporarily cease), and 10 is very high and results in complete destruction of patterns and permanent cessation of processes. » the significance (S), which shall be determined through a synthesis of the characteristics described above and can be assessed as low, medium or high;

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 28

The significance rating is calculated by the following formula: S (significance) = (D + E + M) x (P) » the status, which will be described as either positive, negative or neutral. » the degree to which the impact can be reversed. » the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources. » the degree to which the impact can be mitigated.

The numerical value of the calculation is assigned to a significance category.

RANKING 65-100 64-36 35-16 15-5 1-4 SIGNIFICANCE Very High High Moderate Low Minor

Impacts should be identified for the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. Proposed mitigation measures should be practical and feasible such that they can be realistically implemented by the applicant. 7. RESULTS 7.1 MAMMALS 7.1.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment Acocks (1988), Mucina and Rutherford (2006), Low & Rebelo (1996), Knobel and Bredenkamp (2006) and SANBI & DEAT (2009) discuss the distinguishing plant associations of the study area in broad terms. It should be acknowledged that botanical geographers have made immense strides in defining plant associations (particularly assemblages denoted as vegetation units or veld types), whereas this cannot be said of zoologists. The reason is that vertebrate distributions are not very dependent on the minutiae of plant associations. Rautenbach (1978 & 1982) found that mammal assemblages can at best be correlated with botanically defined biomes, such as those by Low and Rebelo (1996 & 1998), and latterly by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) as well Knobel and Bredenkamp (2006). Hence, although the former’s work has been superseded by the work of the latter two, the definitions of biomes are similar and both remain valid for mammals.

The local occurrences of mammals are closely dependent on broadly defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rock-dwelling) and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the presence or absence of mammal species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global distribution ranges.

All four of the major habitat types are represented on the study site, i.e. terrestrial, arboreal, rupiculous and wetlands. Initially the study site (and the entire district) was managed for beef production. As global interest in ‘green matters’ evolved and firmly entered the public domain, many properties in the Waterpoort District were re-engineered for game farming to cater for (and profit from) the eco-hospitality industry. This aspect of farming soon matured and caters for the outdoors-personality, in the case of the Berenice site mostly for international and local rifle and bow hunters. In order to maximise and sustain game production of trophy quality, range management became a priority. Hence the conservation status of the study site is ranked as

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 29

‘Outstanding’. Of note is the fact that the ecosystem has been maintained over many decades and it has settled into a well conserved system.

Terrestrial habitat is represented by the ground-level biotic and abiotic components. The soils are generally deep, fertile red loam, in places with a clay content that causes the soil to be compacted. Patches of calcareous rubble are on the surface.

Arboreal habitat is as widespread as the terrestrial habitat, but quality varies with the height of trees and some arboreal mammals are unlikely to occupy low scrub, thickets or the patches of mopane scrubland. Discerning arboreal small mammals such as the two tree rat species are restricted to mature Acacia trees and are under the precautionary principle listed as probable occupants. However, bushbabies, tree squirrels and savanna dormice are listed as definite residents.

Quantitatively and qualitatively the wetlands associated with the Brak River and associated rank semi-aquatic vegetation vacillates seasonally in harmony with the rainfall regime and fluctuating water levels of the river. Waterside semi-aquatic vegetation in riparian zones spatially fluctuates as water levels change and seldom develop to full potential. Additionally, riparian semi-aquatic vegetation is a rich source of fodder for grazers to the detriment of cover potential for small mammals. Moisture-reliant small mammal populations (viz. cane rats, African marsh rats, vlei rats, shrews) concomitantly remain paltry and are in a never-ending survival struggle.

Rupiculous habitat has a modest presence and although rocky ridges are low it nevertheless offer excellent refuge for smaller dedicated rock-dwellers. However, larger rupiculous herbivores are absent such as klipspringer, grey rhebok and mountain reedbuck 7.1.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species Richness Table 1 show the permanent or occasional occurrences of an astounding 111 species of mammals. For a conservation unit of ca. 7500 hectares, that high number qualifies it as a conservation unit of outstanding status. Most of the species persist from historical times, but re- introductions of species such as buffaloes, eland, gemsbok and white rhinos brought the species richness close to an historical equilibrium. The only species that are no longer maintained are elephants, wild dogs and lions, and that is for practical purposes.

The occurrences of 50 species were confirmed by sightings during the visit and or by the testimonies of the owners and game guides. The occurrences of the rest are based on literature records such as Apps (2012), Bronner et al. (2003), Friedmond and Daly (2004), Mills and Hes (1997), Skinner and Chimimba (2005), Stuart and Stuart (2015), and Taylor 2002). All these records are based on museum holdings by local museums (viz. the Ditsong Museum of Natural History, Kaffrarian Museum, and from museums all over the world (inter alia the Smithsonian Institute and the British Museum). Literature records are audited by an on-site evaluation of habitat potential to host a species.

Table 1: Mammal diversity. The species observed or deduced to occupy the site. (Systematics and taxonomy as proposed by Bronner et.al [2003], Skinner & Chimimba [2005], Apps [2012] and Stuart & Stuart [2015]). SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME Habitat

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 30

Order Macroscelididae Family Macroscelididae DD* Elephantulus brachyrhynchus Short-snouted elephant shrew Terr. * Elephantulus intufi Bushveld elephant shrew Terr. * Elephantulus myurus Eastern rock elephant shrew Rup. Order Tubulidentata Family Orycteropodidae √ Orycteropus afer Aardvark Terr. Order Hyracoidea Family Procaviidae √ Procavia capensis Rock dassie Rup. Order Lagomorpha Family Leporidae √ Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare Terr. ? Lepus capensis Cape / desert hare Terr. * Pronolagus randensis Jameson’s red rock rabbit Rup. Order Rodentia Family Bathyergidae √ Cryptomys hottentotus African mole rat Subter. Family Hystricidae √ Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape porcupine Terr. Family Tryonomyidae ? Thryonomys swinderianus Greater cane rat Terr. Family Pedetidae √ Pedetes capensis Springhare Terr. Family Sciuridae √ Paraxerus cepapi Tree squirrel Arbor. Family Myoxidae DD? Graphiurus platyops Rock dormouse Rup. * Graphiurus murinus Woodland dormouse Arbor. Family Muridae * Acomys spinosissimus Spiny mouse Terr. DD* Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped grass mouse Terr. * Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped grass mouse Terr. ? Mus indutus Desert pygmy mouse Terr. * Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse Terr. * Mastomys natalensis Natal multimammate mouse Terr. * Mastomys coucha Southern multimammate mouse Terr. ? Thallomys paedulcus Acacia rat Arbor. ? Thallomys nigricauda Black-tailed tree rat Arbor. * Aethomys ineptus Tete veld rat Terr. * Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse Rup. ? Otomys angoniensis Angoni vlei rat Wetl. ? Otomys irroratus Vlei rat Wetl. * Desmodillus auricularis Short-tailed gerbil Terr. * Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed gerbil Terr. DD* Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld gerbil Terr. * Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse Terr. * Dendromus melanotis Grey pygmy climbing mouse Terr. * Dendromus mesomelas Brants’ climbing mouse Terr. * Dendromus mystacalis Chestnut climbing mouse Terr. * Steatomys pratensis Fat mouse Terr. Order Primates Family Galagidae √ Galago moholi South African galago Arbor. Family Cercopithecidae √ Papio hamadryas Chacma baboon Terr.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 31

√ Cercopithecus pygerythrus Vervet monkey Terr. /Arbor. Order Eulipotypha Family Soricidae DD? Suncus lixus Greater dwarf shrew Terr. DD? Suncus infinitesimus Least dwarf shrew Terr. DD? Crocidura mariquensis Swamp musk shrew Wetl. DD? Crocidura fuscomurina Tiny musk shrew Wetl. DD? Cricidura maquassiensis Maquassie musk shrew Wetl. DD* Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew Terr. DD? Crocidura silacea Lesser grey-brown musk shrew Terr. DD* Crocidura hirta Lesser red musk shrew Terr. Family Erinaceidae NT√ Atelerix frontalis Southern African hedgehog Terr. Order Chiroptera Family Pteropidae √ Epomophorus wahlbergi Wahlberg’s epauletted fruit bat Aerial Family Embalonuridae * Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian tomb bat Aerial Family Molossidae * Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat Aerial * Chaerephon pumila Little free-tailed bat Aerial Family Vespertilionidae NT? Miniopterus schreibersii Schreibers’ long-fingered bat Aerial NT* Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty pipistrelle Aerial ? Neoromicia nanus Banana bat Aerial * Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat Aerial ? Neoromicia zuluensis Aloe bat Aerial NT? Myotis welwitchii Welwitsch’s hairy bat Aerial * Pipistrellus hesperidus African (Kuhl’s) pipistrelle Aerial NT* Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty bat Aerial √ Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat Aerial √ Scotophilus dinganii African yellow house bat Aerial √ Scotophilus viridis Greenish yellow house bat Aerial √ Nycticeinops schlieffeni Schlieffen’s bat Aerial Family Nycteridae ? Nycteris thebaica Egyptian slit-faced bat Aerial Family Rhinolophidae NT? Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat Aerial NT? Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s horseshoe bat Aerial V? Rhinolophus blasii Blasius’s horseshoe bat Aerial ? Rhinolophus simulator Bushveld horseshoe bat Aerial Family Hipposideridae DD? Hipposideros caffer Sundevall’s roundleaf bat Aerial Order Pholidota Family Manidae Vu√ Manis temminckii Ground pangolin Terr. Order Carnivora Family Hyaenidae √ Proteles cristatus Aardwolf Terr. NT√ Parahyaena brunnea Brown hyena Terr. NT√ Crocuta crocuta Spotted hyena Terr. Family Felidae Vu√ Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah Terr. √ Panthera pardus Leopard Terr. /Arbor. √ Caracal caracal Caracal Terr.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 32

√ Felis silvestris African wild cat Terr. NT√ Leptailurus serval Serval Terr. Family Viverridae ? Civettictis civetta African civet Terr. /Wetl. √ Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet Terr. √ Genetta tigrina SA large-spotted genet Terr. Family Herpestidae √ Galerella sanguinea Slender mongoose Terr. ? Atilax paludinosus Marsh mongoose Terr. /Wetl. √ Mungos mungo Banded mongoose Terr. √ Helogale parvula Dwarf mongoose Terr. Family Canidae √ Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Terr. √ Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal Terr. Family Mustelidae √ Mellivora capensis Honey badger Terr. DD* Poecilogale albinucha African weasel Terr. * Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat Terr. Order Perissodactyla Family Equidae √ Equus quagga Plains zebra Terr. Family Rhinocerotidae √ Ceratotherium simum White rhinoceros Terr. Order Suiformes Family Suidae √ Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig Terr. √ Phacochoerus africanus Common warthog Terr. Order Ruminanta Family Giraffidae √ Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe Terr. Family Bovidae √ Syncerus caffer African buffalo Terr. √ Tragelaphus strepsiceros Kudu Terr. √ Tragelaphus angasii Nyala Terr. √ Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Terr. √ Tragelaphus oryx Eland Terr. √ Connochaetes taurinus Blue wildebeest Terr. √ Alcelaphus buselaphus Red hartebeest Terr. √ Oryx gazella Gemsbok Terr. √ Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker Terr. √ Redunca arundinum Southern reedbuck Terr. √ Redunca fulvorufula Mountain reedbuck Terr. √ Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck Terr. √ Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Terr. NT√ Raphicerus sharpei Sharpe’s grysbok Terr. √ Aepyceros melampus Impala Terr.

√ Definitely there or have a high probability to occur; * Medium probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters; ? Low probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters.

Red Data species rankings as defined in Friedmann and Daly’s S.A. Red Data Book / IUCN (World Conservation Union) (2004) are indicated in the first column: CR= Critically Endangered, En = Endangered, Vu = Vulnerable, LR/cd = Lower risk conservation dependent, LR/nt = Lower Risk near threatened, DD = Data Deficient. All other species are deemed of Least Concern. Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 33

The fourth column depicts the best-fit habitat preference of a species; Terr. = Terrestrial, Arbor. = Arboreal, Wetl. = Wetland / moisture dependent, Rup. = Rupiculous.

7.1.3 Red Listed Mammal Species Identified:

Table 2. Red-listed mammals whose possible presence at the site of the proposed coal mine was evaluated during the assessment process. SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME CITES1 NEMBA2 LEMA3 Likelihood of occurrence4 Elephantulus Short-snouted elephant DD Definitely brachyrhynchus shrew Orycteropus afer Aardvark Spec.Pr. Definitely Pronolagus randensis Jameson’s red rock rabbit Pr. Definitely Graphiurus platyops Rock dormouse DD Likely Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped grass DD Definitely mouse Gerbilliscus Bushveld gerbil DD Definitely leucogaster Galago moholi South African galago Pr. Definitely Suncus lixus Greater dwarf shrew DD Possibly Suncus infinitesimus Least dwarf shrew DD Possibly Crocidura mariquensis Swamp musk shrew DD Unlikely Crocidura fuscomurina Tiny musk shrew DD Unlikely Crocidura Maquassie musk shrew DD Unlikely maquassiensis Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew DD Definitely Crocidura silacea Lesser grey-brown musk DD Possibly shrew Crocidura hirta Lesser red musk shrew DD Definitely Atelerix frontalis Southern African NT Pr. Pr. Definitely hedgehog Miniopterus Schreibers’ long-fingered NT Unlikely schreibersii bat Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty pipistrelle NT Possibly Myotis welwitchii Welwitsch’s hairy bat NT Unlikely Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty bat NT Possibly Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat NT Possibly Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s horseshoe bat NT Possibly Rhinolophus blasii Blasius’s horseshoe bat Vu Unlikely Hipposideros caffer Sundevall’s roundleaf bat DD Possibly Manis temminckii Ground pangolin Vu Vu. Spec.Pr. Definitely Proteles cristatus Aardwolf Pr. Definitely Parahyaena brunnea Brown hyena NT Pr. Pr. Definitely Crocuta crocuta Spotted hyena NT Pr. Pr. Definitely Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah Vu Vu. Pr. Definitely Panthera pardus Leopard Vu. Pr. Definitely Leptailurus serval Serval NT Pr. Definitely Civettictis civetta African civet Pr. Possibly Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox Pr. Definitely Mellivora capensis Honey badger Pr. Pr. Definitely Poecilogale albinucha African weasel DD Possibly Ceratotherium simum White rhinoceros Pr. Spec.Pr. Definitely Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe Pr. Definitely Syncerus caffer African buffalo Pr. Definitely

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 34

Redunca arundinum Southern reedbuck Pr. Definitely Redunca fulvorufula Mountain reedbuck Pr. Definitely Raphicerus sharpei Sharpe’s grysbok NT Pr. Definitely 1Current IUCN Red List Status for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Friedman and Daly (editors) 2004). NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered 2Indicates species listed as Protected (“PR”) or Vulnerable (“Vu”) in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 list of Threatened or Protected Species (2004 version) 3Indicates species listed as Specially Protected (Spec.Pr.) or Protected (Pr.) in Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003). 4Definite occurrences based on sight records as well as reported by the owners and guides. -By the Scientific Community (Friedman and Daly (editors) 2004) Of the 111 species expected to occur in the vicinity of the development, 28 are IUCN Red Listed (Friedmann and Daly, 2004); 14 species have Data Deficient (DD) rankings, 11 are Near Threatened (NT), and three are Vulnerable (Vu) (Tables 1 and 2).

In the majority of cases, species became universally endangered as result of a quantitative and/or qualitative habitat decline. This is, however, not applicable in this instance where ecological processes, resources and services are sheltered against invasive human interferences. The site is part of a much larger area unfettered by development. Considering the excellent conservation character of the site and adjoining areas, it is submitted that the IUCN Red Data species mentioned here are not under in situ survival pressure, although their overall conservation are jeopardized (viz. the pangolin, brown hyena, serval, honey badger and others). On the other hand, some species are locally endangered as result of an edge effect (viz. tsessebe, roan and others).

The ecology and population dynamics of “Data Deficient” (DD) small mammal species listed in Table 1 have not been adequately studied to provide quantitative field data to empirically assign a conservation ranking, and are thus as a precaution considered as ‘Data Deficient’ Red Data species. “DD”-rated shrews, for instance, operate at the apex of their food pyramid via an invertebrate trophic stratum, which means that their population numbers are significantly lower than that of their prey species in order to maintain sustainable prey population levels. Because of their diet, they are furthermore not readily trapped with conventional bait or traps, which may mean that their numbers are under-estimated. Specimen collection of shrews using drift fences and pitfalls invariable yield better acquisition results than live-trapping, which reiterate the sentiment that shrews numbers are more often than not under-estimated and that many species’ conservation status are misconstrued.

Cave-dwelling bats are obligatory hibernators. In order to survive winters (and concomitant dearth of invertebrate prey) cave-dwelling bats colonies overwinter in caves. Fat reserves are accumulated during summer’s profuse aerial prey and during hibernation used as ‘fuel’ when overwintering at much-reduced physiological processes (viz. one heart-beat per minute). Should hibernating bats be disturbed, they use fat reserves at an accelerated physiological rate to ‘wake up’ in order to flee. It follows that should they are often disturbed (such as by cave explorers), bats run out of fuel before the advent of summer and abundant invertebrate prey, and succumb from lack of ‘fuel’.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 35

-By the IUCN Red Data List The compilation of Red Data mammals (Friedman and Daly (editors) 2004) is in fact a contribution to the IUCN initiative (Tables 1 and 2). Opinions expressed therein are elucidated above.

-By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004 The emphasis of this source is on large mammals. This opinion further augments the number of IUN Red Listed species by adding the leopard, honey badger and white rhinoceros. -By the Limpopo Environmental Management Act 7 2003 (2) (2) Schedule 2 and 3 species are listed in Table 2 as Specially Protected and Protected. This act adds more Red Listed species to the grand total of 41 for the site. The conservation of species listed in Schedule 4 and 5 are controlled by other means (see below). Schedule 4: Game mammals Blue wildebeest Burchell’s zebra Bushbuck Eland Gemsbok Grey duiker Cape hare Scrub hare Impala Kudu Nyala Red hartebeest Waterbuck Schedule 5: Wild animals to which the Section 31 (1)(f) applies Cheetah Brown hyena Spotted hyena Leopard Schedule 6: Non-endemic wild animals Nil Schedule 7: Undesirable mammals Nil Schedule 8: Mammals to which Section 41(1)(a) and (b) applies Black-backed jackal Bushpig Caracal Chacma baboon Vervet monkey -Endemism: None of the species purported to be residents of the study site and surrounding areas are endemic to Limpopo.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 36

7.2 BIRDS 7.2.1 General location and habitat assessment The site of the proposed coal mine does not fall within an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA; Marnewick et al 2015). However, it is located near three highly significant IBAs, the Soutpansberg, Blouberg and Mapungubwe IBAs (Marnewick, 2015 #103), and the proximity of these IBAs needs to be borne in mind when assessing avifaunal impacts, especially in view of the high mobility of birds compared to other taxa such as small mammals and reptiles.

Avian habitats at the site include mopane woodland and scrub, mixed woodland with trees including baobabs and leadwoods, open areas (including a smattering of disused agricultural fields) with stunted woodland, rocky ridges and riparian vegetation along the seasonal Brak River.

7.2.2 Avifauna occurring at the site The site holds a bird community typical of woodland habitats in the northern part of Limpopo Province. This area generally consists of game farms, and the avian habitats here are in better condition and less fragmented than is the case in many other parts of the country. Consequently, the area is characterized by the presence of groups such as large raptors that require large areas of unbroken habitat and which no longer occur in more disturbed, fragmented landscapes. The avifaunal conservation value of this area is high, in part because it holds a number of species that have disappeared from many other areas. The presence of nearby well-conserved areas such as the Blouberg Nature Reserve, Langjan Nature Reserve and Mapungubwe National Park further increase the conservation significance of this area for birds.

A total of 225 species are considered highly likely to occur at the site (Table 1), with the presence of some of these confirmed during discussions with local landowners. The area of the proposed site has been relatively poorly atlassed, and for several pentads in the area considered for this study only one SABAP atlas card has ever been submitted. For this reason, a strongly precautionary approach has been adopted in terms of evaluating the likelihood of particular species occurring at the site. Contrary to the information contained in the Scoping Report, it is unlikely that forest birds such as Crowned Eagle, Narina Trogon, Knysna Turaco or Eastern Nicator occur at this site.

7.2.3 Avifauna - threatened species A total of 19 Red-listed species potentially occur at the site of proposed mine (Tables 3 and 4). Some of these can be ruled out on the basis of habitat characteristics, but several species of significant conservation concern are either known to occur at the site or are highly likely to do so. These include three species of vulture, Cape (Endangered), African White-backed (Critically Endangered) and Lappet-faced (Endangered), as well as several Endangered diurnal raptors, including Tawny Eagle, Martial Eagle and Bateleur. In addition, the presence of the Endangered Southern Ground-hornbill is considered likely. This species has been recorded with relatively high reporting rates in several pentads along the N1 between Musina and the Soutpansberg,

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 37 and the absence of records from the area of the proposed coal mine probably reflects low atlassing effort rather than a genuine absence of this species.

In summary, 16 regionally red-listed bird species are either confirmed to occur, likely to occur or may possibly occur at the site. Of these, 12 species are listed as Protected, Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 list of Threatened or Protected Species (2007 version), and a further six are also listed as Specially Protected in Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003).

Table 3: Bird species recorded in the area considered for the desktop survey (see Figures 1 and 22). The current (2015) regional red data status (“RD” column) of each red-listed species is provided (NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered), and the likelihood of each species occurring along the power line route is rated as confirmed, high, medium or low.

Red Likelihood of English Scientific Data occurrence Apalis, Bar-throated Apalis thoracica High Apalis, Yellow-breasted Apalis flavida High Babbler, Arrow-marked Turdoides jardineii High Babbler, Southern Pied Turdoides bicolor High Barbet, Acacia Pied Tricholaema leucomelas High Barbet, Black-collared Lybius torquatus High Barbet, Crested Trachyphonus vaillantii High Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus EN Confirmed Batis, Cape Batis capensis Low Batis, Chinspot Batis molitor High Bee-eater, European Merops apiaster High Bee-eater, Little Merops pusillus High Bee-eater, Southern Carmine Merops nubicoides High Bee-eater, Swallow-tailed Merops hirundineus High Bee-eater, White-fronted Merops bullockoides High Bishop, Southern Red Euplectes orix High Bishop, Yellow Euplectes capensis Medium Bishop, Yellow-crowned Euplectes afer Medium Bittern, Dwarf Ixobrychus sturmii Low Bittern, Little Ixobrychus minutus Low Boubou, Southern Laniarius ferrugineus High Boubou, Tropical Laniarius aethiopicus Medium Brownbul, Terrestrial Phyllastrephus terrestris Medium Brubru, Brubru Nilaus afer High Buffalo-weaver, Red-billed Bubalornis niger High Bulbul, Dark-capped Pycnonotus tricolor Confirmed Bunting, Cape Emberiza capensis Low Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted Emberiza tahapisi High Bunting, Golden-breasted Emberiza flaviventris High Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 38

Bunting, Lark-like Emberiza impetuani High Bush-shrike, Gorgeous Telophorus quadricolor Low Bush-shrike, Grey-headed Malaconotus blanchoti High Bush-shrike, Olive Telophorus olivaceus High Bush-shrike, Orange-breasted Telophorus sulfureopectus High Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori NT Confirmed Buttonquail, Kurrichane Turnix sylvaticus Medium Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus Low Buzzard, Lizard Kaupifalco monogrammicus High Buzzard, Steppe Buteo vulpinus High Camaroptera, Green-backed Camaroptera brachyura High Camaroptera, Grey-backed Camaroptera brevicaudata High Canary, Black-throated Crithagra atrogularis High Canary, Yellow-fronted Crithagra mozambicus High Chat, Anteating Myrmecocichla formicivora Medium Chat, Familiar Cercomela familiaris High Cisticola, Desert Cisticola aridulus High Cisticola, Lazy Cisticola aberrans Low Cisticola, Rattling Cisticola chiniana High Cisticola, Red-faced Cisticola erythrops Medium Cisticola, Wailing Cisticola lais Low Cisticola, Zitting Cisticola juncidis High Cliff-chat, Mocking Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Medium Cormorant, Reed Phalacrocorax africanus Medium Cormorant, White-breasted Phalacrocorax carbo Medium Coucal, Burchell's Centropus burchellii High Courser, Bronze-winged Rhinoptilus chalcopterus High Courser, Temminck's Cursorius temminckii High Crake, Black Amaurornis flavirostris Medium Crombec, Long-billed Sylvietta rufescens High Crow, Cape Corvus capensis Low Crow, Pied Corvus albus High Cuckoo, African Cuculus gularis High Cuckoo, Black Cuculus clamosus High Cuckoo, Diderick Chrysococcyx caprius High Cuckoo, Great Spotted Clamator glandarius High Cuckoo, Jacobin Clamator jacobinus High Cuckoo, Klaas's Chrysococcyx klaas High Cuckoo, Levaillant's Clamator levaillantii High Cuckoo, Red-chested Cuculus solitarius Medium Cuckoo-shrike, Black Campephaga flava High Dove, African Mourning Streptopelia decipiens Medium Dove, Laughing Streptopelia senegalensis High Dove, Namaqua Oena capensis Confirmed

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 39

Dove, Red-eyed Streptopelia semitorquata High Dove, Rock Columba livia High Dove, Tambourine Turtur tympanistria Low Drongo, Fork-tailed Dicrurus adsimilis High Duck, African Black Anas sparsa Medium Duck, Comb Sarkidiornis melanotos Confirmed Duck, White-faced Dendrocygna viduata Medium Eagle, Booted Aquila pennatus High Eagle, Lesser Spotted Aquila pomarina High Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus EN High Eagle, Steppe Aquila nipalensis High Eagle, Tawny Aquila rapax EN High Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii VU Low Eagle, Wahlberg's Aquila wahlbergi High Eagle-owl, Spotted Bubo africanus Confirmed Eagle-owl, Verreaux's Bubo lacteus Confirmed Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis High Egret, Yellow-billed Egretta intermedia Medium Eremomela, Burnt-necked Eremomela usticollis High Eremomela, Green-capped Eremomela scotops Medium Eremomela, Yellow-bellied Eremomela icteropygialis High Falcon, Amur Falco amurensis Low Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus VU Medium Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus Low Finch, Cut-throat Amadina fasciata High Finch, Red-headed Amadina erythrocephala High Finch, Scaly-feathered Sporopipes squamifrons High Firefinch, African Lagonosticta rubricata High Firefinch, Jameson's Lagonosticta rhodopareia High Firefinch, Red-billed Lagonosticta senegala High Fiscal, Common (Southern) Lanius collaris High Fish-eagle, African Haliaeetus vocifer Medium Flycatcher, African Dusky Muscicapa adusta Medium Flycatcher, Ashy Muscicapa caerulescens Medium Flycatcher, Fairy Stenostira scita Low Flycatcher, Fiscal Sigelus silens High Flycatcher, Marico Bradornis mariquensis High Flycatcher, Pale Bradornis pallidus High Flycatcher, Southern Black Melaenornis pammelaina High Flycatcher, Spotted Muscicapa striata High Francolin, Coqui Peliperdix coqui Medium Francolin, Crested Dendroperdix sephaena High Francolin, Shelley's Scleroptila shelleyi Medium Go-away-bird, Grey Corythaixoides concolor Confirmed

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 40

Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus High Goshawk, African Accipiter tachiro Low Goshawk, Dark Chanting Melierax metabates High Goshawk, Gabar Melierax gabar High Goshawk, Southern Pale Chanting Melierax canorus Confirmed Grassbird, Cape Sphenoeacus afer Low Grebe, Little Tachybaptus ruficollis Low Green-pigeon, African Treron calvus Medium Greenbul, Sombre Andropadus importunus Medium Greenbul, Yellow-bellied Chlorocichla flaviventris High Greenshank, Common Tringa nebularia Medium Ground-hornbill, Southern Bucorvus leadbeateri Medium Guineafowl, Crested Guttera edouardi Low Guineafowl, Helmeted Numida meleagris High Hamerkop, Hamerkop Scopus umbretta Medium Harrier-Hawk, African Polyboroides typus High Hawk-eagle, African Aquila spilogaster High Helmet-shrike, Retz's Prionops retzii High Helmet-shrike, White-crested Prionops plumatus High Heron, Black Egretta ardesiaca Low Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala High Heron, Goliath Ardea goliath Medium Heron, Green-backed Butorides striata Medium Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea High Heron, Squacco Ardeola ralloides Low Honeyguide, Greater Indicator indicator High Honeyguide, Lesser Indicator minor Medium Hoopoe, African Upupa africana High Hornbill, African Grey Tockus nasutus High Hornbill, Red-billed Tockus erythrorhynchus Confirmed Hornbill, Southern Yellow-billed Tockus leucomelas Confirmed House-martin, Common Delichon urbicum High Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus Medium Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash Confirmed Indigobird, Dusky Vidua funerea High Indigobird, Village Vidua chalybeata High Kestrel, Greater Falco rupicoloides High Kestrel, Lesser Falco naumanni Medium Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus Medium Kingfisher, Brown-hooded Halcyon albiventris High Kingfisher, Giant Megaceryle maximus Medium Kingfisher, Grey-headed Halcyon leucocephala Low Kingfisher, Malachite Alcedo cristata Medium Kingfisher, Pied Ceryle rudis Medium Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 41

Kingfisher, Striped Halcyon chelicuti High Kingfisher, Woodland Halcyon senegalensis High Kite, Black Milvus migrans High Kite, Black-shouldered Elanus caeruleus Medium Kite, Yellow-billed Milvus aegyptius High Korhaan, Red-crested Lophotis ruficrista High Lapwing, Blacksmith Vanellus armatus High Lapwing, Crowned Vanellus coronatus High Lapwing, Senegal Vanellus lugubris Medium Lark, Dusky Pinarocorys nigricans Medium Lark, Fawn-coloured Calendulauda africanoides Medium Lark, Flappet Mirafra rufocinnamomea High Lark, Monotonous Mirafra passerina High Lark, Rufous-naped Mirafra africana High Lark, Sabota Calendulauda sabota High Mannikin, Bronze Spermestes cucullatus High Marsh-harrier, African Circus ranivorus EN Medium Martin, Rock Hirundo fuligula High Masked-weaver, Lesser Ploceus intermedius High Masked-weaver, Southern Ploceus velatus High Moorhen, Lesser Gallinula angulata Low Mousebird, Red-faced Urocolius indicus High Mousebird, Speckled Colius striatus High Myna, Common Acridotheres tristis High Neddicky, Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla High Nightjar, European Caprimulgus europaeus High Nightjar, Fiery-necked Caprimulgus pectoralis High Nightjar, Freckled Caprimulgus tristigma Medium Nightjar, Rufous-cheeked Caprimulgus rufigena High Nightjar, Square-tailed Caprimulgus fossii Medium Olive-pigeon, African Columba arquatrix Medium Oriole, African Golden Oriolus auratus Medium Oriole, Black-headed Oriolus larvatus High Oriole, Eurasian Golden Oriolus oriolus Medium Osprey Pandion haliaetus Low Ostrich, Common Struthio camelus Confirmed Owl, Barn Tyto alba Confirmed Owlet, Pearl-spotted Glaucidium perlatum High Oxpecker, Red-billed Buphagus erythrorhynchus Confirmed Palm-swift, African Cypsiurus parvus High Paradise-flycatcher, African Terpsiphone viridis High Painted-snipe, Greater Rostratula benghalensis NT Low Paradise-whydah, Long-tailed Vidua paradisaea High Parrot, Meyer's Poicephalus meyeri High

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 42

Penduline-tit, Cape Anthoscopus minutus High Penduline-tit, Grey Anthoscopus caroli High Petronia, Yellow-throated Petronia superciliaris High Pigeon, Speckled Columba guinea High Pipit, African Anthus cinnamomeus High Pipit, Buffy Anthus vaalensis Medium Pipit, Bushveld Anthus caffer Medium Pipit, Plain-backed Anthus leucophrys Medium Pipit, Striped Anthus lineiventris Medium Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris High Pochard, Southern Netta erythrophthalma Low Prinia, Black-chested Prinia flavicans High Prinia, Drakensberg Prinia hypoxantha Low Prinia, Karoo Prinia maculosa Low Prinia, Tawny-flanked Prinia subflava High Puffback, Black-backed Dryoscopus cubla High Pygmy-Kingfisher, African Ispidina picta Low Pytilia, Green-winged Pytilia melba High Quail, Common Coturnix coturnix Low Quelea, Red-billed Quelea quelea High Raven, White-necked Corvus albicollis Low Reed-warbler, African Acrocephalus baeticatus Low Robin-chat, Cape Cossypha caffra High Robin-chat, Red-capped Cossypha natalensis Low Robin-chat, White-browed Cossypha heuglini Low Robin-chat, White-throated Cossypha humeralis High Rock-thrush, Cape Monticola rupestris Medium Roller, European Coracias garrulus NT High Roller, Lilac-breasted Coracias caudatus High Roller, Purple Coracias naevius High Ruff, Ruff Philomachus pugnax Low Rush-warbler, Little Bradypterus baboecala Low Sandgrouse, Burchell's Pterocles burchelli Confirmed Sandgrouse, Double-banded Pterocles bicinctus High Sandpiper, Common Actitis hypoleucos Medium Sandpiper, Curlew Calidris ferruginea Medium Sandpiper, Marsh Tringa stagnatilis Medium Sandpiper, Wood Tringa glareola Medium Saw-wing, Black (Southern race) Psalidoprocne holomelaena Low Scimitarbill, Common Rhinopomastus cyanomelas High Scops-owl, African Otus senegalensis High Scrub-robin, Kalahari Cercotrichas paena High Scrub-robin, White-browed Cercotrichas leucophrys High Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU High

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 43

Seedeater, Streaky-headed Crithagra gularis Low Shikra, Shikra Accipiter badius High Shrike, Crimson-breasted Laniarius atrococcineus High Shrike, Lesser Grey Lanius minor High Shrike, Magpie Corvinella melanoleuca High Shrike, Red-backed Lanius collurio Confirmed Shrike, Southern White-crowned Eurocephalus anguitimens High Snake-eagle, Black-chested Circaetus pectoralis Confirmed Snake-eagle, Brown Circaetus cinereus Confirmed Sparrow, Cape Passer melanurus High Sparrow, Great Passer motitensis High Sparrow, House Passer domesticus High Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed Passer diffusus High Sparrow-weaver, White-browed Plocepasser mahali High Sparrowhawk, Little Accipiter minullus High Sparrowhawk, Rufous-chested Accipiter rufiventris Medium Sparrowlark, Chestnut-backed Eremopterix leucotis High Sparrowlark, Grey-backed Eremopterix verticalis High Spoonbill, African Platalea alba Low Spurfowl, Natal Pternistis natalensis Confirmed Spurfowl, Swainson's Pternistis swainsonii Confirmed Starling, Cape Glossy Lamprotornis nitens High Starling, Greater Blue-eared Lamprotornis chalybaeus High Starling, Black-bellied Lamprotornis corruscus Low Starling, Meves's Lamprotornis mevesii Medium Starling, Red-winged Onychognathus morio High Starling, Violet-backed Cinnyricinclus leucogaster High Starling, Wattled Creatophora cinerea High Stilt, Black-winged Himantopus himantopus Low Stint, Little Calidris minuta Low Stonechat, African Saxicola torquatus High Stork, Abdim's Ciconia abdimii NT Medium Stork, Black Ciconia nigra VU Medium Stork, Marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus NT High Stork, Saddle-billed Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis EN Low Stork, White Ciconia ciconia High Sugarbird, Gurney's Promerops gurneyi Low Sunbird, Amethyst Chalcomitra amethystina High Stork, Woolly-necked Ciconia episcopus Medium Sunbird, Collared Hedydipna collaris Low Sunbird, Greater Double- collared Cinnyris afer Low Sunbird, Marico Cinnyris mariquensis High Sunbird, Scarlet-chested Chalcomitra senegalensis High Sunbird, Southern Double- Cinnyris chalybeus Medium Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 44 collared Sunbird, White-bellied Cinnyris talatala High Swallow, Barn Hirundo rustica High Swallow, Greater Striped Hirundo cucullata High Swallow, Lesser Striped Hirundo abyssinica High Swallow, Red-breasted Hirundo semirufa High Swallow, Wire-tailed Hirundo smithii High Swallow, Pearl-breasted Hirundo dimidiata High Swamp-warbler, Lesser Acrocephalus gracilirostris Low Swift, African Black Apus barbatus High Swift, Alpine Tachymarptis melba High Swift, Little Apus affinis High Swift, White-rumped Apus caffer High Tchagra, Black-crowned Tchagra senegalus High Tchagra, Brown-crowned Tchagra australis High Thick-knee, Spotted Burhinus capensis High Thick-knee, Water Burhinus vermiculatus Medium Thrush, Groundscraper Psophocichla litsipsirupa High Thrush, Olive Turdus smithi Medium Thrush, Kurrichane Turdus libonyanus High Tinkerbird, Yellow-fronted Pogoniulus chrysoconus High Tit, Ashy Parus cinerascens High Tit, Southern Black Parus niger High Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented Parisoma subcaeruleum High Tit-flycatcher, Grey Myioparus plumbeus High Turaco, Purple-crested Gallirex porphyreolophus Medium Turtle-dove, Cape Streptopelia capicola High Vulture, Cape Gyps coprotheres EN High Vulture, White-backed Gyps africanus CR Confirmed Vulture, White-headed Trigonoceps occipitalis CR Medium Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis Medium Warbler, Dark-capped Yellow Chloropeta natalensis Medium Warbler, Icterine Hippolais icterina Medium Wagtail, African Pied Motacilla aguimp Medium Warbler, Olive-tree Hippolais olivetorum Medium Warbler, Willow Phylloscopus trochilus Medium Waxbill, Black-faced Estrilda erythronotos High Waxbill, Blue Uraeginthus angolensis High Waxbill, Common Estrilda astrild Low Waxbill, Orange-breasted Amandava subflava Low Waxbill, Swee Coccopygia melanotis Low Waxbill, Violet-eared Granatina granatina High Weaver, Red-headed Anaplectes rubriceps High Weaver, Spectacled Ploceus ocularis Medium

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 45

Weaver, Village Ploceus cucullatus High Wheatear, Capped Oenanthe pileata Low White-eye, Cape Zosterops virens High Whydah, Pin-tailed Vidua macroura High Whydah, Shaft-tailed Vidua regia High Widowbird, Red-collared Euplectes ardens Medium Widowbird, White-winged Euplectes albonotatus Medium Wood-dove, Emerald-spotted Turtur chalcospilos Confirmed Wood-hoopoe, Green Phoeniculus purpureus High Wood-owl, African Strix woodfordii Medium Woodland-warbler, Yellow- throated Phylloscopus ruficapilla Low Woodpecker, Bearded Dendropicos namaquus High Woodpecker, Bennett's Campethera bennettii High Woodpecker, Cardinal Dendropicos fuscescens High Woodpecker, Golden-tailed Campethera abingoni High Woodpecker, Olive Dendropicos griseocephalus Low Wren-warbler, Barred Calamonastes fasciolatus High

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 46

Table 4: Red-listed species whose possible presence at the site of the proposed coal mine was evaluated during the assessment process.

1

2

3 Species Scientific name Assessment of likelihood of presence at site

LEMA

NEMBA

Red Data Stork, Marabou Leptoptilos crumeniferus NT Occurrence highly likely. Widespread in arid and mesic woodlands and savannas. Ephippiorhynchus Largely restricted to rivers and wetlands. Occurrence unlikely, but may occur along Brak EN EN ✔ Stork, Saddle-billed senegalensis River when flowing. Possible, but unlikely. Occurs in grasslands, woodlands and cultivated fields in rural areas, Stork, Abdim's Ciconia abdimii NT and is unlikely to venture into mopane. Occurrence likely. Typically occurs in mountainous areas, but nearby Soutpansberg makes VU VU Stork, Black Ciconia nigra it likely that this species is present at the site from time to time. Possible. Typically occurs in more open grassland habitats, but could venture into mopane Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU on occasion. Likely to occur in the area when feeding on carcasses. Cliff-nester, so unlikely to breed in EN EN ✔ Vulture, Cape Gyps coprotheres the area. Large colony present in nearby Blouberg. Vulture, White-backed Gyps africanus CR EN Occurrence highly likely – has been recorded in area during SABAP 2. Vulture, Lappet-faced Torgos tracheliotus EN EN Occurrence highly likely – has been recorded in area during SABAP 2. Vulture, White-headed Trigonoceps occipitalis CR VU Has not been recorded in area, but occasional occurrence cannot be ruled out. Vulture, Hooded Necrosyrtes monachus CR EN Not recorded during SABAP, but occurrence nevertheless possible. Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus VU Occurrence possible, but the area is unlikely to be important hunting habitat. Unlikely – mainly confined to mountainous habitats. Individuals from nearby Soutpansberg VU Eagle, Verreaux's Aquila verreauxii could conceivably visit the site occasionally. Eagle, Tawny Aquila rapax EN VU Occurrence highly likely. Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus EN VU ✔ Occurrence highly likely. Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus EN VU ✔ Occurrence confirmed in during discussions with landowners. Likely. Generally associated with more open habitats, but some individuals may occur in NT VU ✔ Bustard, Kori Ardeotis kori mopane. Painted-snipe, Greater Rostratula benghalensis NT Unlikely. Occurs in thick vegetation along the edges of water bodies. Roller, European Coracias garrulus NT Occurrence highly likely. Ground-Hornbill, Not recorded during SABAP, but occurrence nevertheless likely. Lack of records likely Bucorvus leadbeateri EN PR ✔ Southern reflects low atlassing effort rather than genuine absence from area. 1Current (2015) IUCN Red List Status for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Taylor et al. 2015). NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 47

2Indicates species listed as Protected (“PR”), Vulnerable (“VU”), Endangered (‘EN”) or Critically Endangered (“CR”) in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 list of Threatened or Protected Species (2007 version)

3Indicates species listed as Specially Protected in Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003).

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 48

7.3 HERPETOFAUNA 7.3.1 Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment The local occurrences of reptiles and amphibians are closely dependent on broadly defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rock-dwelling) and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global distribution ranges. From a herpetological habitat perspective, it was established that all four major habitats are naturally present on the study site, namely terrestrial, arboreal, rupiculous and wetland-associated vegetation cover.

The study site is almost undisturbed due to fact that this area has been used for game farming for many years. Termitaria were recorded, of which a few were moribund. These structures are good indicators of the occurrence of small discerning herpetofauna. Consequently, it is estimated that the reptile and amphibian species richness and population densities for the study site is higher. At the time of the site visit, the basal cover was good in some places despite the drought, and would provide adequate cover for small terrestrial herpetofauna. The substrate is mostly reddish sandy soil with fine gravel, apart from some outcrops of calcareous debris. Due to the extended terrestrial sand habitat, four species of amphisbaenians or worm lizard were added to the species list in Table 5.

There are several natural rupiculous habitats on the study site. This increases the potential habitat niches for rupiculous herpetofauna. Due to the presence of natural rupiculous habitat, species like Turner’s gecko, Wahlberg’s velvet gecko, Transvaal gecko, yellow-throated plated lizard, common giant plated lizard, rainbow skink and variable skink were added to the species list in Table 5. Manmade rupiculous habitat exists in the form of buildings.

Arboreal habitat is typical of a savanna floral assemblage. Natural arboreal habitat consists of indigenous marula, baobab, wild-seringa, common hook thorn, sicklebush, weeping boerbean, African-wattle, silver clusterleaf, Sheppard tree, mopani and lead-wood, to name but a few, in various stages of development. In some places, a 5-metre high canopy is formed. Larger trees are interspersed with dense stands of scrub of <3 meters. The larger trees most likely offer refuge to tree-living reptiles like Bradfield’s dwarf gecko, common dwarf gecko, tree agamas, boomslang, twig snakes and flap-neck chameleons. There are many dead logs that provide shelter and food for some herpetofauna.

The Brak River occurs on the study site, but was a dry wash during the site visit. The Brak River flows strongly in late summer following heavy rains, but is reduced to a mere trickle or no surface water at all for much of the remainder of the year. The Brak River drains rainwater towards the Sand River, which flows into the Limpopo River near the town of Musina. Waterside semi- aquatic vegetation in riparian zones spatially fluctuates as water levels change and seldom develop to its full potential. Riparian semi-aquatic vegetation provides habitat cover for small herpetofauna. Natural depressions like Vleipan provide excellent breeding habitat for frogs, which breed in temporary water pans.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 49

7.3.2 Expected and Observed Herpetofauna Species Richness:

A very high number of 101 reptile species is reasoned to occur on the study site (Table 5) and 22 amphibian species can be expected to occur on the study site (Table 5). Table 5 lists the reptiles & amphibians which were observed on or deduced to occupy the site.

The American red-eared terrapin (Trachemys scripta elegans) and the Brahminy blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus) are the only two feral reptile or amphibian species known to occur in South Africa (De Moor and Bruton, 1988; Picker and Griffiths, 2011), but with only a few known populations, they are not expected to occur on this particular site.

The species assemblage is typical of what can be expected of habitat that is not disturbed, especially with sufficient habitat to sustain populations. Most of the species of the resident diversity (Table 5) are fairly common and widespread (viz. leopard tortoise, Turner’s gecko, common dwarf gecko, rainbow skink, variable skink, common giant plated lizard, southern tree agama, Bibron’s stiletto snake, puff adder, Southern African python, western yellow-bellied sand snake, black mamba, snouted cobra, Mozambique spitting cobra, southern twig snake, edible bullfrog, Boettger’s caco and Bushveld rain frog).

The species richness is excellent due to the extensive size of the study site and all four habitat types present on the study site.

Table 5: The Reptile and Amphibian species observed on or deduced to occupy the site. SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME CLASS: REPTILIA REPTILES Order: TESTUDINES TORTOISES & TERRAPINS Family: Testudinidae Tortoises √ Kinixys spekii Speke’s Hinged-Back Tortoise * Psammobates oculifer Serrated Tent Tortoise √ Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise

Order: SQUAMATA SCALE-BEARING REPTILES Suborder:LACERTILIA LIZARDS Family: Gekkonidae Geckos ? Afroedura transvaalica Zimbabwe Flat Gecko ? Colopus wahlbergii wahlbergii Kalahari Ground Gecko √ Chondrodactylus turneri Turner’s Gecko √ Hemidactylus mabouia Common Tropical House Gecko √Vu Homopholis mulleri Muller’s Velvet Gecko √ Homopholis wahlbergi Wahlberg’s Velvet Gecko √ Lygodactylus bradfieldi Bradfield’s Dwarf Gecko √ Lygodactylus capensis capensis Common Dwarf Gecko ? Lygodactylus stevensoni Stevenson’s Dwarf Gecko * Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Gecko √ Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko √ Pachydactylus punctatus Speckled Gecko * Pachydactylus tigrinus Tiger Gecko * Pachydactylus vansoni Van Son’s Gecko √ Ptenopus garrulus garrulus Common Barking Gecko Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 50

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME Family: Amphisbaenidae Amphisbaenians *Vu Chirindia langi occidentalis Soutpansberg Worm Lizard * Monopeltis infuscata Dusky Worm Lizard √ Monopeltis sphenorhynchus Slender Worm Lizard * Zygaspis quadrifrons Kalahari Dwarf Worm Lizard Family:Lacertidae Old World Lizards or Lacertids √ Heliobolus lugubris Bushveld Lizard √ Meroles squamulosus Savanna Lizard √ Nucras holubi Holub’s Sandveld Lizard √ Nucras intertexta Spotted Sandveld Lizard ? Nucras ornata Ornate Sandveld Lizard √ Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard lineoocellata ?NT Vhembelacerta rupicola Soutpansberg Rock Lizard Family: Cordyidae √ Cordylus jonesii Jones’ Girdled Lizard ? Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard * Platysaurus intermedius Zimbabwe Flat Lizard rhodesianus Family: Gerrhosauridae Plated Lizards ? Broadleysaurus major Rough-Scaled Plated Lizard √ Gerhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard √ Matobosaurus validus Common Giant Plated Lizard Family: Scincidae Skinks √ Acontias cregoi Cregoi’s Legless Skink ? Acontias occidentalis Savanna Legless Skink √DD Acontias kgalagadi subtaeniatus Stripe-Bellied Legless Skink * Acontias plumbeus Giant Legless Skink √ Afroablepharus maculicollis Spotted-Neck Snake–Eyed Skink √ Afroablepharus wahlbergii Wahlberg’s Snake-Eyed Skink √ Mochlus sundevallii sundevallii Sundevall’s Writhing Skink √ Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink √ Trachylepis margaritifer Rainbow Skink ? Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink √ Trachylepis punctulata Speckled Sand Skink √ Trachylepis striata Striped Skink √ Trachylepis varia Variable Skink √ Scelotes limpopoensis Limpopo Dwarf Burrowing Skink limpopoensis √NT Scelotes limpopoensis albiventris White-Bellied Dwarf Burrowing Skink Family: Varanidae Monitors √ Varanus albigularis albigularis Southern Rock Monitor ? Varanus niloticus Nile Monitor Family Chamaeleonidae Chameleons √ Chamaeleo dilepis dilepis Common Flap-Neck Chameleon Family: Agamidae Agamas √ Agama armata Northern Ground Agama √ Acanthocerus atricollis atricollis Southern Tree Agama

Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKES Family: Typhlopidae Blind Snakes

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 51

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME * Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake ? Megatyphlops schlegelii Schlegel’s Giant Blind Snake ? Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande’s Beaked Blind Snake Family: Leptotyphlopidae Thread Snakes * Leptotyphlops distanti Distant’s Thread Snake * Leptotyphlops incognitus Incognito Thread Snake √ Leptotyphlops scutifrons scutifrons Peter’s Thread Snake ? Myriopholis longicauda Long-Tailed Thread Snake Family: Pythonidae Pythons √Vu Python natalensis Southern African Python Family: Viperidae Adders √ Bitis arietans Puff Adder √ Bitis caudalis Horned Adder √ Causus defilippii Snouted night Adder ? Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder Family: Lamprophiidae ? Amblyodipsas microphthalma nigra Soutpansberg Purple-Glossed Snake ? Amblyodipsas polylepis polylepis Common Purple-Glossed Snake √ Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede Eater ? Atractapis bibronii Bibron’s Stiletto Snake * Xenocalamus bicolour lineatus Striped Quill-Snouted Snake √ Boaedon capensis Common House Snake ? Gonionotophis nyassae Black File Snake ? Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake √ Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake ? Lycophidion variegatum Variegatum Wolf Snake * Hemirhagerrhis nototaenia Eastern Bark Snake ? Psammophis angolensis Dwarf Sand Snake ? Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass * Psammophis jallae Jalla’s Sand Snake ? Psammophis mossambicus Olive Grass Snake √ Psammophis subtaeniatus Western Yellow-Bellied Sand Snake ? Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Grass Snake √ Rhamphiophis rostratus Rufous beaked Snake * Prosymna bivittata Two-Striped Shovel-Snout √ Prosymna lineata Lined Shovel-Snout ? Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Family: Elapidae Cobras, Mambas and Others √ Aspidelaps scutatus scutatus Common Shield Cobra √ Dendroaspis polylepis Black Mamba ? Elapsoidea boulengeri Boulenger’s Garter Snake √ Elapsoidea sunderwallii longicauda Sundevall’s Garter Snake √ Naja annulifera Snouted Cobra √ Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra Family: Colubridae ? Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-Lipped Snake ? Dasypeltis inornata Southern Brown Egg-Eater √ Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg Eater √ Dispholidus typus Boomslang √ Philothamnus semivarietiegatus Spotted Bush Snake ? Telescopus semiannulatus Eastern Tiger Snake

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 52

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME semiannulatus √ Thelotornis capensis capensis Southern Twig Snake

CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS Order: ANURA FROGS Family: Pipidae Clawed Frogs √ Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Family: Bufonidae Toads * Poyntonophrynus fenoulheti Northern Pygmy Toad ? Amietaophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad √ Amietaophrynus garmani Eastern Olive Toad √ Amietaophrynus maculatus Flat-backed Toad ? Amietaophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad ? Schismaderma carens Red Toad Family: Hemisotidae Shovel-snouted Frogs √ Hemisus marmoratus Mottled Shovel-Nosed Frog ? Hemisus guineensis broadleyi Guimea Shovel-Nosed Frog Family: Hyperoliidae Reed Frogs √ Kassina senegalesis Bubbling Kassina Family: Breviceptidae Rain Frogs √ Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog Family: Microhylidae Rubber Frogs √ Phrynomantis bifasciatus Banded Rubber Frog Family: Phrynobatrachidae Puddle Frog ? Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog Family: Microhylidae Rubber Frogs Phrynomantis bifasciatus Banded Rubber Frog Family: Ptychadenidae Grass Frog √ Ptychdena anchietae Plain Grass Frog ? Ptychdena mossambica Broad-Banded Grass Frog Family: Pyxicephalidae √ Pyxicephalus edulis Edible Bullfrog √ Cocosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco √ Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog √ Tomopterna marmorata Russet-backed Sand Frog * Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog Family: Rhacophoridae Foam Nest Frogs √ Chiromantis xerampelina Southern Foam Nest Frog Systematic arrangement and nomenclature according to Branch (1998), Alexander & Marais (2007), Minter, et.al (2004), Du Preez & Carruthers (2009) and Bates, et.al 2014.

Red Data species rankings as defined in Branch, The Conservation Status of South Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89 – 103..In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), ‘The State of Southern Africa’s Species (2002) and Minter, et.al, Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2004) are indicated in the first column: CR= Critically Endangered, En = Endangered, Vu = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, DD = Data Deficient. All other species are deemed of Least Concern.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 53

Threatened and Red-listed Reptile and Amphibian Species Eastwood’s long-tailed seps (Tetradactylus eastwoodae) is extinct and the study site falls outside the natural range of this species.

The study site falls outside the natural range of woodbush flat gecko (Afroedura multiporis multiporis), granite dwarf gecko (Lygodactylus graniticolus), Methuen’s dwarf gecko (Lygodactylus methueni), Waterberg Dwarf Gecko (Lygodactylus waterbergensis), Coppery Grass Lizard (Chamaeasaura aenea), Large-scaled Grass Lizard (Chamaesaura macrolepis), unexpected flat lizard (Platysaurus intermedius inopinus), orange-throated flat lizard (Platysaurus monotropis), Fitzsimons’ flat lizard (Platysaurus orientalis fitzimonsi), northern crag lizard (Pseudocordylus transvaalensis), Richard’s legless skink (Acontias richardi), Woodbush legless skink (Acontias rieppeli), striped harlequin snake (Homoroselaps dorsalis) and giant bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus) and these species should not occur on the study site.

The study site falls inside the natural range of the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus), but all the water bodies on the site, including the Brak River, are non perennial and do not provide permanent water for crocodiles to permanently inhabit (Table 5).

The cryptic dwarf gecko (Lygodactylus nigropunctatus incognitus) is restricted to the summit of the nearby Soutpansberg and would not occur on the study site.

The Makgabeng dwarf gecko (Lygodactylus nigropunctatus montiscaeruli) is restricted to the nearby Makabeng Hills and Blouberg and would not occur on the study site.

The Soutpansberg dwarf gecko (Lygodactylusocellatus soutpansbergensis) is endemic to the summit of the nearby Soutpansberg and would not occur on the study site.

The northern forest rain frog (Breviceps sylvestris taeniatus) is endemic to the Limpopo Province where they occur on the nearby slopes and crest of the Blouberg and Soutpansberg and would not occur on the study site.

Muller’s velvet gecko’s (Homopholis mulleri) status is Vulnerable (Branch, 2014). It is endemic to the Limpopo Province (Table 5) and is mainly restricted to Mopane Veld around the Soutpansberg. This species is known to shelter in holes in marula and knob-thorn trees (Branch, 2014a), which both occur in fair numbers on the study site. A good possibly exists that this species occurs on the site. Marula trees are protected trees and if the tree is protected, Muller’s velvet gecko should also be protected.

The status of the Soutpansberg rock lizard (Vhembelacerta rupicola) is Near Threatened (Turner 2014). This reptile occurs on rocky outcrops, scree slopes and bedrock in wooded savannah on or near the Soutpansberg Range. There is thus a possibly that this species could occur on the study site (Table 5).

The status of the the Soutpansberg worm lizard (Chirindia langi occidentalis) is Vulnerable (Measey, 2014). This lizard is endemic to the low-lying areas of the Soutpansberg in northern Limpopo. A good possibly exists that this species occurs on the site (Table 5).

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 54

The status of the Stripe-Bellied Legless Skink (Acontias kgalagadi subtaeniatus) is Data Deficient (Bauer, 2014) and it is endemic to northern Limpopo Province in South Africa. A good possibly exists that it occurs on the site (Table 5).

The status of the White-bellied dwarf burrowing skink (Scelotes limpopoensis albiventris) is Near Threatened (Marais & Bauer, 2014) and it is endemic with limited range near Langjan Nature Reserve and vicinity. A good possibly exists that this species is a resident of the site (Table 5).

The study site falls inside the natural range of the Southern African python (Python natalensis). According to Bradley (1990), Southern African pythons favour moist, rocky, well-wooded valleys, plantations or bush country, but seldom if ever stray far from permanent water. The study site thus provides suitable habitat for the Southern African python and the study site is large enough to support a viable population. It is often estimated that a single python needs at least a 100 ha area to forage. A population of Southern African pythons should persist on the study site and may migrate to and from the study site via the distribution corridors of rocky outcrops and the nearby dry wash that drains storm water.

The Southern African python’s national status has changed from Vulnerable (Branch, 1988) to regional Least Concern (Alexander, 2014), although it is currently still a ToPS-listed species (Threatened or Protected Species) (Table 5).

Although the Guinea shovel-nosed frog (Hemisus guineensis broadleyi) has no Red Data status, its only two records in South Africa are in the vicinity of the study site (Minter et.al., 2004).

Table 6: Red List Reptile and Amphibian species deduced to occupy the site. Species Scientific Red NEMBA4 LEMA5 Endemism Likelihood Name Data1,2,3 of occurrence Nile crocodile Crocodylus VU3 PR Specially no Unlikely niloticus protected Muller’s Homopholis VU3 yes Highly likely velvet gecko mulleri Soutpansberg Vhembelacerta NT3 yes Small rock lizard rupicola Possibility Soutpansberg (Chirindia langi VU3 yes Highly likely worm lizard occidentalis) Stripe-bellied Acontias DD3 Yes Highly likely legless skink kgalagadi subtaeniatus White-bellied Scelotes NT3 Yes Highly likely dwarf limpopoensis burrowing albiventris skink Southern Python LC3 PR Protected No Highly likely African natalensis python Common file Gonionotophis LC3 Protected No Unlikely snake capensis capensis

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 55

Black file Gonionotophis LC3 Protected no Possible snake nyassae Giant bullfrog Pyxicephalus NT1/ LC2 PR Protected No Unlikely adspersus African Pyxicephalus LC1/ LC2 PR Protected No Highly likely bullfrog edulis

1 Indicates species listed as Least Concern (“LC”), Near Threatened (“NT”), Vulnerable (“VU”), Endangered (‘EN”) or Critically Endangered (“CR”) in the IUCN Atlas and Red Data Book of Frogs of South, Lesotho and Swaziland (Minter et al. 2004) 2 Indicates species listed as Least Concern (“LC”), Near Threatened (“NT”), Vulnerable (“VU”), Endangered (‘EN”) or Critically Endangered (“CR”) in IUCN Red Data List Status of South African Frog Species in Carruthers & Du Preez (2011). 3 Indicates species listed as Least Concern (“LC”), Near Threatened (“NT”), Data Deficien (“DD”), Vulnerable (“VU”), Endangered (‘EN”) or Critically Endangered (“CR”) Atlas and Red List of Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Bates et al. 2014). 4 Indicates species listed as Protected (“PR”), Vulnerable (“VU”), Endangered (‘EN”) or Critically Endangered (“CR”) in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 list of Threatened or Protected Species (2007 version) 5Indicates species listed as Specially Protected in Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003).

8. CONSERVATION STATUS AND PROJECTED IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Conservation status The conservation sensitivity of the study area is rated as High, i.e. “Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, sensitive ecosystems or Red Data species, that should be conserved and no development allowed” (see Section 6.4 above). The site in fact complies with Category 3 (Protected Natural Environment) described in Schedule 1 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003) as follows: The need to – a) protect an area for the (i) promotion or preservation of specific ecological processes, natural systems, natural beauty or species of indigenous wildlife, or (ii) preservation of biotic diversity in general; b) allow and support sustainable economic activities in the area; and c) develop and manage the area in the interest of conservation, education and sustained resource utilization.

8.2 Assessment perception Where-ever mining operation will take place (Figure 23) within the boundaries of the study site, and where-ever associated infrastructure will be built (buildings, plant, roads, etc), and where- ever waste dumps will be located, the natural vegetation, and therefore faunal habitats will be destroyed. Environmental rehabilitation at such a large scale often comprises only filling and levelling the terrain and sowing grass and planting woody plants. In arid ecosystems this is often not successful, due to climatic conditions. By the time the topsoil has been replaced, it has lost Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 56 its vitality and normally manifests itself as a compacted surface lacking a layer of bio-detritus and accompanying microbial actions and soil agents such as earthworms and invertebrate instars. It should also be kept in mind that, considering the amount of coal to be removed the site will end up as a massive depression and will impact on the topography and drainage of the area.

Figure 23: The lay-out plan of the mining development

The lay-out plan is indicated in Figure 23. The lay-out plan indicates that:

 The Open Cast mine will occupy o northern part of Berenice – mainly within floodline o north-eastern part of Celine – mainly within floodline, and small southern part o most of Doorvaart, and Remainder o most of Longford, partly within floodline o north-eastern part of Matsuri – partly within floodline

 Dumps (hard and soft overburden and topsoil) will be on: o northern part of Doorvaart

 Discard dump o south-western part of Matsuri  Plant, and product stock yard and Product stock pile o southern parts of Matsuri o northern part of Gezelschap  R.O.M. stockpile o south-western part of Longford  Pollution Control Dam Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 57

o south-western part of Matsuri  Access roads and Conveyer belts o Concentrated on Gezelschap, Matsuri and Longford o Matsuri o Longford  Clean water drains and dirty water drains occur scattered over the area, though dirty water drains are particularly concentrated in the Mining Control Yard Area on Matsuri, Longford and Gezelschap.

From the above and Figure 1b the following can be derived that most of the entire study area will be used for the mine and its associated infrastructure. A fairly large area on the southern parts of Berenice and Celine, the northern parts of Matsuri and southern parts of Gezelschap will essentially be undeveloped and may remain covered with natural vegetation.

A possible problem with the current lay-out plan is the location on the south-western boundary of Longford of the following:

1) Dirty water drain (brown line) 2) Mining control yard (blue line) and 3) Road (grey line)

Some of this infrastructure is located on the hill that is ecologically sensitive and and also seems not feasible.

8.3 Overview The proposed Berenice opencast coal mine will generate a number of negative environmental impacts, all of which will require stringent mitigation or consideration. However, the scale of the proposed mine is such that it will simply not be possible to completely mitigate all or even most of the impacts. The following are key issues considered when identifying potential impacts:

 Biodiversity significance of site - Biodiversity importance relates to species diversity, endemism (unique species or unique processes) and the occurrence of threatened and protected species or ecosystems protected by legislation.

 Ecological connectivity with surrounding areas – The extent to which a site is ecologically connected to surrounding areas is a key determinant of its sensitivity. Systems with a high degree of landscape connectivity amongst one another are perceived to be more sensitive and will be those contributing to ecosystem service (e.g., wetlands) or the overall preservation of biodiversity. The proposed mine is located in an area that is relatively unspoilt and of high conservation value, as a result of being managed primarily for game farming. The environmental management plan for the proposed mining activities, in addition to minimising impacts at the site itself, must include mitigation measures to ensure that negative environmental impacts do not affect surrounding area. This includes both direct above-ground activities (mining, construction, access roads (etc.) as well as issues related to ground water and the potential for acid mine drainage (see below). The risk of water pollution is particularly concerning; the Brak River that flows through the site of the proposed mine joins the Sand River just east of the site (22°36'21.77"S; 29°43'55.71"E), and from there flows into the Limpopo just east of Musina.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 58

Thus, pollution originating at the mine has the potential to affect virtually the entire Limpopo downstream from Musina, including where the river forms the boundary of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which includes the Kruger National Park.

In addition, the various drainage lines are all interconnected and maintain a high connectivity with adjacent habitat types of similar structure and composition beyond the borders of the study area. Therefore, these linear units have the inherent potential to function as important dispersal corridors for both invertebrate and other faunal species since they facilitate colonisation of areas outside of the study area, thereby reducing the isolation of residing populations. Such movement of faunal species will also enhance gene flow and reduce inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variability.

 Extent of baseline biological surveys – the surveys conducted during the site visit in June 2016 were limited by the winter season and by the short time spent on site and limited scope of this impact assessment. It is thus possible that threatened species occurring at the site were overlooked, particularly since the study occurred during winter. As part of the environmental monitoring program, additional surveys for small mammals, herpetofauna and invertebrates and flora should be conducted at the locations of specific components of the proposed development.

8.4 Major impacts of the proposed mining activities The following is a summary of the major environmental impacts expected from the proposed coal mining operations at Berenice. A detailed list of broad impacts associated with the project as a whole may be found in the pages that follow.

 Degradation of natural habitats - based on the baseline survey data, the entire Brak River system and of the rupiculous habitats on hills are considered the most sensitive habitats at the site, The general bushveld vegetation is in an almost pristine condition, forming habitat for most of the terrestrial fauna species. Mining will lead to destruction of vegetation and therefore fauna habitat on a large part of the entire site, which will result in the loss of biodiversity at this site.

 Ground and water pollution – Pollutants generated by mining and particularly when water is polluted can potentially be very harmful to many faunal species, causing ill health and even death (Tiwary 2001). Pollutants can also be transported in the river, and then affect fauna downstream. In addition, there is potential for acid mine drainage at the site, depending on the chemical properties of the coal. If the sulphur content of coal is 1-5 % in the form of pyrite

(FeS2), acid mine drainage is highly likely (Tiwary 2001). The mining works programme for Berenice specifies that the total sulphur content of several seams does fall within this range, and that the coal at this site has higher ash and sulphur contents than coal conforming to international standards. This suggests that the risk of acid mine drainage and pollution of downstream drainage lines is high (Tiwary 2001). Thus, issues related to the potential for water pollution must be central to the environmental management plan for the proposed mine.

 Air pollution via increased dust levels - The anticipated increase in haul traffic and opencast mining operations will lead to an increased settling of dust on adjacent vegetation. Continued increased levels of dust in the air has an affect on faunal species, particularly birds, but also on fauna species feeding on the vegetation. Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 59

 Loss of fauna and flora of conservation importance – Many vertebrate species occur at the site (or potentially visit periodically), and clearing of this habitat will result in significant habitat loss (Tables 2, 4 and 6).

 Changes in plant and animal community structure - It is likely that the animal species composition will shift, due to an anticipated loss in habitat area during opencast mining. In addition, it is predicted that more generalist species (and a loss of functional guilds) will dominate the study area if woodlands are converted to mining pits and/or degraded areas colonized by pioneer weeds and other invasive species. In addition, early rehabilitation attempts will attract species with unspecialized and generalist life-histories. It is predicted that these species will persist for many years before conditions become suitable for succession to progress.

 Increased habitat fragmentation & loss of connectivity - Fragmentation caused by opencast mining and road networks will lead loss of habitat connectivity, decreased migration of fauna species and eventually to to the degeneration of plant and animal populations’ genetic make-ups, resulting in a loss of genetic variability between meta-populations within the study site and adjacent areas of similar habitat types.

 Increased anthropogenic encroachment - The proposed expansion of coal mining will provide a means of job creation for the local community as well as people from abroad. Unfortunately, such activity also impact negatively on the surrounding habitat types by facilitating high levels of human activity and potential degradation of natural resources (e.g. deforestation, poaching). It is also possible that increased human activity may lead to the introduction of invasive commensal rodents that are potential carriers of rodent-borne diseases and also cause damage to agricultural production.

8.5 Quantitative impacts on vertebrates The conservation rating of the site for mammals and herpetofauna is considered to be High, i.e. “Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, sensitive ecosystems and Red Data species, that should be conserved and no development allowed” (see Section 6.4)

The impact of the envisaged development is tabulated below:

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 60

Table 7: Direct impact on mammal and herpetofaunal communities.

Nature: The mining operation will replace the current land-use practice and will be invasive. It will also not be sustainable over the longer period. The development cannot be reversed by natural processes or even with human intervention. Rehabilitation is a statutory precondition but is less successful in arid regions and the result will not be comparable to the sustainability of current use. Total or near-total irreplaceable loss of mammal and herpetofaunal species is anticipated. Mitigating the impacts is virtually impossible. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Probability 5 n.a. Definite Duration Short duration 2 n.a.

Extent Limited to site 4 n.a. Magnitude Very high 10 n.a. Significance Very high 80 n.a. Status (positive or negative) Negative

OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Definite 5 n.a. Duration Long term 4 n.a. Extent Regional 5 n.a. Magnitude Very high 10 n.a. Significance Very high 95 n.a.

Status (positive or negative) Negative n.a.

Reversibility No n.a. Irreplaceable loss of resources? Yes n.a. Can impacts be mitigated? No Mitigation:  . Limit all developments to the minimum area required, and leave as much as possible natural vegetation in tact.  Conserve the areas that will not be developed, particularly the relatively large area on the southern parts of Berenice and Celine (conservation area?)  The outer edge of the open cast, including roads and other infrastructure, should be at least 100 m from the outer edge of the Brak River and its flood plain. The vegetation within this 100 m must remain undisturbed and natural.  Control al waste dumping and avoid pollution of natural vegetation, especially the Brak River and flood plain area  Conserve the hill that occurs on the southern boundary of Longford.

Cumulative impacts: High , With other mining activities in the region, it is expected that there will be considerable cumulative impacts on vegetation, faunal habitats and therefore the faunal species. ,. Residual Risks: Displacement of extraordinary high vertebrate species richness.

Table 8: Loss of mammal and herpetofaunal habitat and ecological structure.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 61

Nature: Nature: The mining operation will replace the current land-use practice which relies on prime natural resources and will thus be destructive. The development cannot be reversed with human intervention. Rehabilitation is a statutory precondition but is less successful in arid regions and the result will not be comparable to the sustainability of current use. .Total irreplaceable loss of resources is anticipated. Mitigating the impacts is impossible, although higher authorities may enforce statutory preconditions for five Red Listed trees and waterways, such as buffer zones. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Definite 5 n.a Duration Short duration 2 n.a. Extent Site specific 4 n.a. Magnitude Very high 10 n.a. Significance Very high 8 0 n.a. Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Definite 5 n.a. Duration Long term 4 n.a. Extent Regional 5 n.a. Magnitude Moderate 10 n.a. Significance Vey high 95 n.a.

Status (positive or negative) Negative n.a.

Reversibility No n.a. Irreplaceable loss of Yes n.a. resources? Can impacts be mitigated? No Mitigation:  . Limit all developments to the minimum area required, and leave as much as possible natural vegetation in tact.  Conserve the areas that will not be developed, particularly the relatively large area on the southern parts of Berenice and Celine (conservation area?)  The outer edge of the open cast, including roads and other infrastructure, should be at least 100 m from the outer edge of the Brak River and its flood plain. The vegetation within this 100 m must remain undisturbed and natural.  Control al waste dumping and avoid pollution of natural vegetation, especially the Brak River and flood plain area  Conserve the hill that occurs on the southern boundary of Longford.

Cumulative impacts: Opencast mining is responsible for continued loss of faunal habitat. This has widespread impact on ecological function and health of sensitive ecosystems... Residual Risks: Displacement of extraordinary high vertebrate species richness.

Table 9: Loss of avian habitats. Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 62

Nature: Avian habitats, including mopane woodland, scrub and open areas will be destroyed by the proposed mine. From the Berenice layout plan that was provided, it appears that at the very least 50-70 % of the ~7,000 Ha of natural vegetation will be destroyed for the open cast pits, dumps, stockpiles, plants and other infrastructure, although it remains unclear how much (if any) natural vegetation will remain. This will represent a significant loss of habitat in a region of high conservation significance, and will affect a number of red-listed species, including several raptors. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Definite 5 Definite 5 Duration Short duration 2 Short duration 2 Extent Site specific 3 Site specific 3 Magnitude Very high 10 High 8 Significance Very high 75 Very high 65 Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Definite 5 Definite 5 Duration Long-term 4 Long-term 4 Extent Site specific 3 Site specific 3 Magnitude Very high 10 High 8 Significance Very high 85 Very high 75 Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be mitigated? No – there is very little scope for reducing the severity of this impact Mitigation:  Areas cleared for mining operations must be minimised. However, the scale of the proposed mining operation is such that irreversible environmental damage will occur even if this mitigation measure is implemented.  A specialist must be engaged to check the entire property for active nests of red-listed species, such as White- back Vulture, Martial Eagle and Tawny Eagle. Any such nests will need a buffer zone of 500 m radius around them to ensure that breeding birds are not disturbed. Cumulative impacts: A large area of avian habitat has already been lost in this area because of the nearby Venetia mine and other existing or proposed mines, and the proposed Berenice mine will result in further losses in an area of high conservation significance. The impacts of habitat loss are particularly severe for large raptors like Martial Eagle that require large areas of intact habitat. Residual Risks: Habitat loss will place even more pressure on threatened species that rely on large areas of intact habitat in this region.

Table 10: Increased disturbance of fauna by human activities.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 63

Nature: In addition to direct habitat loss, the disturbance of birds and other vertebrate fauna species in the surrounding areas will increase. This impact will be manifested both directly (e.g., increased poaching pressure and disturbance of nests) and indirectly (changes in prey availability, nesting material, etc). Given the limited background information available, the impact assessment here pertains to the worst case scenario. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Very probable 4 Probable 3 Duration Short duration 2 Short duration 2 Extent Site specific 3 Site specific 3 Magnitude High 6 High 6 Significance High 44 Moderate 33 Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Very probable 4 Probable 3 Duration Long-term 4 Long-term 4 Extent Site specific 3 Site specific 3 Magnitude High 6 High 6 Significance High 52 Moderate 39 Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? To some extent – the probability of the impact occurring can be reduced, but Can impacts be mitigated? adequately mitigating this impact may require large areas of the site to be designated no-go areas if large raptors are found to be breeding. Mitigation:  Measures must be put in place to ensure that no illegal hunting of birds takes place on the mine property or in surrounding areas.  A specialist must be engaged to check the entire property for active nests of red-listed species, such as White- back Vulture, Martial Eagle and Tawny Eagle. Any such nests will need a buffer zone of 500 m radius around them to ensure that breeding birds are not disturbed.

Cumulative impacts: A large area of avian habitat has already been lost in this area because of the nearby Venetia mine, and the proposed Berenice mine will result in further losses in an area of high conservation significance. The impacts of habitat loss are particularly severe for large raptors like Martial Eagle that require large areas of intact habitat. Residual Risks: Habitat loss will place even more pressure on threatened species that rely on large areas of intact habitat in this region.

Table 11: Ground and surface water pollution.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 64

Nature: Pollution generated by the mine (e.g., acid mine drainage, accidental fuel spillages, as well as pollutants such as mercury and lead) has the potential to severely affect avian habitats and therefore bird species along the Brak River downstream of the mine, including potentially the entire Limpopo River downstream of Musina. The mining works program indicates that the sulphur content of the coal is high, and provision for water treatment is being made only towards the end of life of the mine (i.e., ~30 years after the start of mining). Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Very probable 4 Probable 3 Duration Short duration 2 Short duration 2 Extent Regional 5 Regional 5 Magnitude High 8 High 8 Significance High 60 Moderate 45 Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Very probable 4 Probable 3 Duration Long-term 4 Long-term 4 Extent Regional 5 Regional 5 Magnitude High 8 High 8 Significance Very high 68 Moderate 51 Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility Low Low Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? To a limited extent – the probability of pollution events can be reduced, but the Can impacts be mitigated? severity of this impact, should it occur, will remain high and potentially far- reaching. Mitigation:  Implement a rigorous pollution prevention program as part of a comprehensive environmental management plan (EMP) and ensure that no pollution whatsoever enters local ground or surface water. This aspect of the EMP requires specialist input, and must reflect the pristine nature of downstream habitats, and the fact that the Limpopo River runs through a conservation area of global significance.

Cumulative impacts: Due to other mining activities in the region north of the Soutpansberg, the mine will increase the risk of severe pollution events. Residual Risks: The severity of the pollution risk posed by the proposed mine cannot be overstated. The worst case scenario is that pollutants originating from the proposed mine could affect birds and other organisms on site and downstream.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 65

Table 12: Air pollution. Nature: The anticipated increase in haul traffic and opencast mining operations will lead to an increased settling of dust on adjacent vegetation. Continued increased levels of dust in the air has an affect on faunal species, particularly birds, but also on fauna species feeding on the vegetation. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Definite 5 Probable 3 Duration Short duration 2 Short duration 2 Extent Site and surrounds 4 Site and surrounds 4 Magnitude High 8 High 6 Significance Very high 70 High 36 Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Definite 5 Probable 3 Duration Long-term 4 Long-term 4 Extent Site and surrounds 4 Site and surrounds 4 Magnitude High 8 High 6 Significance Very high 80 Moderate 42 Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility Medium Medium Irreplaceable loss of Yes Yes resources? Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation: As part of the EMP, implement a rigorous dust suppression program to minimize air pollution, particularly windborne particles produced by the mining process, stockpiles and discards dumps. This program should include (but not be limited to) the following measures: a) Shield stockpiles from predominant wind directions; b) vegetate areas and ensure continual capping and vegetation of the sides of mine residue facilities; c) regular spraying; d) continuously remove coal form site and reduce long-term stockpiling; e) clear coal spillages from site Cumulative impacts: The proposed mine will generate significantly more air pollution in an area that currently experiences low levels. Residual Risks: Reducing air pollution by spraying will increase the mine’s water usage, and place additional pressure on local water resources.

Table 13: Power lines: collision and electrocution risk.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 66

Nature: The mining works program indicates that the electricity supply for the Berenice mine will originate from the town of Louis Trichardt, and that a new 132/88 kV line will be constructed for this purpose (section 5.7.2). However, no information has been provided regarding the route this line will follow. The impact of such lines on birds will depend on the route the new line will follow, the size and configuration of the towers and lines, and the impacts cannot be evaluated without this information. One key issue is whether or note new line will traverse the Soutpansberg Mountain range; this is an IBA as well as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The issue is particularly pertinent in view of the number of species occurring in the area that are known to be vulnerable to collisions, including vultures and large eagles. Given the limited background information available, the impact assessment here pertains to the worst case scenario, where the lines generate high collision and electrocution risks. Without mitigation With mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Probability Probable 3 Improbable 2 Duration Short duration 2 Short duration 2 Extent Regional 4 Site 3 Magnitude Moderate 6 Moderate 6 Significance High 36 Moderate 22 Status (positive or negative) Negative OPERATIONAL PHASE Probability Very probable 4 Improbable 2 Duration Long-term 4 Long-term 4 Extent Regional 4 Regional 4 Magnitude Moderate 6 Moderate 6 Significance High 56 Moderate 28 Status (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Reversibility Medium Medium Irreplaceable loss of Yes No resources? Can impacts be mitigated? Yes Mitigation:Any power line linking the mine to the existing grid will need a stand-alone impact assessment that can only be completed once specific routes have been identified. Such as assessment needs to include an evaluation of alternative routes, and careful assessment of the risks posed to birds, in particular vultures and other large raptors.

Cumulative impacts: The construction of new power lines will increase the risk posed to red-listed bird species in this area. Residual Risks: None if mitigation measures are implemented correctly.

9. CONCLUSION Universal Coal Development ll (Pty) Ltd intends is applying for a mining right on six farms in the Waterpoort District totaling approximately 7761 hectares to conduct opencast coal mining.

The ca. 7761 hectares in the midst of a pristine environmental district and UNESCO-designated biosphere reserve will be irrevocably lost to conservation. Rehabilitation of the excavation site is a statutory prerequisite, but as bio-scientists we hold the opinion that such an exercise will be no more than a landscape exercise since the biodiversity of the site will be excessively

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 67 compromised whereas restoring the ecology is impossible. Redeploying the site for agricultural purposes will be of marginal value.

The species richness of vertebrates is close to that of the historical richness. Some of the game species have been re-introduced and dynamically managed; only elephants and lions have not been re-introduced. It is concluded that no less than 437 species of vertebrates are residents or vagrants to the site (111 mammal species, 225 birds and 101 reptiles and amphibians). Of these 71 species (16%) are Red Listed as of conservation concern (Tables 2, 4 and 6). This remarkable species richness is comparable to the Kruger National Park, which is an International Heritage Site.

The Brak River and its drainage system is Red Flagged and should not be compromised.

The conservation sensitivity of the study area itself is rated as High, i.e. “Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, sensitive ecosystems or Red Data species, that should be conserved and no development allowed” (see Section 6.4 above). Not only is the historical vertebrate species richness near-intact, but ecological services (viz. connectivity and food chains) are judged to be in pristine condition. The site is part of a much larger area under active conservation. This is important since population health of larger raptors is impaired by fragmentation.

The site in fact complies with Category 3 (Protected Natural Environment) described in Schedule 1 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act 7 of 2003) as follows: The need to – a) protect an area for the (i) promotion or preservation of specific ecological processes, natural systems, natural beauty or species of indigenous wildlife, or (ii) preservation of biotic diversity in general; b) allow and support sustainable economic activities in the area; and c) develop and manage the area in the interest of conservation, education and sustained resource utilization.

The calculated ratings of eight different impacts of the operational mine varies between “High” and predominantly “Very high” (see Tables 7 – 13).

Table 14: The impact ratings and numerical values of eight different impacts anticipated. Specific impact Quantitative Rating Source value Direct impact on mammal and herpetofaunal 95% Very High Table 7 communities Loss of mammal and herpetofaunal habitat and 95% Very high Table 8 ecological structure Loss of avian habitats 85% Very high Table 9 Increased disturbance of fauna by human activities 52% High Table 10 Ground and surface water pollution 68% Very high Table 11 Air pollution 80% Very high Table 12 Power lines: collision and electrocution risk 56% High Table 13

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 68

10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the assistance rendered by owners, i.e. Messrs Van Vuren and van Heerden as well as Dr Smit and of their field staff.

11. LITERATURE CONSULTED Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa. 57: 1–146. Apps, P. 2012. Smithers Mammals of Southern Africa. A Field Guide. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Alexander, G. & Marais J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Barnes, K.N. (ed.). 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. Johannesburg, BirdLife South Africa. Barnes, K.N. (ed.). 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of birds of southern Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Johannesburg, BirdLife South Africa. Bates, M.F. 1992. The Herpetofauna of the Orange Free State – with special emphasis on Biogeographical Patterning. Ph.D. University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. 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 the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Bevanger, K. (1995) Estimates and population consequences of tetraonid mortality caused by collisions with high tension power lines in Norway. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 745-753. Bevanger, K. (1998) Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a review. Biological Conservation, 86, 67-76. Bevanger, K. & Brøseth, H. (2001) Bird collisions with power lines - an experiment with ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.). Biological Conservation, 99, 341-346. BirdLife South Africa. 2015. Checklist of Birds in South Africa 2014. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. Bonnevie, Bo T. 2011. Some considerations when comparing SABAP 1 with SABAP 2 data. Ostrich 82: 161-162. Boycott, R.C. & Bourquin, O. 2000. The Southern African Tortoise Book. A Guide to Southern African Tortoise, Terrapins and Turtles, revised edition. Privately published, Hilton. Branch, W.R. (Editor), August 1988. South African Red Data Book – Reptiles and Amphibians. S.A.National Scientific Programmes, Report No. 151. Branch, W.R. 1998. Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa. 3rd edition. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Branch, W.R. 2002. ‘The Conservation Status of South Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89 – 103. In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), The State of Southern Africa’s Species, Proceedings of a conference held at the Rosebank Hotel, 4 – 7 September 2001. World Wildlife Fund. Branch, W.R. 2008. Tortoises, Terrapins & Turtles of Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Bredenkamp, G.J. & Brown, L.R. 2001. Vegetation – A reliable ecological basis for environmental planning. Urban Greenfile Nov-Dec 2001: 38-39. Bredenkamp, G.J, Brown L.R, and Pfab, M.F., (2006): Conservation value of the Egoli Granite Grassland, an endemic grassland in Gauteng, South Africa. Koedoe 49 (2):59-66. Pretoria. ISSN 0075-6458

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 69

Bredenkamp, G.J. & Brown, L.R. 2001. Vegetation – A reliable ecological basis for environmental planning. Urban Greenfile Nov-Dec 2001: 38-39. Broadley, D.G. 1990. FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa. Jonathan Ball & Ad Donker Publishers. Bromilow, C, (2010): Problem Plants of Southern Africa. Third edition, first impression Briza Publications, Pretoria. Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Mathee, C.A. & Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates 28:56-103. CARA, Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983). Carruthers V. (2009). Amphibian Habitat Assessment for Proposed Development site at Clayville (Glen Austin) Ekurhuleni) VC Management Services CC. Carruthers V. & Du Preez L. 2011. Frogs & Frogging in South Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Protea Bookhouse Pretoria. DEAT, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices. De Moor I.J. & Bruton M.N. 1988. Atlas of Alien and Translocated Indigenous Aquatic Animals in Southern Africa. S.A.National Scientific Programmes, Report No. 144. Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. ECA, Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989). Engels, S., Schneider, N.-L., Lefeldt, N., Hein, C.M., Zapka, M., Michalik, A., Elbers, D., Kittel, A., Hore, P.J. & Mouritsen, H. (2014) Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature, 509, 353. Evans, S.W., Smit-Robinson, H.A. & Tarboton, W.R. (2015) White-winged Flufftail Sarothrura ayresi. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. (eds M.R. Taylor, F. Peacock & R.M. Wanless). BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Fernie, K.J., Bird, D.M., Dawson, R.D. & Laguë, P.C. (2000) Effects of electromagnetic fields on the reproductive success of American Kestrels. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 73, 60- 65. Fernie, K.J. & Reynolds, S.J. (2005) The effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines on avian reproductive biology and physiology: a review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health B, 8, 127-140. Friedman, Y. and Daly, B. (editors). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Asessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa. Friesen, L.E., Eagles, P.F.J. & Mackay, R.J. (1995) Effects of residential development on forest- dwelling Neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology, 9, 1408-1414. Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2011: Gauteng Conservation Plan Version 3 ArcGIS Spatial data Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment. 2009. GDACE Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. Directorate Nature Conservation, Johannesburg. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and the Environment. 2009. Requirements for Biodiversity Assessment Version 2. GDACE, South Africa

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 70

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014a. Technical report for the Gauteng Conservation Plan (Gauteng C-Plan V3.3). Biodiversity Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Rural development, Johannesburg, Gauteng. Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014b. Requirements for biodiversity assessments Version 3. Biodiversity Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Rural development, Johannesburg, Gauteng. GDACE, Guateng Directorate of Nature Conservation. 2009. GDACE Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng Provincial Government. GDARD, 2014a. Technical report for the Gauteng Conservation Plan (Gauteng C-Plan V3.3). Biodiversity Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Rural development, Johannesburg, Gauteng. GDARD, 2014b. Requirements for biodiversity assessments Version 3. Biodiversity Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Rural development, Johannesburg, Gauteng. Government Gazette No 32689, (2009): Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004). Department of Environmental Affairs Notice 1477 of 2009 in Government Gazette No 32689, 6 November 2009. Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. & Brown, C.J. (eds.). 1997. The Atlas of Southern African Birds. Vol. 1 & 2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. Henderson, K.L. (2015) Southern Bald Ibis Geronticus calvus. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. (eds M.R. Taylor, F. Peacock & R.M. Wanless). BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Henderson, L. 2001: Alien Weeds and Invasive Plants. A complete guide to declared weeds and invaders in South Africa. Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 12. Agricultural Research Council, South Africa. Hobbs, J.C. & Ledger, J.A. (1986) Powerlines, birdlife and the golden mean. Fauna & Flora, 44, 23-27. Hockey, P. A. R., Dean, W. R. J. & Ryan, P. G. (eds.). 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. Janss, G.F.E. (2000) Avian mortality from power lines: a morphologic approach of a species- specific mortality. Biological Conservation, 95, 353-359. Jenkins, A.R., Shaw, J.M., Smallie, J.J., Gibbons, B., Visagie, R. & Ryan, P.G. (2011) Estimating the impacts of power line collisions on Ludwig’s Bustards Neotis ludwigii. Bird Conservation International, 21, 303-310. Kluza, D.A., Griffin, C.R. & DeGraaf, R.M. (2000) Housing developments in rural New England: effects on forest birds. Animal Conservation, 3, 15-26. Knobel, J. & Bredenkamp, G. 2005. The magnificent natural heritage of South Africa. Roggebaai, Sunbird Publishers, Cape Town. Ledger, J.A. & Annegarn, H.J. (1981) Electrocution Hazards to the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) in South Africa. Biological Conservation, 20, 15-24. Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. 1996. ‘Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds) 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dept Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. Mañosa, S. (2001) Strategies to identify dangerous electricity pylons for birds. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 1997-2012.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 71

Marais, J. 2011. What’s that Reptile? A starter’s guide to reptiles of southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Marais, E. & Peacock, F. 2008. The Chamberlain Guide to Birding Gauteng. Mirafra Publishing, Centurion. Marnewick, M.D., Retief, E.F., Theron, N.T., Wright, D.R. & Anderson, T.A. (2015) Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas of South Africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. Measey, G.J. (ed.) 2011. Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs: a strategy for conservation research. SANBI Biodiversity Series 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. & Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of Southern African Mammals. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, RSA. Mills, G. & Hes, L. 1997. The complete book of Southern African Mammals. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, RSA. Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. eds. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Mostert, H.C., G.J. Bredenkamp and R.E. Mostert. 2009. Plant communities of the Soutpansberg Arid Northern Bushveld. Koedoe 51: Mucina, L, & Rutherford, M.C. (eds.). 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Mucina, L., Bredenkamp, G.J., Hoare, D.B. & McDonald, D.J. 2000. A National vegetation database for South Africa. South Africa Journal of Science 96:497-498. Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York. NEMA, National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). NEMA, Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (Gazette No 38282 – Regulation 982). NEMBA, National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices. NEMBA, National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 of 2004). Draft List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009. NFA, National Forests Act, 2006 (Act 84 of 1998 as amended). Government Gazette RSA Vol. 897, 29062 , Cape Town, 8 Sept 2006. NSPA, Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act 27 of 2003). Phillips, J., Nol, E., Burke, D. & Dunford, W. (2005) Impacts of housing developments on wood thrush nesting success in hardwood forest fragments. Condor, 107, 97-106. Picker M. & Griffiths C. 2011. Alien & Invasive Animals. A South African Perspective. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Pool-Stanvliet R. 2013. A history of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 109 (9/10). Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C. Kamundi, D.A. & Manyama, P.A. (Eds.). 2009. Red list of South African plants 2009. Strelitzia 25: 1-668. Rautenbach, I.L. 1978. A numerical re-appraisal of the southern African biotic zones. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 6: 175-187. Rautenbach, I.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal. Ecoplan Monograph No. 1. Pretoria, RSA.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 72

Renssen, T.A., Bruin, A., van de Doorn, J.H., Gerritsen, A., Greven, H.C. & Kamp, J. (1975) Vogelsterfte in Nederland tengevolge van aanvaringen met hoogspanningslijnen. RIN, Arnhem. Retief, E. 2013. 2528AB Pienaarsrivier – analysis of SABAP1 and SABAP2 data for the quarter degree square. Ornithological Observations 4: 107-118 SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. Draft for Comment. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. Sergio, F., Marchesi, L., Pedrini, P., Ferrer, M. & Penteriani, V. (2004) Electrocution alters the distribution and density of a top predator, the eagle owl Bubo bubo. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 836-845. Shaw, J.M., Jenkins, A.R., Smallie, J.J. & Ryan, P.G. (2010) Modelling power‐line collision risk for the Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis, 152, 590-599. Sinclair, I, Hockey, P., Tarboton, W. & Ryan, P. 2012. Sasol birds of southern Africa, 4th Edn. Struik, Cape Town Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, T.C. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press. Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 2nd edition. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Smith, T. (2015) Wattled Crane Bugeranus carunculatus. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. (eds M.R. Taylor, F. Peacock & R.M. Wanless). BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Smithers,R.H.N. 1983. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Stuart, C. and T. Stuart. 2015. Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa (Struik Publishers). Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (2015) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (2015). The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. Taylor, P.J. 1998. The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of Southern Africa. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. Tewksbury, J.J., Garner, L., Garner, S., Lloyd, J.D., Saab, V. & Martin, T.E. (2006) Tests of landscape influence: nest predation and brood parasitism in fragmented ecosystems. Ecology, 87, 759-768.

12. CURRICULUM VITAE IGNATIUS LOURENS RAUTENBACH Ph.D., Pr. Nat. Sci. Identity Number 421201 5012 00 5

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 73

Gender Male Date of Birth 1 December 1942; born Germiston, RSA Nationality South African Home Languages Bilingual (English & Afrikaans) Postal Address 45 Helgaard Street, Kilner Park, Pretoria, RSA 0186. Tel no +27 12 3334112, Cell +27 082 3351288. E-mail [email protected] Former Position Retired Director: Planning, Northern Flagship Institute Present Position Consultant – Specialist, Environmental Impact Assessments (Applied research), Photographing microstock for four agencies Qualifications B.Sc. (UP) 1966, T.H.E.D (Pta TTC) 1967, M.Sc. (UP) 1971, Ph.D. (Un. Natal) 1971 Professional Honours 1. Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural Scientific Professions, Registration # 400300/05 2. Fellow of the Photographic Society of South Africa 3. Master photographer at club level 4. Honorary life member of the S.A. Wildlife Management Association. Notable Research Contribution In-depth survey of the Mammals of the Transvaal. 1982. 211pp. Ecoplan Monograph 1. Notable Literary Contribution Rautenbach, Naas & Annalene Rautenbach. 2008. Photography for Focused Beginners. 302pp with 250 images. Green Door Studio, Pretoria. Formal Courses Attended Computer Literacy, Project Management, Contract Design, Senior Management Employment history May 2001 - Present Self-employed, collaborator with Eco-Agent CC Ecological Consultants as well as Galago Environmental [environmental impact assessments], technical writing, and photography April 1999 - August 2001 Director: Planning, Northern Flagship Institution Jan 1991 - April 1999 Executive Director, Transvaal Museum July 1967 - Dec 1990 Curator (in charge) of the Division of Mammalogy, Transvaal Museum. Promoted to Principal Scientist rank as of June 1985 March - June 1967 Research student at the Mammal Research Institute of the Zoology Department, University of Pretoria July 1966, Nov l966 - Febr 1967 Member of the Smithsonian Institution's field teams collectively partaking in the 'African Mammal Project' 1966: Part-time research assistant to Prof. J. Meester, University of Pretoria 1962 - 1965 Temporary assistant during University holidays in the Nematology laboratories, Agricultural Technical Services 1991 - 2002 Founder member and non-executive director of the Board of Trustees of 1993 - 2001 Founder member and Trustee of the privatised Museums Pension Fund 1997 - 2001 Non-executive director of the Tswaing Section 21 Company

Professional Achievements Managed a research institute of 125 members of staff. Solicited numerous grants totalling ≥ R1 000 000. Initiated and overseen building programmes of R30 million at the Transvaal Museum. Conceptualised and managed 12 display programmes.

Research: Author and co-author of 85 scientific publications re mammalogy in peer reviewed subject journals, 18 popular articles, 10 books, and >400 contractual EIA research reports. Extensive field work and laboratory experience in Africa, Europe, USA, Alaska, Brazil and Mexico. B -rated by FRD as scientist of international status 1983 – 1995.

Students: Additional to museum manager duties, co-supervised 5 B.Sc. (Hons.), 2 M.Sc. and 2 Ph.D. students.

Public Recognition: Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 74

Public speaking inter alia Enrichment Lecturer on board the 6* SS Silver Wind, radio talks, TV appearances.

Hobbies Technical writing, photography, field logistics, biological observations, wood working, cooking, designs.

Personal Evaluation I am goal-orientated, expecting fellow workers and associates to share this trait. I am an extrovert, sensitive to amicable interpersonal relations. I have a wide interest span ranging from zoological consulting, photography, cooking, sport, news, gardening and out of necessity, DIY. To compensate for my less than perfect memory, I lead a structured and organised life to deal with the detail of a variety of interests. Often to the chagrin to people close to me, I have an inclination to “Think Out of the Box”.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 75

Andrew E. McKechnie

Professor Email: [email protected] Department of Zoology and Entomology Tel: +27-(0)12-4203232 University of Pretoria Cell: +27-(0)72-7777572

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS Ph.D. (Zoology), University of Natal, April 2002 M.Sc. cum laude (Zoology), University of Natal, April 1999 B.Sc. (Honours) cum laude (Zoology), University of Natal, April 1997 B.Sc. (Majors: Zoology and Botany), University of Natal, April 1996

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Professional Natural Scientist (Pr. Sci. Nat.; Registration number: 400205/05), South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions

TECHNICAL REPORTS [31 in total, only 10 most recent shown] McKechnie, A.E. 2013. Specialist avifaunal assessment: proposed Frankfort Power Station. Prepared for Rural Maintenance. McKechnie, A.E. 2013. Specialist avifaunal assessment: proposed MOGS oil storage facility, Saldanha Bay. Prepared for Enviro-Insight. McKechnie, A.E. 2012. Specialist winter avifaunal assessment: proposed Prieska Photovoltaic Plant. Prepared for Enviro-Insight. McKechnie, A.E., Verburgt, L., Chimimba, C.T., Orban, B. and Niemand, L.J. 2011. Initial environmental assessment report: proposed Chisanga Falls Hydroelectric Generation Facility. Prepared for Rural Maintenance. McKechnie, A.E., Verburgt, L., Chimimba, C.T., Orban, B. and Niemand, L.J. 2011. Initial environmental assessment report: proposed expansion to the Kayelekera Coal Mine, northern Malawi. Prepared for Rural Maintenance. McKechnie, A.E., Verburgt, L., Chimimba, C.T., Orban, B. and Niemand, L.J. 2010. Malawi Mini Grids Ecological Assessment Report. Prepared for Rural Maintenance and Millennium Challenge Corporation. McKechnie, A.E. 2010. Specialist survey report: assessment of impacts on birds, with particular reference to threatened and near threatened species: proposed subdivision of portion 39, Olifantsvlei 327 IQ, Gauteng. Prepared for Prism EMS. McKechnie, A.E. 2009. Specialist survey report: assessment of impacts on birds, with particular reference to African Grass-owls, White-bellied Korhaans, African Finfoots and Half-collared Kingfishers:proposed residential development on portion 63, Rietvallei 180 IQ, Roodepoort, Gauteng. Prepared for Prism EMS. McKechnie, A.E. 2009. Specialist survey report: Assessment of impacts on birds: proposed wind farm development on Burgershoop 107 and Elandspoort 99 HS, Mpumalanga. Prepared for K2M Environmental. Schwaibold, U., Alexander, G.J., McKechnie, A.E., et al. 2009. Monitoring recommendations for fauna: AngloGold Ashanti Vaal Reef and West Wits. Prepared for AngloGold.

PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS [71 in total, only three most recent shown] Pietersen, D.W., Symes, C.T., Woodborne, S.W., McKechnie, A.E. and Jansen, R. (in press) Diet and prey selectivity of the specialist myrmecophage, Temminck’s ground pangolin (Smutsia temminckii). Journal of Zoology Smit, B. and McKechnie, A.E. 2015. Water and energy fluxes during summer in an arid- zone passerine bird. Ibis 157(4): 774-786. Whitfield, M.C., Smit, B., McKechnie, A.E. and Wolf, B.O. 2015. Avian thermoregulation in the heat: scaling of heat tolerance and evaporative cooling capacity in three southern African arid-zone passerines. Journal of Experimental Biology 218: 1705-1714.

ARTICLES IN SEMI-POPULAR MAGAZINES [73 in total, only three most recent shown] McKechnie, A.E. 2016. Mercury rising - South Africa’s national parks are getting warmer. African Birdlife in

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 76 press. McKechnie, A.E. 2016. Enormous, enigmatic, extinct – the elephant birds of Madagascar. African Birdlife in press. Noakes, M.J. and McKechnie, A.E. 2015 Hot or not? Physiological variation in white-browed sparrow- weavers. African Birdlife September/October 2015: 12-13.

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS [110 in total, only plenary lectures shown] McKechnie. A.E., Smit, B., Hockey, P.A.R. and Wolf, B.O. Taking the heat: climate change and desert birds. At: Frontiers in South African Ornithology, 15-16 March 2012, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. McKechnie, A.E., Smit, B., Cory Toussaint, D., Boyles, J.G. and Wolf, B.O. Hot birds and bats: physiological approaches to predicting climate change impacts in small endotherms. At: Joint ZSSA and PARSA Conference, 10- 13 July 2011, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

SCIENTIFIC AWARDS AND RECOGNITION [only last five years shown] 2013 Finalist: 2012/2013 NSTF/BHP Billiton Awards 2013 Exceptional Academic Achiever, University of Pretoria 2011 Founding Member, South Africa Young Academy of Science 2008-2012 Exceptional Young Researcher Award, University of Pretoria

STUDENT SUPERVISION Current supervision: 4 PhD, 1 BSc(Hons); Current co-supervision: 3 PhD Past supervision: 1 PhD, 10 MSc, 9 BSc (Hons); Past co-supervision: 1 PhD, 2 MSc, 3 BSc (Hons)

EDITORSHIP Associate Editor: Climate Change Responses Associate Editor: Emu – Austral Ornithology Editorial Board: Journal of Comparative Physiology B

INVITED SEMINARS AND LECTURES [23 in total, only 3 most recent shown] Mitrani Department for Desert Ecology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, August 2015. School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, July 2015 Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, July 2015.

OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS Scientific Advisor, African Birdlife magazine Expert reviewer - South African National Standard SANS 10386 Annex C Member, Research Ethics and Scientific Committee, National Zoological Gardens Member, Steering Committee, Endangered Wildlife Trust Threatened Grassland Species Program Council Member, Zoological Society of Southern Africa [2009-2013]

SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP American Ornithologists’ Union Australia and New Zealand Society for Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry Cooper Ornithological Society International Ornithologists’ Union Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology Zoological Society of Southern Africa

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 77

JACOBUS CASPARUS PETRUS (JACO) Identity number 680804 5041 08 4 Gender Male Date of birth 4 August 1968 Nationality South African Home languages Afrikaans, fluent in English Postal address P.O. Box 25085, Monument Park, Pretoria, 0105. Tel no +27 12 347 6502, Cell +27 82 410 8871 E-mail [email protected] Present position Co-Department Head, Environmental Education & Life Sciences, Hoërskool Waterkloof Consultant Specialist Environmental Assessments, EIAs, writing, photo-recording Qualifications B.Sc. (U.F.S.) B.Sc. (Hon.) (U.F.S.), H.E.D (U.F.S.), M.Sc. (U.F.S.) Honours Foundation of Research Development bursary holder Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural Scientific Professions, Registration # 400062/09 Notable Research Contribution In-depth field study of the giant bullfrog

Formal Courses Attended Outcomes Based Education, University of the South Africa (2002) Introductory Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand (2008) OBE, GET & FET training, 2002-2008, Education Department Employment history 2000 – Present Co-Department Head for Environmental Education & Life Sciences, Hoërskool Waterkloof, Pretoria. 1995 - 1999 Teaching Biology (Grades 8 – 12) and Physics / Chemistry (Grades 8 – 9) at the Wilgerivier High School, Free State. Duties included teaching, mid-level management and administration. July 1994 – Dec 1994 Teaching Botany practical tutorials to 1st year students at the Botany & Zoology Department of the Qwa-Qwa campus of the University of Free State, plant collecting, amphibian research 1993 - 1994 Mammal Research Institute (University of Pretoria) research associate on the Prince Edward Islands: topics field biology and population dynamics of invasive alien rodents, three indigenous seals, invertebrate assemblages, censussing king penguin chicks and lesser sheathbills, and marine pollution 1991 - 1993 Laboratory demonstrator for Zoological and Entomological practical tutorials, and caring for live research material, University of the Free State 1986 - 1990 Wildlife management and eco-guiding, Mt. Everest Game Farm, Harrismith Professional Achievement Research: Author and co-author of 52 scientific publications in peer-reviewed and popular subject journals, and >60 contractual EIA research reports. Extensive field work and laboratory experience in Africa Public Recognition: Public speaking inter alia radio talks, TV appearances Hobbies: Popular writing, travel, marathon running, climbing (viz Kilimanjaro), photography, biological observations, public speaking.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 78

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) The National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004. The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Draft List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009. Tiwary, R. 2001. Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime and its management. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 132:185-199. Van Wyk, B., Van Oudshoorn B., & Gericke N., (2005): Medicinal Plant of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria. Van Wyk, J.C.P., Kok, D.J. & Du Preez, L.H. 1992. Growth and behaviour of tadpoles and juveniles of the African Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus Tschudi 1838. African Journal of Herpetology: Journal of the Herpetological Association of Africa 40:56. van Rooyen, C.S. (2000) An overview of Vulture Electrocutions in South Africa. Vulture News, 43, 5-22. van Rooyen, C.S. (2003) Eskom EWT partnership - annual report 2002/2003. Vulture Study Group Workshop Aandster, Namibrand Nature Reserve, Namibia. Van Schalkwyk, M. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004); Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerqable and Protected Species. Westhoff, V. & Van der Maarel, E. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker, R.H. (ed.) Classification of plant communities. W. Junk, The Hague. Whittington-Jones, C.A. & Peacock, F. (2015) African Grass Owl Tyto capensis. The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. (eds M.R. Taylor, F. Peacock & R.M. Wanless). BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 79

ABRIDGED CURRICULUM VITAE: GEORGE JOHANNES BREDENKAMP Born: 10 February 1946 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Citizenship: South African Marital status: Married, 1 son, 2 daughters

Present work address Department of Botany, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa Tel:(27)(12)420-3121 Fax: (27)(12)362 5099 E-Mail: [email protected] or EcoAgent CC PO Box 25533, Monument Park, 0105, South Africa Tel and Fax: (27)(12) 346 3180 Cell 082 5767046 E-Mail: [email protected]

Qualifications: 1963 Matriculation Certificate, Kemptonpark High School 1967 B.Sc. University of Pretoria, Botany and Zoology as majors, 1968 B.Sc. Hons. (cum laude) University of Pretoria, Botany. 1969 T.H.E.D. (cum laude) Pretoria Teachers Training College. 1975 M.Sc. University of Pretoria, Plant Ecology . 1982 D.Sc. (Ph.D.) University of Pretoria, Plant Ecology.

Theses: (M.Sc. and D.Sc.) on plant community ecology and wildlife management in nature reserves in South African grassland and savanna.

Professional titles: • MSAIE South African Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Scientists - 1989-1990 Council member • MGSSA Grassland Society of Southern Africa - 1986 Elected as Sub-editor for the Journal - 1986-1989 Serve on the Editorial Board of the Journal - - 1990 Organising Committee: International Conference: Meeting Rangeland challenges in Southern Africa - 1993 Elected as professional member • PrSciNat. South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions Registration Number 400086/83 - 1993-1997 Chairman of the Professional Advisory Committee: Botanical Sciences - 1993-1997: Council Member - 1992-1994: Publicity Committee - 1994-1997: Professional Registration Committee

Professional career:  Teacher in Biology 1970-1973 in Transvaal Schools  Lecturer and senior lecturer in Botany 1974-1983 at University of the North  Associate professor in Plant Ecology 1984-1988 at Potchefstroom University for CHE

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 80

 Professor in Plant Ecology 1988-2008 at University of Pretoria.  2009 – current Professor Extra-ordinary in the Dept of Plant Science, University of Pretoria  • Founder and owner of the Professional Ecological Consultancy firms Ecotrust Environmental Services CC and Eco-Agent CC, 1988-present.

Academic career: • Students: - Completed post graduate students: M.Sc. 53; Ph.D. 14. - Presently enrolled post-graduate students: M.Sc. 4; Ph.D. 2.

• Author of: - 175 scientific papers in refereed journals - >150 papers at national and international congresses - >250 scientific (unpublished) reports on environment and natural resources - 17 popular scientific papers. - 39 contributions in books

• Editorial Committee of - South African Journal of Botany, - Journal Grassland Society of Southern Africa, - Bulletin of the South African Institute of Ecologists. - Journal of Applied Vegetation Science.( Sweden) - Phytocoenologia (Germany) - • FRD evaluation category: C2 (=leader in South Africa in the field of Vegetation Science/Plant Ecology)

Membership: • International Association of Vegetation Science. • British Ecological Society • International Society for Ecology (Intecol) • Association for the Taxonomic study of the Flora of Tropical Africa (AETFAT). • South African Association of Botanists (SAAB) 1988-1993 Elected to the Council of SAAB. 1989-1990 Elected as Chairman of the Northern Transvaal Branch 1990 Elected to the Executive Council as Vice-President 1990- Sub-editor Editorial Board of the Journal 1991-1992 Elected as President (2-year period) 1993 Vice-President and Outgoing President • Wildlife Management Society of Southern Africa • Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns (=South African Academy for Science and Art). • Wildlife Society of Southern Africa 1975 - 1988: Member 1975 - 1983: Committee member, Pietersburg Centre 1981 - 1982: Chairman, Pietersburg Centre • Dendrological Society of Southern Africa 1984 - present: Member 1984 - 1988: Committee member, Western Transvaal Branch

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 81

1986 - 1988: Chairman, Western Transvaal Branch 1987 - 1989: Member, Central Committee (National level) 1990 - 2000: Examination Committee • Succulent Society of South Africa 1987 - 2000 • Botanical Society of South Africa 2000 – present: Member 2001- 2008: Chairman, Pretoria Branch 2002 – 2006: Chairman, Northern Region Conservation Committee 2002- 2007: Member of Council

Special committees: • Member of 10 special committees re ecology, botany, rangeland science in South Africa. • Member of the International Code for Syntaxonomical Nomenclature 1993-present.

Merit awards and research grants: 1968 Post graduate merit bursary, CSIR, Pretoria. 1977-1979 Research Grant, Committee re Research Development, Dept. of Co-operation and Development, Pretoria. 1984-1989 Research Grant, Foundation for Research Development, CSIR, Pretoria. 1986-1987 Research Grant, Dept. of Agriculture and Water Supply, Potchefstroom. 1990-1997 Research Grant, Dept. of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. 1991-present Research Grant, National Research Foundation , Pretoria. 1991-1993 Research Grant, Water Research Commission. 1999-2003 Research Grant, Water Research Commission. 2006 South African Association of Botanists Silver Medal for outstanding contributions to South African Botany

Abroad: 1986 Travel Grant, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom Visits to Israel, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal. 1987 Travel Grant, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom. Visits to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, The Netherlands, United Kingdom. 1990 Travel Grant, FRD. Visit to Japan, Taiwan, Hong-Kong. 1991 Travel Grant, FRD. Visits to Italy, Germany. Switzerland, Austria, France, The Netherlands, United Kingdom. 1993 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria. Visits to the USA, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Austria. 1994 Travel Grant FRD. Visits to Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic. 1995 Travel Grant FRD, University of Pretoria Visits to the USA 1996 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria Visit to the UK. 1997 Travel Grant University of Pretoria, Visit Czech Republic, Bulgaria 1998 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden 1999 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Hungary, Spain, USA 2000 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Poland, Italy, Greece.

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 82

2001 Travel Grant, NRF, Visit Brazil 2006 German Grant Invited lecture in Rinteln, Germany

Consultant Founder and owner of Ecotrust Environmental Services CC and Eco-Agent CC Since 1988 >250 reports as consultant on environmental matters, including:  Game Farm and Nature Reserve planning,  Environmental Impact Assessments,  Environmental Management Programme Reports,  Vegetation Surveys,  Wildlife Management,  Veld Condition and Grazing Capacity Assessments,  Red data analysis (plants and animals).

Berenice Coal Mine July 2016 Page 83