BIODIVERSITY AND WETLAND BASELINE & IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE BOTHAVILLE PROSPECTING RIGHT APPLICATION
DATE
February 2019
PREPARED FOR
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Shango Solutions The Biodiversity Company Tel: +27 11 678 6504 420 Vale Ave. Ferndale, 2194 [email protected] Cell: +27 81 319 1225 www.shango.co.za Fax: +27 86 527 1965 [email protected] www.thebiodiversitycompany.com
Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment for the Report Name Bothaville Prospecting Right Application The Client White Rivers Exploration (Pty) Ltd
Andrew Husted
Report Reviewer & Andrew Husted is Pr Sci Nat registered (400213/11) in the following fields of Writer practice: Ecological Science, Environmental Science and Aquatic Science. (Wetlands) Andrew is an Aquatic, Wetland and Biodiversity Specialist with more than 12 years‟ experience in the environmental consulting field. Andrew has completed numerous wetland training courses, and is an accredited wetland practitioner, recognised by the DWS, and also the Mondi Wetlands programme as a competent wetland consultant.
Martinus Erasmus
Report Writer (Botany and Fauna) Martinus Erasmus (Cand Sci Nat) obtained his B-Tech degree in Nature Conservation in 2016 at the Tshwane University of Technology. Martinus has been conducting EIAs, basic assessments and assisting specialists in field during his studies since 2015.
Lindi Steyn Report Writer Lindi Steyn has a PhD in Biodiversity and Conservation from the University of Johannesburg. She specialises in avifauna and has worked in this specialisation since 2013. The Biodiversity Company and its associates operate as independent consultants under the auspice of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions. We declare that we have no affiliation with or vested financial interests in the proponent, other than for work performed under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017. We have no conflicting Declaration interests in the undertaking of this activity and have no interests in secondary developments resulting from the authorisation of this project. We have no vested interest in the project, other than to provide a professional service within the constraints of the project (timing, time and budget) based on the principals of science.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] ii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application DECLARATION I, Martinus Erasmus, declare that:
I act as the independent specialist in this application;
I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;
I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;
I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;
I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;
All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of Section 24F of the Act.
Martinus Erasmus
Terrestrial Ecologist
The Biodiversity Company
February 2019
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] iii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application DECLARATION I, Andrew Husted, declare that:
I act as the independent specialist in this application;
I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;
I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;
I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;
I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation;
I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;
I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;
All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and
I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of Section 24F of the Act.
Andrew Husted
Wetland Ecologist
The Biodiversity Company
February 2019
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] iv Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 Project Area ...... 1
3 Scope of Work ...... 3
4 Key Legislative Requirements ...... 3
5 Methodologies ...... 6
5.1 Geographic Information Systems ...... 6
5.2 Terrestrial ...... 6
5.2.1 Botanical Assessment ...... 6
5.2.2 Literature Study ...... 7
5.2.3 Faunal Assessment (Mammals & Avifauna) ...... 7
5.2.4 Herpetology (Reptiles & Amphibians) ...... 8
5.2.5 Wet Season Fieldwork ...... 9
5.3 Wetlands ...... 10
5.3.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping ...... 10
5.3.2 Wetland Delineation ...... 11
5.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ...... 11
5.3.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status ...... 11
5.3.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ...... 12
5.3.6 Ecological Classification and Description ...... 12
5.3.7 Buffer Areas ...... 13
5.4 Impact Assessment ...... 13
6 Limitations ...... 13
7 Project Area ...... 14
7.1 General Land Use and Cover ...... 14
7.2 Soils and Geology ...... 14
7.3 Climate ...... 16
7.4 The Free State Biodiversity Plan ...... 16
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] v Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 7.4.1 Free State Terrestrial Plan ...... 16
7.5 National Biodiversity Assessment ...... 18
7.5.1 Ecosystem Threat Status ...... 18
7.5.2 Ecosystem Protection Level ...... 20
7.6 Protected Areas ...... 22
7.7 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area ...... 22
7.8 The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines ...... 24
8 Results & Discussion ...... 28
8.1 Desktop Assessment ...... 28
8.1.1 Vegetation Assessment ...... 28
8.1.2 Faunal Assessment ...... 32
8.1.3 Wetland Assessment ...... 36
8.2 Field Survey ...... 40
8.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ...... 40
8.2.2 Alien and Invasive Plants ...... 42
8.2.3 Fauna ...... 44
8.2.4 Wetlands ...... 49
9 Potential Impacts ...... 59
9.1 Methodology ...... 59
9.2 Purpose and Scope ...... 59
9.3 Current Impacts ...... 59
9.4 Identification of Additional Impacts ...... 60
9.4.1 Construction Phase...... 60
9.4.2 Operational Phase ...... 61
9.4.3 Decommissioning ...... 61
9.4.4 Rehab and Closure ...... 62
10 Assessment of Significance ...... 62
10.1 Construction Phase ...... 62
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] vi Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 10.2 Operational Phase ...... 68
10.3 Decommissioning...... 75
10.4 Rehab and Closure ...... 81
11 Impact Assessment Results ...... 86
12 Mitigation Measures ...... 87
12.1 Mitigation Measure Objectives ...... 87
12.1.1 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Vegetation Communities & CBAs ...... 87
12.1.2 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Faunal Communities ...... 88
12.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Wetlands ...... 89
13 Conclusion ...... 91
14 References ...... 93
Tables
Table 1: A list of key legislative requirements relevant to biodiversity and conservation in the Free State Province ...... 4
Table 2: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied ...... 11
Table 3: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2008) ...... 11
Table 4: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories...... 12
Table 5: The mining and biodiversity guidelines categories ...... 25
Table 6: List of bird species of regional or global conservation importance that are expected to occur in pentads 2720_2635; 2720_2640; 2720_2630; 2715_2630; 2715_2635; 2715_2720; 2725_2630; 2725_2635; 2725_2640 (SABAP2, 2018, ESKOM, 2015; IUCN, 2017)...... 32 Table 7: List of mammal species of conservation concern that may occur in the project area as well as their global and regional conservation statuses (IUCN, 2017; SANBI, 2016) ...... 34
Table 8: Herpetofaunal species of conservation concern which may occur in the project area ..36
Table 9:Trees, shrubs and weeds recorded at the proposed project area ...... 41
Table 10: A list of avifaunal species recorded for the project area ...... 45
Table 11: Mammal species recorded in the project area during the February 2019 survey ...... 47
Table 12: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al. 2013) ...... 51
Table 13: The ecosystem services provided by the HGM units ...... 53 www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] vii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 15: Summary of the scores for the wetland PES ...... 54
Table 16: The EIS results for the delineated HGM units ...... 55
Table 17: Buffer determination- Threats posed by the proposed exploration activities ...... 57 Table 18: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation ...... 62 Table 19: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna ...... 64 Table 20: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 65 Table 21: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 66 Table 22: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation ...... 68 Table 23: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation and potential leaks, discharges, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment ...... 70 Table 24: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna ...... 71 Table 25: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 72 Table 26: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 74 Table 27: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation ...... 76 Table 28: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna...... 77 Table 29: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) ...... 78 Table 30: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 80 Table 31: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation ...... 82 Table 32: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna...... 83
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] viii Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 33: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands ...... 84 Figures
Figure 1: General location of the project area showing the eight proposed prospecting borehole locations in the whole prospecting area ...... 2 Figure 2: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis et al., 2013) ...... 10
Figure 3: Land types associated with the project area ...... 15
Figure 4: Climate diagram for the project area, Mucina and Rutherford (2006)...... 16
Figure 5: The project area superimposed on the Free State Terrestrial CBA spatial data (BGIS, 2018) ...... 17 Figure 6: The project area showing the ecosystem threat status of the associated terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018) ...... 19 Figure 7: The project area showing the level of protection of terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018) ...... 21 Figure 8: The project area in relation to the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (BGIS, 2018) ...... 23 Figure 9: The project area superimposed on the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines spatial dataset (BGIS,2018) ...... 27 Figure 10: The project area showing the vegetation type based on the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland (BGIS, 2017)...... 29 Figure 11: Map showing the grid drawn to compile an expected species list (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) ...... 32
Figure 12: Illustration of the NFEPA wetlands surrounding the prospecting area ...... 37
Figure 13: Inland water areas identified within range of the prospecting area...... 39
Figure 14: Farm portions where access was possible duing the fieldwork...... 40
Figure 15: Some of the flora species observed in the project area: A) Commicarpus pentandrus, B) Hypoxis hemerocallidea, C) Commelina livingstonii), D), E) Berkheya speciosa, and F) Ammocharis coranica ...... 44 Figure 16: Some of the avifauna found in the project area: A) Northern Black Korhaan (Afrotis afraoides), B)Black-headed Heron (Ardea melanocephala), C) South African Cliff Swallow (Hirundo spilodera), D) Long-tailed Widowbird (Euplectes progne), E) Black-chested Snake Eagle (Circaetus pectoralis), F) Blacksmith Lapwing (Vanellus armatus) and G) Southern Red Bishop (Euplectes orix) ...... 46
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] ix Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Figure 17: Some of the mammal species observed in the project area: A) Cape Porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis), B) Cape Ground Squirrel (Xerus inauris), C) Common Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), D) Common Duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), E) Yellow mongoose (Cynictis penicillata) and F) Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas) ...... 48 Figure 18: Evidence of HGM units identified for the project. A: HGM 1, B: HGM 2, C: HGM 3 & D: The dam ...... 49
Figure 19: Delineation of wetlands within project area ...... 50
Figure 20: Amalgamated diagram of depressions, highlighting the dominant water inputs, throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) ...... 51
Figure 21: Example of a Swartland soil form, (SASA, 1999)...... 52
Figure 23: Crop fields within the HGM unit‟s catchment ...... 55
Figure 24: Wetland buffer requirements ...... 58
Figure 25: Some of the current impacts observed in the project area: A) Cattle, B) Agricultural fields, C) Invasive plant species and D) invasive plant species as well as electrical ESKOM servitudes ...... 60 Figure 26: Radar indicting the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation ...... 63 Figure 27: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna ...... 65 Figure 28: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 66 Figure 29: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 68 Figure 30: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation ...... 69 Figure 31: Radar indicating vegetation and potential impacts of leaks, discharges, pollutant from the development into the surrounding environment ...... 71
Figure 32: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna ...... 72
Figure 33: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)...... 74 Figure 34: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 75 Figure 35: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation ...... 77
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] x Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Figure 36: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna ...... 78 Figure 37: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) ...... 80 Figure 38: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 81 Figure 39: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation ...... 83 Figure 40: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna...... 84 Figure 41: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) ...... 86
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] xi Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 1 Introduction
The Biodiversity Company (TBC) was appointed to conduct a terrestrial and wetland baseline and impact (risk) assessment for the environmental authorisations in support of the Bothaville Prospecting Right Application. The total extent of the project area is 9 510.03 ha.
The surface geology of the area consists of rocks of the Karoo Supergroup. The type of minerals that will be prospected for are: Silver Ore, Gold Ore, Coal, Diamond (Alluvial), Plantinum Group Metals, Rare Earths, Sulphur and Uranium Ore.
A wet season terrestrial biodiversity and wetland survey was conducted on 21-22 February. The field surveys primarily focussed on the prospecting borehole footprint area, while the total prospecting area was still considered at a desktop level. The total prospecting area is together referred to as the project area in this report. The identification and description of any sensitive receptors were recorded across the project area, and the manner in which these sensitive receptors may be affected by the activity was also investigated.
The project will be undertaken to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, specifically Appendix 6. This biodiversity assessment will be informed by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) No. 10 of 2004. The water resource studies will also be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Water Use Authorisation in terms of Section 21(c) and (i) of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA).
This report, after taking into consideration the findings and recommendations provided by the specialist herein, should inform and guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), enabling informed decision making as to the ecological viability of the proposed project. 2 Project Area
The project area is situated about 22.83 km east of Bothaville, 44.81 km north east of Kroonstad in the Free State Province of South Africa. The prospecting right application covers a total of 9 510.03 ha. The land uses surrounding the project area consist of agricultural land, natural areas, livestock and game farming. Infrastructure such as secondary tar roads, gravel roads and homesteads, occur within the proximity of the project area (Figure 1). Figure 1 shows the layout of the project area and the eight proposed prospecting borehole footprint areas.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 1 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Figure 1: General location of the project area showing the eight proposed prospecting borehole locations in the whole prospecting area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 2
Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application 3 Scope of Work
The Terms of Reference (ToR) included the following:
Desktop description of the baseline receiving environment specific to the field of expertise (general surrounding area as well as site specific environment);
Identification and description of any sensitive receptors in terms of relevant specialist disciplines (biodiversity) that occur in the project area, and the manner in which these sensitive receptors may be affected by the activity;
Identify „significant‟ ecological, botanical and faunal features within the proposed development areas;
Identification of conservation significant habitats around the project area which might be impacted by the proposed development;
Site visit to verify desktop information;
Screening to identify any critical issues (potential fatal flaws) that may result in project delays or rejection of the application;
The delineation, classification and assessment of wetlands within 500m of the project area;
Implementation of WET-Health for determination of Present Ecological State (PES) of wetland areas;
Implementation of WET-EcoServices for determination of ecosystem services for the wetland areas;
Determine the Environmental Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of wetland systems;
Conduct risk assessments relevant to the proposed activity;
Recommendations relevant to associated impacts; and
Report compilation detailing the baseline findings. 4 Key Legislative Requirements
The legislation, policies and guidelines listed below are applicable to the current project in terms of biodiversity and wetland systems (Table 1). The list below, although extensive, may not be exhaustive and other legislation, policies and guidelines may apply in addition to those listed below.
Explanations of certain documents, organisations or legislation is provided (below Table 1) where these have a high degree of relevance to the project and/or are referred to in this assessment.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 3 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 1: A list of key legislative requirements relevant to biodiversity and conservation in the Free State Province
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993) The Convention on Wetlands (RAMSAR Convention, 1971) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC,1994) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 1973)
INTERNATIONAL The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, 1979) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 2006) The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998) The National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003) The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) The National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008); The Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989) National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (No. 39 of 2004) National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act No. 27 of 2003)
National Biodiversity Framework (NBF, 2009)
National Forest Act (Act No. 84 of 1998) National Veld and Forest Fire Act (101 of 1998)
National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) NATIONAL National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA‟s) National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) World Heritage Convention Act (Act No. 49 of 1999) National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) Municipal Systems Act (Act No. 32 of 2000) Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014 South Africa‟s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) Sustainable Utilisation of Agricultural Resources (Draft Legislation). White Paper on Biodiversity
Boputhatswana Nature Conservation Act 3 of 1973
AL
PR NCI OVI Free State Nature Conservation Ordinance 8 of 1969
International Legislation and Policy
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival; and
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 4 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application The IUCN (World Conservation Union). The IUCN‟s mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. National Level
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996). The Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of South Africa states that everyone has a right to a nonthreatening environment and requires that reasonable measures be applied to protect the environment. This protection encompasses preventing pollution and promoting conservation and environmentally sustainable development;
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) No. 10 of 2004: specifically, the management and conservation of biological diversity within the RSA and of the components of such biological diversity;
National Forests Act, 1998 (Act 84 of 1998), specifically with reference to Protected Tree species;
National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA): The National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) was completed as a collaboration between the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and other stakeholders, including scientists and biodiversity management experts throughout the country over a three-year period (Driver et al., 2011). The purpose of the NBA is to assess the state of South Africa‟s biodiversity with a view to understanding trends over time and informing policy and decision-making across a range of sectors (Driver et al., 2011). The DWS is the custodian of South Africa‟s water resources and therefore assumes public trusteeship of water resources, which includes watercourses, surface water, estuaries, or aquifers. The National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) recognises that the entire ecosystem and not just the water itself, and any given water resource constitutes the resource and as such needs to be conserved. No activity may therefore take place within a watercourse unless it is authorised by the DWS. Any area within a wetland or riparian zone is therefore excluded from development unless authorisation is obtained from the DWS in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i).
The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the associated Regulations as amended in April 2017, states that prior to any development taking place within a wetland or riparian area, an environmental authorisation process needs to be followed. This could follow either the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) process or the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process depending on the scale of the impact.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 5 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Provincial and Municipal Level
In addition to national legislation, South Africa's nine provinces have their own provincial biodiversity legislation, as nature conservation is a concurrent function of national and provincial government in terms of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996). The Department is currently in the process of developing a Provincial Biodiversity Plan. State of the environment Report for the Province can be viewed at: www.environment.gov.za/soer/reports/freestate.html. 5 Methodologies
5.1 Geographic Information Systems Existing data layers were incorporated into GIS software to establish how the proposed prospecting operations might interact with any ecologically important entities. Emphasis was placed around the following spatial datasets:
Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina et al., 2006);
Important Bird Areas 2015 – BirdLife South Africa (vector geospatial dataset);
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) National Landcover 2015; Land Type Data (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972 - 2006);
The inland water dataset; and
The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al., 2011).
5.2 Terrestrial
5.2.1 Botanical Assessment
The botanical study encompassed an assessment of all the vegetation units and habitat types within the project area. The focus was on an ecological assessment of habitat types as well as identification of any Red Data species within the known distribution of the project area. Due to the survey being conducted in the dry season this represented a severe limitation to the number of species identified. Furthermore, some areas of the project area had already been impacted upon due to previous mining activities and/or were being utilised for agriculture which further limited the identification of floral species. The methodology included the following survey techniques:
Floral species identification;
Sensitivity analysis based on structural and species diversity; and
Identification of any potentially occurring floral red-data species or presence of suitable habitat for these species.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 6 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 5.2.2 Literature Study
A literature review was conducted as part of the desktop study to identify the potential habitats present within the project area. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) provides an electronic database system, namely the Botanical Database of Southern Africa (BODATSA), to access distribution records on southern African plants. This is a new database which replaces the old Plants of Southern Africa (POSA) database. The POSA database provided distribution data of flora at the quarter degree square (QDS) resolution.
The Red List of South African Plants website (SANBI, 2017) was utilized to provide the most current account of the national status of flora. Relevant field guides and texts consulted for identification purposes in the field during the surveys included the following:
Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld (Van Wyk & Malan, 1997);
A Field Guide to Wild Flowers (Pooley, 1998);
Guide to Grasses of Southern Africa (Van Oudtshoorn, 1999);
Orchids of South Africa (Johnson & Bytebier, 2015);
Guide to the Aloes of South Africa (Van Wyk & Smith, 2014);
Medicinal Plants of South Africa (Van Wyk et al., 2013);
Freshwater Life: A field guide to the plants and animals of southern Africa (Griffiths & Day, 2016); and
Identification Guide to Southern African Grasses. An identification manual with keys, descriptions and distributions. (Fish et al., 2015). Additional information regarding ecosystems, vegetation types, and species of conservation concern (SCC) included the following sources:
The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina & Rutherford, 2012);
Grassland Ecosystem Guidelines: landscape interpretation for planners and managers (SANBI, 2013); and
Red List of South African Plants (Raimondo et al., 2009; SANBI, 2016).
5.2.3 Faunal Assessment (Mammals & Avifauna)
The faunal desktop assessment included the following:
Compilation of expected species lists;
Compilation of identified species lists;
Identification of any Red Data or species of conservation concern (SCC) present or potentially occurring in the area; and www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 7 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Emphasis was placed on the probability of occurrence of species of provincial, national and international conservation importance. The field survey component of the study utilised a variety of sampling techniques including, but not limited to, the following:
Visual observations;
Camera trapping;
Identification of tracks and signs; and
Utilization of local knowledge and results from previous assessments carried out within the project area. Mammal distribution data were obtained from the following information sources:
The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (Skinner & Chimimba, 2005);
Bats of Southern and Central Africa (Monadjem et al., 2010);
The 2016 Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (www.ewt.org.za) (EWT, 2016);
Animal Demography Unit (ADU) - MammalMap Category (MammalMap, 2017) (mammalmap.adu.org.za); and
A Field Guide to the Tracks and Signs of Southern, Central and East African Wildlife (Stuart & Stuart, 2013).
5.2.4 Herpetology (Reptiles & Amphibians)
A herpetofauna assessment of the project area was also conducted. The herpetological field survey comprised the following techniques:
Diurnal hand searches - are used for reptile species that shelter in or under particular microhabitats (typically rocks, exfoliating rock outcrops, fallen timber, leaf litter, bark etc.);
Visual searches - typically undertaken for species whose behaviour involves surface activity or for species that are difficult to detect by hand-searches or pitfall trapping. May include walking transects or using binoculars to view the species from a distance without the animal being disturbed;
Amphibians – many of the survey techniques listed above will be able to detect species of amphibians. Over and above these techniques, vocalisation sampling techniques are often the best to detect the presence of amphibians as each species has a distinct call. Records from the aquatic ecologists were also utilised for this report; and
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 8 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Opportunistic sampling - reptiles, especially snakes, are incredibly elusive and difficult to observe. Consequently, all possible opportunities to observe reptiles are taken in order to augment the standard sampling procedures described above. This will include talking to local people and staff at the site and reviewing photographs of reptiles and amphibians that the other biodiversity specialists may come across while on site. Herpetofauna distributional and species data was obtained from the following information sources:
South African Reptile Conservation Assessment (SARCA) (sarca.adu.org);
A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa (Alexander & Marais, 2007);
Field guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa (Branch, 1998);
Atlas and Red list of Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Bates et al., 2014);
A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa (du Preez & Carruthers, 2009);
Animal Demography Unit (ADU) - FrogMAP (frogmap.adu.org.za);
Atlas and Red Data Book of Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mintner et al., 2004); and
Ensuring a future for South Africa‟s frogs (Measey, 2011).
5.2.5 Wet Season Fieldwork
The wet season fieldwork and sample sites were placed in close proximity to the boreholes within targeted areas (i.e. target sites) perceived as ecologically sensitive based on the preliminary interpretation of satellite imagery and GIS analysis (which included the latest applicable biodiversity datasets) available prior to the fieldwork.
The focus of the fieldwork was therefore to maximise coverage and navigate to each target site (primarily the prospecting areas) in the field in order to perform specialist assessments for the project area. Emphasis was placed on sensitive habitats, especially those overlapping or within close proximity the project area. Due to the timing of the survey, morphological structures used to identify flora, such as inflorescences and flowers, are either limited or absent, thus affecting the floral species identified.
At each sample site notes were made regarding current impacts (e.g. livestock grazing, erosion etc.), subjective recording of dominant vegetation species and any sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, outcrops etc.) present. In addition, opportunistic observations were made while navigating through the project area. Effort was made to cover all the different habitat types within the limits of time and access. The geographic location of sample sites and site coverage are shown under the Results section.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 9 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 5.3 Wetlands
5.3.1 Wetland Identification and Mapping
The wetland areas are delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines, a cross section is presented in Figure 2. The outer edges of the wetland areas were identified by considering the following four specific indicators:
The Terrain Unit Indicator helps to identify those parts of the landscape where wetlands are more likely to occur;
The Soil Form Indicator identifies the soil forms, as defined by the Soil Classification Working Group (1991), which are associated with prolonged and frequent saturation.
o The soil forms (types of soil) found in the landscape were identified using the South African soil classification system namely; Soil Classification: A Taxonomic System for South Africa (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991);
The Soil Wetness Indicator identifies the morphological "signatures" developed in the soil profile as a result of prolonged and frequent saturation; and
The Vegetation Indicator identifies hydrophilic vegetation associated with frequently saturated soils.
Vegetation is used as the primary wetland indicator. However, in practise the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used in a confirmatory role.
Figure 2: Cross section through a wetland, indicating how the soil wetness and vegetation indicators change (Ollis et al., 2013)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 10 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 5.3.2 Wetland Delineation
The wetland indicators described above are used to determine the boundaries of the wetlands within the project area. These delineations are then illustrated by means of maps accompanied by descriptions.
5.3.3 Wetland Functional Assessment
Wetland Functionality refers to the ability of wetlands to provide healthy conditions for the wide variety of organisms found in wetlands as well as humans. Eco Services serve as the main factor contributing to wetland functionality.
The assessment of the ecosystem services supplied by the identified wetlands was conducted per the guidelines as described in WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al., 2008). An assessment was undertaken that examines and rates the following services according to their degree of importance and the degree to which the services are provided (Table 2).
Table 2: Classes for determining the likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied
Score Rating of likely extent to which a benefit is being supplied
< 0.5 Low
0.6 - 1.2 Moderately Low
1.3 - 2.0 Intermediate
2.1 - 3.0 Moderately High
> 3.0 High
5.3.4 Determining the Present Ecological Status
The overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, and then to convert the impact scores to a Present Ecological Status (PES) score. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of impact of individual activities/occurrences and then separately assessing the intensity of impact of each activity in the affected area. The extent and intensity are then combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact. The Present State categories are provided in Table 3.
Table 3: The Present Ecological Status categories (Macfarlane, et al., 2008) Impact Description Impact Score Range PES Category None Unmodified, natural 0 to 0.9 A Largely Natural with few modifications. A slight change in Small ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of 1.0 to 1.9 B natural habitats and biota may have taken place. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 11 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Moderately Modified. A moderate change in ecosystem Moderate processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place, but 2.0 to 3.9 C the natural habitat remains predominantly intact. Largely Modified. A large change in ecosystem processes Large 4.0 to 5.9 D and loss of natural habitat and biota has occurred. Seriously Modified. The change in ecosystem processes Serious and loss of natural habitat and biota is great, but some 6.0 to 7.9 E remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable. Critical Modification. The modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been Critical 8.0 to 10 F modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.
5.3.5 Determining the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity
The method used for the EIS determination was adapted from the method as provided by DWS (1999) for floodplains. The method takes into consideration PES scores obtained for WET- Health as well as function and service provision to enable the assessor to determine the most representative EIS category for the wetland feature or group being assessed. A series of determinants for EIS are assessed on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no importance and 4 indicates very high importance. The mean of the determinants is used to assign the EIS category as listed in Table 4 (Rountree et al., 2012).
Table 4: Description of Ecological Importance and Sensitivity categories
EIS Category Range of Mean Recommended Ecological Management Class
Very High 3.1 to 4.0 A
High 2.1 to 3.0 B
Moderate 1.1 to 2.0 C
Low Marginal < 1.0 D
5.3.6 Ecological Classification and Description
The National Wetland Classification Systems (NWCS) developed by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) will be considered for this study. This system comprises a hierarchical classification process of defining a wetland based on the principles of the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach at higher levels, and then also includes structural features at the lower levels of classification (Ollis et al., 2013).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 12 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 5.3.7 Buffer Areas
As for the buffer zone allocated to the identified wetland areas, the “Preliminary Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries” (Macfarlane et al. 2014) was used to determine the appropriate buffer zone for the proposed activity.
5.4 Impact Assessment Potential impacts were evaluated against the data captured during the fieldwork to identify relevance to the project area, specifically the proposed prospecting footprint area. The relevant impacts were then subjected to a prescribed impact assessment methodology (as provided by the client). The details of this methodology can be provided on request.
Impacts were assessed in terms of the construction, operational, decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure phases. The operational phase refers to that phase of the project where the prospecting is being conducted and once complete, the decommissioning phase will begin.
It should be noted that the impacts described are not exhaustive, and more impacts may be identified at a later stage as more project specific information becomes available. Mitigation measures were only applied to impacts deemed relevant based on the impact analysis. 6 Limitations
The following limitations should be noted for the study:
As per the scope of work, the fieldwork component of the assessment comprised of one assessment only, which was conducted during the wet season and as such this study has not assessed any temporal trends for the respective seasons;
Fieldwork forcussed on the prospecting boreholes only, while the rest of the area was only assessed at a desktop level; Field assessments were completed to assess as much of the site as possible with focus on the proposed directly impacted areas (prospecting sites);
Only wetlands that were likely to be impacted upon by proposed development activities were assessed in the field. Wetlands located within a 500m radius of the sites but not in a position within the landscape to be measurably affected by the developments were not considered as part of this assessment;
Assumptions have been made that potential wetland areas identified over desktop studies are characterised by wetland conditions and have therefore been deemed to be wetland areas;
The GPS used for water resource delineations is accurate to within five meters. Therefore, the wetland delineation plotted digitally may be offset by at least five meters to either side; and
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 13 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Despite these limitations, a comprehensive desktop study was conducted, in conjunction with the detailed results from the surveys, and as such there is a moderately high level of confidence in the information provided. 7 Project Area
7.1 General Land Use and Cover The land uses surrounding the project area consists predominantly of agricultural land, natural areas, livestock and game farming. Infrastructure such as secondary tar roads, gravel roads and homesteads, occur within the proximity of the project area.
The following infrastructure exists within the project area and surroundings:
Significant portions of the project area are currently being utilised for agriculture, predominantly maize and/or sunflower monocultures;
Farm housing / dwellings;
Various secondary gravel access roads; and
Electrical infrastructure, including various Eskom and Telkom transmission lines.
7.2 Soils and Geology According to the land type database (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972 - 2006), the project area consists of the Bc 24, Bd 15 and Dc 6 land types, see Figure 3. The borehole area is located within the Bd 15 land type is characterised by plinthic catena, upland duplex and margalitic soils which rarely occur. Eutrophic, red soils are not widespread throughout the project area.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 14 Biodiversity and wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Figure 3: Land types associated with the project area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 15 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
7.3 Climate According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), this region is characterised by warm-temperate, summer-rainfall climate, with overall MAP of 530 mm. The mean annual temperature for this region is approximately 16.4°C and has an average frost incidence of 37 days a year, see Figure 4.
Figure 4: Climate diagram for the project area, Mucina and Rutherford (2006).
7.4 The Free State Biodiversity Plan
7.4.1 Free State Terrestrial Plan
It is important to note that the Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map accounts for terrestrial fauna and flora only. The inclusion of the aquatic component was limited to the Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA) catchments (included in the cost layer and for the identification of Ecological Support Areas (ESAs)) and wetland clusters (included in the ESAs only).
A CBA is considered a significant and ecologically sensitive area and needs to be kept in a pristine or near-natural state to ensure the continued functioning of ecosystems (SANBI, 2017). A CBA represents the best choice for achieving biodiversity targets. ESAs are not essential for achieving targets, but they play a vital role in the continued functioning of ecosystems and often are essential for proper functioning of adjacent CBAs.
According to the Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan, six of the proposed prospecting areas are situated areas which are classified as ESA2 (Figure 5). The two remaining boreholes site are situated in an area which is classified as CBA1. Both these areas have been extensively altered from their natural condition, mostly due to agricultural and lifestock transformation of the landscape. The rest of the prospecting area falls in areas classified as CBA1, CBA2, Degraded, ESA1, ESA2 and an area classified as other.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 16 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Free State Context
Figure 5: The project area superimposed on the Free State Terrestrial CBA spatial data (BGIS, 2018)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 17 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 7.5 National Biodiversity Assessment The National Biodiversity Assessment 2011 (NBA) provides an assessment of South Africa‟s biodiversity and ecosystems, including headline indicators and national maps for the terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. The NBA 2011 was led by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in partnership with a range of organisations, including the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), CSIR and SANParks. It follows on from the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004, broadening the scope of the assessment to include key thematic issues as well as a spatial assessment. The NBA 2011 includes a summary of spatial biodiversity priority areas that have been identified through systematic biodiversity plans at national, provincial and local level.
The two headline indicators assessed in the NBA are ecosystem threat status and ecosystem protection level (Driver et al., 2011).
7.5.1 Ecosystem Threat Status
Ecosystem threat status outlines the degree to which ecosystems are still intact or alternatively losing vital aspects of their structure, function and composition, on which their ability to provide ecosystem services ultimately depends (Driver et al., 2011). Ecosystem types are categorised as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) or Least Threatened (LT), based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that remains in good ecological condition (Driver et al., 2011).
The proposed project area was superimposed on the terrestrial ecosystem threat status (Figure 6). As seen in Figure 6, the borehole locations according to the NBA (2011) fall entirely within one ecosystem, which is listed as EN. The overall prospecting area is devided into EN and LT.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 18 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Free State Context
Figure 6: The project area showing the ecosystem threat status of the associated terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 19 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 7.5.2 Ecosystem Protection Level
Ecosystem protection level indicate whether ecosystems are adequately protected or under- protected. Ecosystem types are categorised as not protected, poorly protected, moderately protected or well protected, based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that occurs within a protected area recognised in the Protected Areas Act (Driver et al., 2011).
The project area was superimposed on the ecosystem protection level map to assess the protection status of terrestrial ecosystems associated with the development (Figure 7). Based on Figure 7 the terrestrial ecosystems associated with majority of the proposed project area are rated as not protected. This includes the eight boreholes. This means that this ecosystem type (and associated habitats) are not well protected anywhere in the country (such as in nationally protected areas). The western corner of the prospecting area falls in an area classified as poorly protected.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 20 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Free State Context
Figure 7: The project area showing the level of protection of terrestrial ecosystems (BGIS, 2018)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 21 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 7.6 Protected Areas Formally protected areas refer to areas protected either by national or provincial legislation. Based on the SANBI (2010) Protected Areas Map and the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES) the project area does not overlap with, nor will it impact upon, any formally protected area.
7.7 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area In an attempt to better conserve aquatic ecosystems, South Africa has recently categorised its river systems according to set ecological criteria (i.e. ecosystem representation, water yield, connectivity, unique features, and threatened taxa) to identify FEPAs (Driver et al., 2011). The FEPAs are intended to be conservation support tools and envisioned to guide the effective implementation of measures to achieve the National Environment Management Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) biodiversity goals (Nel et al., 2011). A true FEPA river forms the border of the prospecting area in the south, while a non-FEPA river can be found just to the north of the prospecting area.
No true FEPA wetlands are found within the prospecting area although a large number of non- FEPA wetlands can be found in area and the a few can be found in close proximity to the boreholes (Figure 8).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 22 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Free State Context
Figure 8: The project area in relation to the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (BGIS, 2018)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 23 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
7.8 The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines The Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines (2013) was developed by the Department of Mineral Resources, the Chamber of Mines, the South African National Biodiversity Institute and the South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum, with the intention to find a balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. The Guideline is envisioned as a tool to “foster a strong relationship between biodiversity and mining which will eventually translate into best practice within the mining sector. In identifying biodiversity priority areas, which have different levels of risk against mining, the Guideline categorises biodiversity priority areas into four categories of biodiversity priority areas in relation to their importance from a biodiversity and ecosystem service point of view as well as the implications for mining in these areas:
A) Legally protected areas, where mining is prohibited;
B) Areas of highest biodiversity importance, which are at the highest risk for mining;
C) Areas of high biodiversity importance, which are at a high risk for mining; and
D) Areas of moderate biodiversity importance, which are at a moderate risk for mining. Table 5 shows the four different categories and the implications for mining within each of these categories.
The Guideline provides a tool to facilitate the sustainable development of South Africa‟s mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on the country‟s biodiversity and ecosystem services. It provides the mining sector with a practical, user- friendly manual for integrating biodiversity considerations into the planning processes and managing biodiversity during the operational phases of a mine, from exploration through to closure. The Guideline provides explicit direction in terms of where mining-related impacts are legally prohibited, where biodiversity priority areas may present high risks for mining projects, and where biodiversity may limit the potential for mining.
Overall, proponents of a mining activity in biodiversity priority areas should demonstrate that:
There is significant cause to undertake mining – by commenting on whether the biodiversity priority area coincides with mineral or petroleum reserves that are strategically in the national interest to exploit. Reference should also be made to whether alternative deposits or reserves exist that could be exploited in areas that are not biodiversity priority areas or are less environmentally sensitive areas;
Through the process of a rigorous EIA and associated specialist biodiversity studies the impacts of the proposed mining are properly assessed following good practice. It is critical that sufficient time and resources are budgeted to do so early in the planning and impact assessment process, including appointing appropriate team of people with the relevant skills and knowledge as required by legislation;
Cumulative impacts have been taken into account; www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 24 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application The mitigation hierarchy has been systematically applied and alternatives have been rigorously considered;
The issues related to biodiversity priority areas have been incorporated into a robust EMP as the main tool for describing how the mining or prospecting operation‟s environmental impacts are to be mitigated and managed; and
Good practice environmental management is followed, and monitoring and compliance enforcement is ensured.
Table 5: The mining and biodiversity guidelines categories
Category Biodiversity priority areas Risk for Implications for mining mining A. Legally • Protected areas Mining Mining projects cannot commence as mining is legally protected (including National prohibited prohibited. Although mining is prohibited in Protected Parks, Nature Areas, it may be allowed in Protected Environments if Reserves, World both the Minister of Mineral Resources and Minister of Heritage Sites, Environmental Affairs approve it. Protected In cases where mining activities were conducted lawfully in Environments, Nature protected areas before Section 48 of the Protected Areas Reserves) Act (No. 57 of 2003) came into effect, the Minister of Areas declared Environmental Affairs may, after consulting with the Minister under Section 49 of of Mineral Resources, allow such mining activities to the Mineral and continue, subject to prescribed conditions that reduce Petroleum environmental impacts. Resources Development Act (No. 28 of 2002)
B. Highest • Critically endangered and Highest risk Environmental screening, environmental impact assessment biodiversity endangered ecosystems for mining (EIA) and their associated specialist studies should focus on importance • Critical Biodiversity confirming the presence and significance of these biodiversity Areas (or features, and to provide site-specific basis on which to apply the equivalent areas) mitigation hierarchy to inform regulatory decision-making for from provincial mining, water use licenses, and environmental authorisations. spatial biodiversity If they are confirmed, the likelihood of a fatal flaw for new plans mining projects is very high because of the significance • River and wetland of the biodiversity features in these areas and the Freshwater Ecosystem associated ecosystem services. These areas are viewed as Priority Areas (FEPAs) and necessary to ensure protection of biodiversity, environmental a 1km buffer around these sustainability, and human well-being. FEPAs An EIA should include the strategic assessment of • Ramsar Sites optimum, sustainable land use for a particular area and will determine the significance of the impact on biodiversity. This assessment should fully take into account the environmental sensitivity of the area, the overall environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of mining, as well as the potential strategic importance of the minerals to the country. Authorisations may well not be granted. If granted, the authorisation may set limits on allowed activities and impacts and may specify biodiversity offsets that would be written into license agreements and/or authorisations.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 25 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
C. High • Protected area buffers High risk for These areas are important for conserving biodiversity, for biodiversity (including buffers mining supporting or buffering other biodiversity priority areas, and for importance around National maintaining important ecosystem services for particular Parks, World Heritage communities or the country as a whole. Sites* and Nature An EIA should include an assessment of Reserves) optimum, sustainable land use for a • Transfrontier particular area and will determine the Conservation Areas significance of the impact on biodiversity. (remaining areas Mining options may be limited in these areas, and outside of formally limitations for mining projects are possible. proclaimed protected Authorisations may set limits and specify biodiversity areas) offsets that would be written into license agreements • Other identified and/or authorisations. priorities from provincial spatial biodiversity plans • High water yield areas • Coastal Protection Zone • Estuarine functional zone
D. Moderate • Ecological support areas Moderate These areas are of moderate biodiversity value. biodiversity • Vulnerable ecosystems risk for EIAs and their associated specialist studies should focus on importance • Focus areas mining confirming the presence and significance of these biodiversity for protected features, identifying features (e.g. threatened species) not area included in the existing datasets, and on providing site-specific expansion information to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy. (land-based Authorisations may set limits and specify biodiversity offsets that and offshore would be written into license agreements and/or authorisations. protection)
According to the above guidelines, six of the bore holes fall within an area categorised as Highest Biodiversity area (Figure 9). It can however be said that the areas have previously been disturbed and as such might not correspond with these mining and biodiversity categories described above.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 26 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Free State Context
Figure 9: The project area superimposed on the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines spatial dataset (BGIS,2018)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 27 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 8 Results & Discussion
8.1 Desktop Assessment
8.1.1 Vegetation Assessment
The overall project area is situated within the grassland biome. This biome is centrally located in southern Africa, and adjoins all except the desert, fynbos and succulent Karoo biomes (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Major macroclimatic traits that characterise the grassland biome include:
a) Seasonal precipitation; and b) The minimum temperatures in winter (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The grassland biome is found chiefly on the high central plateau of South Africa, and the inland areas of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. The topography is flat and rolling but includes the escarpment itself. Altitude varies from near sea level to 2 850 m above sea level.
Grasslands are dominated by a single layer of grasses. The amount of cover depends on rainfall and the degree of grazing. The grassland biome experiences summer rainfall and dry winters with frost (and fire), which are unfavourable for tree growth. Thus, trees are typically absent, except in a few localized habitats. Geophytes (bulbs) are often abundant. Frosts, fire and grazing maintain the grass dominance and prevent the establishment of trees.
8.1.1.1 Vegetation Types
The grassland biome comprises many different vegetation types. The overall project area is situated within three vegetation types, namely the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland, Central Free State Grassland and Highveld Alluvial Vegetation (small corner of project area) according to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) (Figure 10). The eight prospecting sites are situated entirely within one vegetation type, the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 28
Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Free State Context
Figure 10: The project area showing the vegetation type based on the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho & Swaziland (BGIS, 2017).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 29 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
8.1.1.2 Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland
The Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type is found in North-West and Free State Provinces. This vegetation type typically comprises of plains-dominated landscape with some scattered, slightly irregular undulating plains and hills. Mainly low-tussock grasslands with an abundant karroid element. Dominance of Themeda triandra is an important feature of this vegetation unit. Locally low cover of T. triandra and the associated increase in Elionurus muticus, Cymbopogon pospischilii and Aristida congesta is attributed to heavy grazing and/or erratic rainfall (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
8.1.1.2.1 Important Plant Taxa Important plant taxa are those species that have a high abundance, a frequent occurrence or are prominent in the landscape within a particular vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The following species are important in the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland.
Graminoids: Anthephora pubescens (d), Aristida congesta (d), Chloris virgata (d), Cymbopogon caesius (d), Cynodon dactylon (d), Digitaria argyrograpta (d), Elionurus muticus (d), Eragrostis chloromelas (d), E. lehmanniana (d), E. plana (d), E. trichophora (d), Heteropogon contortus (d), Panicum gilvum (d), Setaria sphacelata (d), Themeda triandra (d), Tragus berteronianus (d), Brachiaria serrata, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis curvula, E. obtusa, E. superba, Panicum coloratum, Pogonarthria squarrosa, Trichoneura grandiglumis, Triraphis andropogonoides (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Herbs: Stachys spathulata (d), Barleria macrostegia, Berkheya onopordifolia var. onopordifolia, Chamaesyce inaequilatera, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Helichrysum caespititium, Hermannia depressa, Hibiscus pusillus, Monsonia burkeana, Rhynchosia adenodes, Selago densiflora, Vernonia oligocephala (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Geophytic Herbs: Bulbine narcissifolia, Ledebouria marginata. Succulent Herb: Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Low Shrubs: Felicia muricata (d), Pentzia globosa (d), Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum, Helichrysum dregeanum, H. paronychioides, Ziziphus zeyheriana (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Endemic Taxon Herb: Lessertia phillipsiana.
8.1.1.2.2 Conservation Status of the Vegetation Type According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type is classified as Endangered. The national target for conservation protection for both these vegetation types is 24%, but only 0.3% statutorily conserved in the Bloemhof Dam, Schoonspruit, Sandveld, Faan Meintjies, Wolwespruit and Soetdoring Nature Reserves. More than 63% transformed for cultivation (ploughed for commercial crops) and the rest under strong grazing pressure from cattle and sheep.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 30 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
8.1.1.3 Central Free State Grassland
The Central Free State Grassland vegetation type is found in the Free State and marginally into Gauteng Province. This vegetation type typically comprises of undulating plains supporting short grassland, in natural condition dominated by Themeda triandra while Eragrostis curvula and E. chloromelas become dominant in degraded habitats. Dwarf karoo bushes establish in severely degraded clayey bottomlands. Overgrazed and trampled low- lying areas with heavy clayey soils are prone to Acacia karroo encroachment (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
8.1.1.3.1 Important Plant Taxa Important plant taxa are those species that have a high abundance, a frequent occurrence or are prominent in the landscape within a particular vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The following species are important in the Central Free State Grassland.
Graminoids: Aristida adscensionis (d), A. congesta (d), Cynodon dactylon (d), Eragrostis chloromelas (d), E. curvula (d), E. plana (d), Panicum coloratum (d), Setaria sphacelata (d), Themeda triandra (d), Tragus koelerioides (d), Agrostis lachnantha, Andropogon appendiculatus, Aristida bipartita, A. canescens, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Cynodon transvaalensis, Digitaria argyrograpta, Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis lehmanniana, E. micrantha, E. obtusa, E. racemosa, E. trichophora, Heteropogon contortus, Microchloa caffra, Setaria incrassata, Sporobolus discosporus (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Herbs: Berkheya onopordifolia var. onopordifolia, Chamaesyce inaequilatera, Conyza pinnata, Crabbea acaulis, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Hermannia depressa, Hibiscus pusillus, Pseudognaphalium luteo-album, Salvia stenophylla, Selago densiflora, Sonchus dregeanus (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Geophytic Herbs: Oxalis depressa, Raphionacme dyeri (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Succulent Herb: Tripteris aghillana var. integrifolia (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
Low Shrubs: Felicia muricata (d), Anthospermum rigidum subsp. pumilum, Helichrysum dregeanum, Melolobium candicans, Pentzia globose (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).
8.1.1.3.2 Conservation Status of the Vegetation Type According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type is classified as Vulnerable. The national target for conservation protection for both these vegetation types is 24%, but only small portions enjoy statutory conservation (Willem Pretorius, Rustfontein and Koppies Dam Nature Reserves) as well as some protection in private nature reserves. Almost a quarter of the area has been transformed either for cultivation or by building of dams (Allemanskraal, Erfenis, Groothoek, Koppies, Kroonstad, Lace Mine, Rustfontein and Weltevrede). No serious infestation by alien flora has been observed, but encroachment of dwarf karoo shrubs becomes a problem in the degraded southern parts of this vegetation unit.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 31 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
8.1.1.4 Plant Species of Conservation Concern
Based on the Plants of Southern Africa (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) database, 198 plant species are expected to occur in the project area. Figure 11 shows the extent of the grid that was used to compile the expected species list based on the Plants of Southern Africa (BODATSA-POSA, 2016) database. The list of expected plant species is provided in Appendix A. Of the 198-plant species, none is listed as being a Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) (Figure 11).
Project Location
Figure 11: Map showing the grid drawn to compile an expected species list (BODATSA- POSA, 2016)
8.1.2 Faunal Assessment
8.1.2.1 Avifauna
Based on the South African Bird Atlas Project, Version 2 (SABAP2) database, 176 bird species are expected to occur in the vicinity of the project area (pentads 2720_2635; 2720_2640; 2720_2630; 2715_2630; 2715_2635; 2715_2720; 2725_2630; 2725_2635; 2725_2640). The full list of potential bird species is provided in Appendix B.
Of the expected bird species, two (2) species are listed as SCC either on a regional scale or international scale (Table 6). The SCC include the following:
Two (2) species that are listed as NT on a regional basis.
Table 6: List of bird species of regional or global conservation importance that are expected to occur in pentads 2720_2635; 2720_2640; 2720_2630; 2715_2630;
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 32 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
2715_2635; 2715_2720; 2725_2630; 2725_2635; 2725_2640 (SABAP2, 2018, ESKOM, 2015; IUCN, 2017).
Conservation Status Likelihood of Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) occurrence Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa NT NT Low Phoenicopterus roseus Flamingo, Greater NT LC Low
Oxyura maccoa (Maccoa Duck) has a large northern and southern range, South Africa is part of its southern distribution. During the species‟ breeding season, it inhabits small temporary and permanent inland freshwater lakes, preferring those that are shallow and nutrient-rich with extensive emergent vegetation such as reeds (Phragmites spp.) and cattails (Typha spp.) on which it relies for nesting (IUCN, 2017). The lack of extensive water bodies within the project area creates a low possibility that this species may occur there.
Phoenicopterus roseus (Greater Flamingo) is listed as NT on a regional scale only. This species breeds on large undisturbed alkaline and saline lakes, salt pans or coastal lagoons, usually far out from the shore after seasonal rains have provided the flooding necessary to isolate remote breeding sites from terrestrial predators and the soft muddy material for nest building (IUCN, 2017). Due to the absence of its preferred habitat within the project area, in the form of permanent water bodies, the likelihood of occurrence is rated as low.
8.1.2.1.1 Important Bird and Biodviersity Areas
Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) are the sites of international significance for the conservation of the world's birds and other conservation significant species as identified by BirdLife International. These sites are also all Key Biodiversity Areas; sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity (Birdlife, 2017).
According to Birdlife International (2017), the selection of IBAs is achieved through the application of quantitative ornithological criteria, grounded in up-to-date knowledge of the sizes and trends of bird populations. The criteria ensure that the sites selected as IBAs have true significance for the international conservation of bird populations and provide a common currency that all IBAs adhere to, thus creating consistency among, and enabling comparability between, sites at national, continental and global levels.
No IBAs occurs within the proximity of the proposed project area. The nearest IBA to the project area is the Sandveld and Bloemhof Dam Nature Reserve which is situated approximately 61 km‟s west of the project area.
8.1.2.2 Mammals
The IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) lists 73 mammal species that could be expected to occur within the vicinity of the project area (Appendix C). Of these species, 8 are medium to large conservation dependant species, such as Ceratotherium simum (Southern White Rhinoceros) that, in South Africa, are generally restricted to protected areas such as game reserves. These species are not expected to occur in the project area and are removed from the expected SCC list. They are however still included in Appendix C.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 33 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Of the remaining 65 small to medium sized mammal species, ten (10) are listed as being of conservation concern on a regional or global basis (Table 7).
The list of potential species includes:
One (1) is listed as Least Concern (LC) on a regional basis.
Four (4) that are listed as VU on a regional basis; and
Five (5) that are listed as NT on a regional scale (Table 7).
Table 7: List of mammal species of conservation concern that may occur in the project area as well as their global and regional conservation statuses (IUCN, 2017; SANBI, 2016)
Conservation Status Likelihood of Species Common Name Regional Occurrence IUCN (2017) (SANBI, 2016) Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter NT NT Moderate Atelerix frontalis South Africa Hedgehog NT LC High Eidolon helvum African Straw-colored Fruit Bat LC NT Low Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat VU VU Moderate Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter VU NT High Leptailurus serval Serval NT LC High Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat VU EN Moderate Panthera pardus Leopard VU VU High Parahyaena brunnea Brown Hyaena NT NT Moderate Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel NT LC High
Aonyx capensis (Cape Clawless Otter) is the most widely distributed otter species in Africa (IUCN, 2017). This species is predominantly aquatic, and it is seldom found far from water. Based on the presence of a perennial river within the project area as well as the presence of nearby wetland areas, the likelihood of occurrence of this species occurring in the project area is considered to be moderate.
Atelerix frontalis (South African Hedgehog) has a tolerance of a degree of habitat modification and occurs in a wide variety of semi-arid and sub-temperate habitats (IUCN, 2017). Based on the Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2016), A. frontalis populations are decreasing due to the threats of electrocution, veld fires, road collisions, predation from domestic pets and illegal harvesting. Although the species is cryptic and therefore not often seen, there is suitable habitat in the project area and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is rated as high.
Eidolon helvum (African Straw-coloured Fruit Bat) is listed as LC on a regional scale and NT on a global scale. This species has been recorded from a very wide range of habitats across the lowland rainforest and savanna zones of Africa (IUCN, 2017). Although considered to be widespread and abundant across its range, certain populations are decreasing due to severe deforestation, hunting for food and medicinal use (IUCN, 2017). This species is known to form large roosts and colonies numbering in the thousands to even millions of individuals (IUCN, 2017). No colonies of this species are known to occur in the project area or in the www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 34 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application immediate vicinity and, although individuals may occasionally be recorded, it is not expected to be resident within the project area and therefore it‟s likelihood of occurrence is rated as low.
Felis nigripes (Black-footed cat) is endemic to the arid regions of southern Africa. This species is naturally rare, has cryptic colouring is small in size and is nocturnal. These factors have contributed to a lack of information on this species. Given that the highest densities of this species have been recorded in the more arid Karoo region of South Africa, the habitat in the project area can be considered to be sub-optimal for the species and the likelihood of occurrence is rated as moderate.
Hydrictis maculicollis (Spotted-necked Otter) inhabits freshwater habitats where water is un- silted, unpolluted, and rich in small to medium sized fishes (IUCN, 2017). Suitable habitat may be available in river and wetland areas of the project area, and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is high.
Leptailurus serval (Serval) occurs widely through sub-Saharan Africa and is commonly recorded from most major national parks and reserves (IUCN, 2017). The Serval‟s status outside reserves is not certain, but they are inconspicuous and may be common in suitable habitat as they are tolerant of farming practices provided there is cover and food available. In sub-Saharan Africa, they are found in habitat with well-watered savanna long-grass environments and are particularly associated with reedbeds and other riparian vegetation types. Suitable habitat can be found in the project area and as such the likelihood of occurrence is rated as high.
Mystromys albicaudatus (White-tailed Rat) is listed as VU on a regional basis and EN on a global scale. It is relatively widespread across South Africa and Lesotho; the species is known to occur in shrubland and grassland areas. A major requirement of the species is black loam soils with good vegetation cover. Although the vegetation type is suitable, no black loam seems to be present on site, therefore the likelihood of occurrence of this species is rated as moderate.
Panthera pardus (Leopard) has a wide distributional range across Africa and Asia, but populations have become reduced and isolated, and they are now extirpated from large portions of their historic range (IUCN, 2017). Impacts that have contributed to the decline in populations of this species include continued persecution by farmers, habitat fragmentation, increased illegal wildlife trade, excessive harvesting for ceremonial use of skins, prey base declines and poorly managed trophy hunting (IUCN, 2017). Although known to occur and persist outside of formally protected areas, the densities in these areas are considered to be low. The likelihood of occurrence in the project area is high as suitable natural prey species are still present in the area.
Parahyaena brunnea (Brown Hyaena) is endemic to southern Africa. This species occurs in dry areas, generally with annual rainfall less than 100 mm, particularly along the coast, semi- desert, open scrub and open woodland savanna. Given its known ability to persist outside of formally protected areas the likelihood of occurrence of this species in the project area is moderate to good. The presence of moderate to large herbivores on adjacent farms increases the likelihood of occurrence of this species.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 35 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Poecilogale albinucha (African Striped Weasel) is usually associated with savanna habitats, although it probably has a wider habitat tolerance (IUCN, 2017). Due to its secretive nature, it is often overlooked in many areas where it does occur. There is sufficient habitat for this species in the project area and the likelihood of occurrence of this species is therefore considered to be high.
8.1.2.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles & Amphibians)
8.1.2.4 Reptiles
Based on the IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) and the ReptileMap database provided by the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, 2017) twenty-eight (28) reptile species are expected to occur in the project area (Appendix D). No reptile species of conservation concern is expected to be present in the project area.
8.1.2.5 Amphibians
Based on the IUCN Red List Spatial Data (IUCN, 2017) and the AmphibianMap database provided by the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, 2017) fourteen (14) amphibian species are expected to occur in the project area (Appendix E).
One (1) amphibian species of conservation concern could be present in the project area according to the above-mentioned sources (Table 8).
Table 8: Herpetofaunal species of conservation concern which may occur in the project area
Conservation Status Likelihood Species Common Name of Regional IUCN (2017) Occurrence (SANBI, 2016) Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog NT LC Moderate
The Giant Bull Frog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) is a species of conservation concern that may possibly occur in the project area. The Giant Bull Frog is listed as NT on a regional scale. It is a species of drier savannahs. It is fossorial for most of the year, remaining buried in cocoons. They emerge at the start of the rains, and breed in shallow, temporary waters in pools, pans and ditches (IUCN, 2017). There appears to be some suitable habitat for this species in the project area and therefore the likelihood of occurrence is regarded as moderate.
8.1.3 Wetland Assessment
8.1.3.1 NFEPA Wetlands
The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (Nel et al. 2011) were used to determine the presence of NFEPA wetlands. Two (2)) wetland NFEPA types have been identified within the 500m regulation (reg) area, namely a portion of a depression (or pan) and a seep, see Figure 12. The seep is a dam and is regarded as an artifila wetland system and has not been considered for further ecological assessments.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 36 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Figure 12: Illustration of the NFEPA wetlands surrounding the prospecting area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 37 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
8.1.3.2 Inland Water Areas
The topographical layer from the “2726” quarter degree square was used during the desktop assessment to determine any additional areas that might indicate potential wet areas. This desktop data set indicated the presence of a “Dam” and “Non-Perennial pan” within the 500m regulation area, see Figure 13.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 38 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Free State Context
Figure 13: Inland water areas identified within range of the prospecting area. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 39 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
8.2 Field Survey The project area was ground-truthed on foot, where access could be be arranged with the contact details of the farm portion owners that were provided (Figure 14). Spot checks in pre- selected areas to validate desktop data were completed. Photographs were recorded during the site visits and some are provided under the results section in this report. All site photographs are available on request. Emphasis was placed on the areas that would be expected to be impacted by the prospecting boreholes.
Free State Context
Figure 14: Farm portions where access was possible duing the fieldwork.
8.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
The vegetation assessment was conducted throughout the extent of the project prospecting footprint. A total of 40 tree, shrub and herbaceous plant species were recorded in the project area during the field assessment (Table 9 and Figure 15). Alien/Exotic/Invader plant species appear in blue text, NEMBA Category 1 Plants in green text.
The plant species recorded in the below table are plants observed within the area while accessing the eight different bore hole locations. Two of the eight bore holes were placed in
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 40 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application agricultural fields that consisted of either Maize or Sunflower and did not contain any natural vegetation. The other six remaining bore holes were places in areas regarded as secondary grassland which have been disturbed due to continues grazing by cattle (Figure 14).
Table 9:Trees, shrubs and weeds recorded at the proposed project area Threat status Species SA Endemic Alien Category (SANBI, 2017) Not Indigenous; Amarathus hybridus Naturalised Ammocharis coranica LC No Aristida stipitata subsp. stipitata LC No Berkheya speciosa LC No Not Indigenous; Bidens pilosa Naturalised Chloris gayana LC No Commelina africana LC No Commelina livingstonii LC No Commicarpus pentandrus LC No Not Indigenous; Conyza bonariensis Naturalised Cymbopogon caesius LC No Cynodon dactylon NEMBA Category 2 Datura ferox NEMBA Category 1b
Digitaria eriantha LC No Echinochloa holubii LC No Eragrostis curvula LC No Eragrostis gummiflua LC No Eragrostis lehmanniana LC No Eragrostis superba LC No Felicia mericata LC No Not Indigenous; Gomphrena celosioides Naturalised Helichrysum rugulosum LC No Not Indigenous; Hibiscus trionum Naturalised Hilliardiella oligocephala LC No Hyparrhenia hirta LC No
Hypoxis argentea LC No Hypoxis iridifolia LC No Melinis repens LC No Not Indigenous; Schkuhria pinnata Naturalised Senecio inornatus LC No www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 41 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Setaria sphacelata var. torta LC No Sporobolus africanus LC No Stoebe plumosa Not Indigenous; Tagetes minuta Naturalised Themeda triandra LC No
Tribulus terrestris LC No Trichoneura grandiglumis LC No Verbena bonariensis NEMBA Category 1b CARA 2002/Category Xanthium spinosum 1b Ziziphus zeyheriana LC No
8.2.2 Alien and Invasive Plants
Declared weeds and invader plant species have the tendency to dominate or replace the canopy or herbaceous layer of natural ecosystems, thereby transforming the structure, composition and function of these systems. Therefore, it is important that these plants are controlled and eradicated by means of an eradication and monitoring programme. Some invader plants may also degrade ecosystems through superior competitive capabilities to exclude native plant species.
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) is the most recent legislation pertaining to alien invasive plant species. In August 2014, the list of Alien Invasive Species was published in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (Government Gazette No 78 of 2014). The Alien and Invasive Species Regulations were published in the Government Gazette No. 37886, 1 August 2014. The legislation calls for the removal and / or control of alien invasive plant species (Category 1 species). In addition, unless authorised thereto in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998), no land user shall allow Category 2 plants to occur within 30 meters of the 1:50 year flood line of a river, stream, spring, natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently, lake, dam or wetland. Category 3 plants are also prohibited from occurring within proximity to a watercourse.
Below is a brief explanation of the three categories in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA):
Category 1a: Invasive species requiring compulsory control. Remove and destroy. Any specimens of Category 1a listed species need, by law, to be eradicated from the environment. No permits will be issued.
Category 1b: Invasive species requiring compulsory control as part of an invasive species control programme. Remove and destroy. These plants are deemed to have such a high invasive potential that infestations can qualify to be placed under a
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 42 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application government sponsored invasive species management programme. No permits will be issued.
Category 2: Invasive species regulated by area. A demarcation permit is required to import, possess, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept as a gift any plants listed as Category 2 plants. No permits will be issued for Category 2 plants to exist in riparian zones.
Category 3: Invasive species regulated by activity. An individual plant permit is required to undertake any of the following restricted activities (import, possess, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept as a gift) involving a Category 3 species. No permits will be issued for Category 3 plants to exist in riparian zones. Note that according to the regulations, a person who has under his or her control a category 1b listed invasive species must immediately:
Notify the competent authority in writing
Take steps to manage the listed invasive species in compliance with:
o Section 75 of the Act;
o The relevant invasive species management programme developed in terms of regulation 4; and
o Any directive issued in terms of section 73(3) of the Act. Three (3) Category 1b invasive plant species were recorded within the project area and must therefore be removed by implementing an alien invasive plant management programme in compliance of section 75 of the Act as stated above. The NEMBA listed species identified within the project area are marked in green (Table 9).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 43 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Figure 15: Some of the flora species observed in the project area: A) Commicarpus pentandrus, B) Hypoxis hemerocallidea, C) Commelina livingstonii), D), E) Berkheya speciosa, and F) Ammocharis coranica
8.2.3 Fauna
8.2.3.1 Avifauna
Twenty-four (24) bird species were recorded in the project area during the February 2019 survey based on either direct observations, vocalisations, or the presence of visual tracks & signs (Table 10) (Figure 16). No SCC species were observed in the project areas, as the habitat is favourable the likelihood of finding SCC is still rated as high.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 44 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application Table 10: A list of avifaunal species recorded for the project area
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Afrotis afraoides Korhaan, Northern Black Unlisted LC Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian Unlisted LC Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey Unlisted LC Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed Unlisted LC Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda Unlisted LC Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted Unlisted LC Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Common Unlisted Unlisted Circaetus pectoralis Snake-eagle, Black-chested Unlisted LC Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled Unlisted LC Egretta garzetta Egret, Little Unlisted LC Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red Unlisted LC Euplectes progne Widowbird, Long-tailed Unlisted LC Falco naumanni Kestrel, Lesser Unlisted LC Hirundo spilodera Cliff-swallow, South African Unlisted LC Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) Unlisted LC Myrmecocichla formicivora Chat, Anteating Unlisted LC Ploceus velatus Masked-weaver, Southern Unlisted LC Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal Unlisted LC Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed Unlisted LC Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal Unlisted LC Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape Unlisted LC Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing Unlisted LC Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith Unlisted LC Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed Unlisted LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 45 Biodiversity and Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Application
Figure 16: Some of the avifauna found in the project area: A) Northern Black Korhaan (Afrotis afraoides), B)Black-headed Heron (Ardea melanocephala), C) South African Cliff Swallow (Hirundo spilodera), D) Long-tailed Widowbird (Euplectes progne), E) Black-chested Snake Eagle (Circaetus pectoralis), F) Blacksmith Lapwing (Vanellus armatus) and G) Southern Red Bishop (Euplectes orix)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 46 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.3.2 Mammals
Overall, mammal diversity in the project area was moderate, with seven (7) mammal species being recorded during the February 2019 survey based on direct observations, camera trap photographs and/or the presence of visual tracks & signs (Figure 17).
One species of SCC were observed in the project area, but due to the habitat type it is very likely that other SCC‟s could occur here as well.
Table 11: Mammal species recorded in the project area during the February 2019 survey
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal LC LC Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC LC Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC LC Leptailurus serval Serval NT LC Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog LC LC Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC LC Xerus inauris Cape Ground Squirrel LC LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 47 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 17: Some of the mammal species observed in the project area: A) Cape Porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis), B) Cape Ground Squirrel (Xerus inauris), C) Common Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), D) Common Duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), E) Yellow mongoose (Cynictis penicillata) and F) Black-backed Jackal (Canis mesomelas) www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 48 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.3.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles & Amphibians)
Herpetofauna diversity was considered to be low with no reptiles and no amphibians being observed or recorded in the project area during the February 2019 survey. It is likely that the species are absent due to the disturbed nature of the area and the large amount of agriculture that is taking place in the areas surrounding the prospecting boreholes.
8.2.4 Wetlands
8.2.4.1 Wetland Delineation and Description
The wetland areas were delineated in accordance with the DWAF (2005) guidelines. The extent of the delineated wetland areas is presented in Figure 19. During the field survey, three (3) depressions (pans) and one dam were identified. The dam is regarded as an artificial system and not ecological assessments were completed for the system. Ecological assessments were only undertaken for the depression systems.
These depressions mainly collect water from overland flow after high rainfall events and store water for extended periods due to the nature of the hydromorphic soils making up the wetland area‟s soil profiles.
Figure 18: Evidence of HGM units identified for the project. A: HGM 1, B: HGM 2, C: HGM 3 & D: The dam
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 49 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
HGM 2
HGM 1
HGM 3
Free State Context
Figure 19: Delineation of wetlands within project area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 50 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.4.2 Wetland Unit Identification
The wetland classification as per SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013) is presented in Table 12. One wetland type, consisting of three HGM units was identified within the project assessment boundary, namely a depression.
Table 12: Wetland classification as per SANBI guideline (Ollis et al. 2013)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Wetland DWS NFEPA Wet Veg Landscape System System 4A 4B 4C Ecoregion/s Group/s Unit Dry Highveld Without HGM 1 Inland Highveld Grassland Group Bench Depression Endoheric channelled 3 inflow
8.2.4.3 Wetland Unit Setting
The depressions, as mentioned in Table 12, are located on the “bench” landscape unit. Depressions are inward draining basins with an enclosing topography which allows for water to accumulate within the system. Depressions, in some cases, are also fed by lateral sub- surface flows in cases where the dominant geology allows for these types of flows. Figure 20 presents a diagram of depressions, showing the dominant movement of water into, through and out of the system.
Figure 20: Amalgamated diagram of depressions, highlighting the dominant water inputs, throughputs and outputs, SANBI guidelines (Ollis et al. 2013)
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 51 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.4.4 Wetland Indicators
According to (DWAF, 2005), soils are the most important characteristic of wetlands in order to accurately identify and delineate wetland areas. During the survey, a Sepane soil form was identified within the depressions. The Sepane soil form is indicative of seasonal / temporary wetland zones (DWAF, 2005). The prospecting area was dominated by the Swartland (Figure 21) soil form.This soil form consists of an Orthic A-horizon on top of a Pedocutanic B-horizon which in turn is underlain by saprolite layer. The soil family group identified for the Swartland soil form on-site has been classified as the Gemvale (1121) soil family due to the non-calcareous nature of the soil profile as well as the fact that the top soil has not been leached. Additionally, this soil form is characterised by medium sized, rough grained peds and lacks red colours.
Orthic-A horizons are called “normal” soils given the fact that this soil horizon does not have any diagnostic properties pertaining to other diagnostic soil horizons. The Orthic A-horizon does not have specific characteristics regarding colour, texture, base status etc. due to this diagnostic soil horizon‟s wide range throughout South African Landscapes.
A Pedocutanic B-horizon has a well-developed blocky structure as well as a high concentration of clay due to illuvial processes leaching clay particles to the B-horizon. For red Pedocutanic B-horizons, an abrupt transition between the B-horizon and the Orthic A- horizon can be expected.
A saprolite layer is characterised by in-situ weathered conditions which results in a soft matrix that typically includes sections of mafic/ultramafic rocks and minerals that are not weatherable by chemical processes.
Figure 21: Example of a Swartland soil form, (SASA, 1999).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 52 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.4.5 General Functional Description
According to (Kotze et al. 2008), the generally impermeable nature of depressions and their inward draining features are the main reasons why the streamflow regulation ability of these systems is mediocre. Regardless of the nature of depressions in regard to trapping all sediments entering the system, sediment trapping is another ecosystem service that is not deemed as one of the essential services provided by depressions, even though some systems might contribute to a lesser extent. The reason for this phenomenon is due to winds picking up sediments within pans during dry seasons which ultimately leads to the removal of these sediments and the deposition thereof elsewhere. The assimilation of nitrates, toxicants and phosphates are some of the higher rated ecosystem services for depressions. This latter statement can be explained by continues precipitation and dissolving of minerals and other contaminants during dry and wet seasons respectively, (Kotze et al., 2009).
It is however important to note that the descriptions of the above-mentioned functions are merely typical expectations. All wetland systems have different properties and therefore, the ecosystem services rated high for these systems on site might differ slightly to those expectations.
8.2.4.6 Wetland Ecological Functional Assessment
The ecosystem services provided by the wetlands identified on site were assessed and rated using the WET-EcoServices method (Kotze et al. 2008). The summarised results for HGM units are illustrated in Table 13. The average ecosystem services score has been determined to be “Intermediate” for HGM 2. HGM 1 and HGM 3 both scored “Low” with regards to average ecosystem services. HGM 2 is recorded to be the “best” functioning system, the majority of the indirect services providing intermediate to moderately high levels of importance.
Table 13: The ecosystem services provided by the HGM units Wetland Unit HGM 1 HGM 2 HGM 3
Flood attenuation 0.6 1.5 0.5
Streamflow regulation 0.6 0.8 0.6
Sediment trapping 1.2 1.8 0.6
Water Quality Phosphate assimilation 1.2 2.3 1.0 enhancement Nitrate assimilation 0.6 1.8 0.6 benefits benefits Toxicant assimilation 0.7 1.9 0.6
IndirectBenefits Erosion control 0.7 2.4 0.8
Carbon storage 0.6 1.3 0.6 Regulating and supportingRegulating and
Biodiversity maintenance 0.1 1.9 0.6
Provisioning of water for human use 0.0 0.0 0.3 Provisioning of harvestable resources 0.1 0.0 0.0
benefits Provisioning of cultivated foods 0.1 0.0 0.0 Provision
Cultural heritage 0.0 0.0 0.0 DirectBenefits
Ecosystem Services Supplied byWetlands Supplied EcosystemServices Tourism and recreation 0.0 1.2 0.0 Cultural benefits Education and research 0.0 1.1 0.0 Overall 6.5 18.0 5.8 Average Eco Services Score 0.4 1.2 0.4
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 53 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.4.7 The Ecological Health Assessment
The PES for the assessed HGM units presented in Table 14. The hydrology component for units ranges from “Largely Natural” to “Large Modified”. The primary contributor to the impaired hydrology is mainly due to the extent of bare areas within the wetland‟s catchment. The geomorphological component of this HGM units has been rated from “Largely Natural” to “Moderately Modified” with changes a result of trampling caused by livestock and also changes in run-off characteristics. The vegetation component also ranges from “Largely Natural” to “Largely Modified” with impacts a result of field encroachment into catchment areas, grazing of livestock and the establishment of alien vegetation within these systems. The overall PES for the HGM units has been determined to be “Largely Natural” for HGM 2 and “Largely Modified” for HGM 1 and HGM 3.
Table 14: Summary of the scores for the wetland PES
Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Wetland Area (ha) Rating Score Rating Score Largely Modretely Largely HGM 1 0.29 5.2 3.5 5.8 Modified Modified Modified Overall PES Score 4.9 Overall PES Class Largely Modified Largely Largely HGM 2 18.2 1.3 Largely Natural 1.6 1.6 Natural Natural Overall PES Score 1.5 Overall PES Class Largely Natural Largely Modretely Largely HGM 3 1.91 4.8 3.5 5.5 Modified Modified Modified Overall PES Score 4.6 Overall PES Class Largely Modified
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 54 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 22: Crop fields within the HGM unit’s catchment
8.2.4.8 The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity
The wetland EIS assessment was applied to the HGM units described in the previous section in order to assess the levels of sensitivity and ecological importance of the wetland. The results of the assessment are shown in Table 15.
For HGM 1 and HGM 3, a “Moderate” EIS score has been determined to be applicable. A “High” EIS score was determined for HGM 2. “Low” and “Moderate” hydrological/functional importance scores were determined for HGM1 / HGM £ and HGM 2 respectively. A “Low” direct human benefits score has been calculated for all three HGM units given the lack of provisioning functions provided by the systems.
Table 15: The EIS results for the delineated HGM units Importance Wetland Importance & Sensitivity HGM 1 HGM 2 HGM 3 Ecological importance and sensitivity 1.2 2.7 1.2 Hydrological/functional importance 0.8 1.7 0.7 Direct human benefits 0.1 0.3 0.1
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 55 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
8.2.4.9 Buffer Requirements
The “Preliminary Guideline for the Determination of Buffer Zones for Rivers, Wetlands and Estuaries” (Macfarlane et al. 2014) was used to determine the appropriate buffer zone for the proposed activity. Wetland areas have been confirmed within the 500m regulation area. The threats calculated by means of the latter mentioned tool is illustrated in Table 16. None of the threats posed by the proposed activity are expected to exceed “Low” significance, which has therefore ensured a conservative buffer of 15m for the proposed exploration activities.
In accordance with the buffer zone guidelines for wetlands, rivers and estuaries (Macfarlane and Bredin, 2017) a minimum buffer width of 15m and 10m is recommended for prospecting and exploratory drilling. This is based on the assumption that there will be a commitment to rehabilitate and manage buffer zones to ensure that these areas function optimally. Additional mitigation measures would also typically need to be implemented to reduce some of the key threats that pose a risk to water resources.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 56 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Table 16: Buffer determination- Threats posed by the proposed exploration activities
Threat Posed by the proposed land use / activity Specialist Rating Refined Class Alteration to surface runoff flow volumes Very Low Very Low Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) Very Low Very Low
Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity Low Low
Increased nutrient inputs Very Low Very Low Phase Inputs of toxic organic contaminants Very Low Very Low Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants Low Low Alteration of acidity (pH) Very Low Very Low
Construction Increased inputs of salts (salinization) N/A N/A Change (elevation) of water temperature Low Low Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) Very Low Very Low Alteration to flow volumes Low Low Alteration of patterns of flows (increased flood peaks) Low Low
Increase in sediment inputs & turbidity Low Low Increased nutrient inputs Very Low Very Low Inputs of toxic organic contaminants Low Low Inputs of toxic heavy metal contaminants Low Low Alteration of acidity (pH) Low Low
Operational Phase Increased inputs of salts (salinization) Low Low Change (elevation) of water temperature Low Low Pathogen inputs (i.e. disease-causing organisms) Very Low Very Low
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 57 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 23: Wetland buffer requirements www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 58 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 9 Potential Impacts
9.1 Methodology Potential impacts were evaluated against the data captured during the fieldwork to identify relevance to the project area, specifically the proposed prospecting footprint. The relevant impacts were then subjected to a prescribed impact assessment methodology (as provided by the client, Shango). The details of this methodology can be provided on request.
Impacts were assessed in terms of the construction, operational, decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure phases. The operational phase refers to that phase of the project where the prospecting is being conducted and once complete, the decommissioning phase will begin. Mitigation measures were only applied to impacts deemed relevant based on the impact analysis.
9.2 Purpose and Scope The standard impact assessment methodology may be used in the capture of generic anticipated impacts and potential mitigation measures for Basic Assessment Reports and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports. The methodology described herein complies with the requirements of the EIA Regulations (2014), promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). The methodology of impact assessment described herein must be used in relation to the Impact Assessment Rating Matrix Tool (as provided by the client).
9.3 Current Impacts During the field survey, the current impacts that are having a negative impact on the area were identified, and are listed below (Figure 24);
Extensive agriculture;
Presence of alien and invasive plant species;
Secondary roads with the associated noise disturbance, road mortalities and litter;
Power lines within the vicinity of the project area; and
Livestock (predominantly free ranging cattle).
Key impacts commonly associated with prospecting activities on terrestrial biodiversity and wetlands are discussed below. The listed activities are merely indicative, and the proposed developments may either have additional or fewer activities depending on the circumstances. It should be noted that these categories, with associated impact descriptions is not exhaustive, and more impacts may be identified at a later stage as more information becomes available.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 59 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 24: Some of the current impacts observed in the project area: A) Cattle, B) Agricultural fields, C) Invasive plant species and D) invasive plant species as well as electrical ESKOM servitudes
9.4 Identification of Additional Impacts The proposed development is associated with the prospecting activities, namely the drilling of boreholes. The proposed construction may result in loss and disturbance of habitats and displacement of fauna and flora as well as the (partial) loss or degradation of wetlands.
The removal of natural vegetation to accommodate prospecting will reduce the habitat available for fauna species and may reduce animal populations and species compositions within the area.
Land clearing destroys local wildlife habitat and can lead to the loss of local breeding grounds, nesting sites and wildlife movement corridors such as rivers, streams and drainage lines, or other locally important features.
The potential impacts associated with the various project stages are discussed below.
9.4.1 Construction Phase
The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:
Loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of an Endangered vegetation type and a CBA1 area); Potential impacts on faunal communities include: www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 60 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Displacement of faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to habitat loss, disturbance, poaching (due to increased human presence) and/or direct mortalities.
Potential impacts on wetlands:
Degradation and partial loss of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activties; and
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals.
9.4.2 Operational Phase
The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:
Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Endangered vegetation community by alien invasive plant species and on-going erosion; and
Potential leaks, discharges, litter, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment. Potential impacts on faunal communities include:
Continued displacement and fragmentation of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching).
Potential impacts on wetlands include:
Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies; and
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals.
9.4.3 Decommissioning
The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:
Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Endangered vegetation community as well as a CBA1 area by alien invasive plant species; Potential impacts on faunal communities include:
Continued displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching).
Potential impacts on wetlands include:
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 61 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies; and
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals.
9.4.4 Rehab and Closure
The following potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities:
Encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and Endangered vegetation community as well as a CBA1 area by alien invasive plant species and potential re- establishment of natural species that were removed. The nature of the erosion will depend on the amount of successful vegetation establishment. Potential impacts on faunal communities include:
Displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due to rehabilitation of the anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation, rehabilitation resulting in the faunal species potentially re-establishing within the area.
Potential impacts on wetlands include:
Rehabilitating degraded wetland areas (including catchment) to such a degree that functionality of these wetlands is fully restored. 10 Assessment of Significance
10.1 Construction Phase Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 17 and Figure 25. Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna can be seen in Table 18 and Figure 26 whereas that of the wetlands are illustrated in Table 19 to Table 20 and Figure 27 to Figure 28.
Table 17: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation
Loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of an EN Impact Name vegetation type and a CBA1 area), and the possibility of soil erosion. Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 62 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00
Figure 25: Radar indicting the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for vegetation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 63 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 18: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna
Displacement of faunal community (including threatened or protected species) due Impact Name to habitat loss, disturbance, poaching (due to increased human presence) and/or direct mortalities. Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 2 3 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 1 2 2 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 64 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 26: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for fauna Table 19: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Degradation or partial loss of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting Impact Name activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 2 Probability 4 3 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8.00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -5.25 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 65 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikley that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cummulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1.00 Final Significance -5.25
Figure 27: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 20: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals
Alternative 0 Phase Construction Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 66 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,25 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 67 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 28: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the construction phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
10.2 Operational Phase Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 21, Table 22, Figure 29 and Figure 30 whereas that of wetlands are illustrated in Table 24 to Table 25 and Figure 32 Figure 33.
Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna can be seen in Table 23 and Figure 31.
Table 21: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and EN vegetation Impact Name community as well as a CBA1 area by alien invasive plant species and on-going erosion. Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 4 2
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 68 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Reversibility of Extent of Impact 3 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 3 2 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -12,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50
Figure 29: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 69 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 22: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for vegetation and potential leaks, discharges, pollutant from development into the surrounding environment
Potential leaks, discharges, litter, pollutant from development into the Impact Name surrounding environment. Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 4 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -11,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 70 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 30: Radar indicating vegetation and potential impacts of leaks, discharges, pollutant from the development into the surrounding environment Table 23: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna
Continued displacement and fragmentation of the faunal community (including Impact Name threatened or protected species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching). Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 2 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 71 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,50
Figure 31: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for fauna Table 24: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Degradation or partial loss of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting Impact Name activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Operation Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 72 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 5 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9,75 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 73 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 32: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 25: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals Alternative 0 Phase Operational Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9.00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4.00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 74 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4.00
Figure 33: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the operational phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
10.3 Decommissioning Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 26 and Figure 34.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 75 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna can be seen in Table 27 and Figure 35 and in Table 28 to Table 29 and Figure 36 to Figure 37 for wetlands.
Table 26: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation
Continued encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and EN vegetation Impact Name community as well as a CBA1 area by alien invasive plant species. Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 4 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 3 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -11,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 76 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 34: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for vegetation Table 27: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna
Continued displacement of the faunal community (including threatened or protected Impact Name species) due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances and habitat degradation (litter, road mortalities and/or poaching). Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 2 1 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 1 2 2 Impact Impact Duration of 1 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -7,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -2,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 77 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -2,50
Figure 35: Radar indicating pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for fauna Table 28: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands)
Impact Name Degradation of wetlands caused by the prospecting and supporting activtiies Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of -1 -1 Magnitude of 5 2 www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 78 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9.00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 79 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 36: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (direct loss of wetlands) Table 29: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
Degradation of wetland areas due to spills and leaks, failing ablution facilities and Impact Name pollution from domestic waste and stored chemicals Alternative 0 Phase Decommissioning Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute Pre-mitigation Post-mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Magnitude of -1 -1 4 2 Impact Impact Extent of Reversibility of 2 2 3 3 Impact Impact Duration of 2 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -8,25 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -4.00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 80 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -4.00
Figure 37: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the decommissioning phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands)
10.4 Rehab and Closure Assessment of significance on the potential impacts were considered on terrestrial vegetation communities pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation can be seen in Table 30 and Figure 38.
Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna can be seen in Table 31 and Figure 39 and in Table 32 and Figure 40. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 81 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Table 30: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation
Encroachment and displacement of an indigenous and EN vegetation community Impact Name as well as a CBA1 area by alien invasive plant species and potential re- establishment of natural species that were removed. Alternative 0 Phase Rehab and closure Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 3 2 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 4 1 3 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -13,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -3,00 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -3,00
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 82 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 38: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for vegetation Table 31: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna
Displacement of the faunal community due to rehabilitation of the anthropogenic Impact Name disturbances and habitat degradation, rehabilitation resulting in the faunal species potentially re-establishing within the area. Alternative 0 Phase Rehab and closure Environmental Risk Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 2 1 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 4 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -9,00 Mitigation Measures See section 12 Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -2,50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 83 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cumulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1,00 Final Significance -2,50
Figure 39: Radar indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehab and closure phase for fauna Table 32: Assessment of significance pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands
Rehabilitating degraded wetland areas (including catchment) to such a degree that Impact Name functionality of these wetlands is fully restored
Alternative 0 Phase Rehab and closure Environmental Risk www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 84 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Attribute Attribute mitigation mitigation mitigation mitigation Nature of Impact -1 -1 Magnitude of Impact 3 1 Reversibility of Extent of Impact 2 1 2 2 Impact Duration of 3 1 Probability 3 2 Impact Environmental Risk (Pre-mitigation) -7.50 Mitigation Measures
Environmental Risk (Post-mitigation) -2.50 Degree of confidence in impact prediction: High Impact Prioritisation Public Response 1
Low: Issue not raised in public responses
Cumulative Impacts 1 Considering the potential incremental, interactive, sequential, and synergistic cumulative impacts, it is unlikley that the impact will result in spatial and temporal cummulative change. Degree of potential irreplaceable loss of resources 1
The impact is unlikely to result in irreplaceable loss of resources.
Prioritisation Factor 1.00 Final Significance -2.50
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 85 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Figure 40: Radar Indicating the impact pre-and post-mitigation for the rehabilitation and closure phase for wetlands (degradation of wetlands) 11 Impact Assessment Results
The qualitative impact assessment results with mitigation measures is available on request as a comprehensive Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
From the summary it is clear that the overall environmental significant rating is „Low Negative‟ without mitigation for the construction phases of the project, and this remains at a significance „Low Negative‟ for all of the listed activities following the implementation of mitigation measures and recommendations.
During the operational phase of the project, two listed activities are considered to pose a „Medium Negative‟ risk without mitigation. Some of the impacts considered for the operational phase of the project could be mitigated, and the significance rating decreases to a „Low Negative‟ risk level.
Similarly, as for the operational phase, selected impacts anticipated for the decommissioning, closure and rehabilitation phase could be mitigated and the significance decreases to a „Low Negative‟ for all the listed activities.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 86 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 12 Mitigation Measures
12.1 Mitigation Measure Objectives The focus of mitigation measures should be to broadly reduce the significance of potential impacts associated with the prospecting and thereby to:
Further loss and fragmentation of the vegetation community (including portions of an EN vegetation type and a CBA1 area). Possible erosion due to the loss of the vegetation layer is included;
Prevent the loss of the faunal community (including the recorded and potentially occurring species of conservation concern) associated with this vegetation community; and
Prevent the degradation and los of wetland systems and the associated ecological services.
12.1.1 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Vegetation Communities & CBAs
From an ecological perspective the development is situated within areas that are already disturbed. Although somewhat disturbed, it has been shown that these areas support some faunal species, including SCC and there is a moderate likelihood that other SCC may occur here.
Recommended mitigation and rehabilitation measures include the following:
As far as possible, the proposed prospecting (including access routes) should be placed in areas that have already been disturbed (i.e. existing roads and agricultural fields), and no further loss or degradation of primary or large areas of secondary vegetation should be permitted;
It is recommended that areas to be prospected be specifically demarcated so that during the construction phase, only the demarcated areas be impacted upon (including temporarily demarcating the defined project area) and preventing movement of workers into surrounding natural areas;
Areas of indigenous vegetation, even secondary communities, should under no circumstances be fragmented, disturbed further or used as an area for dumping of waste or litter;
Due to the sensitivity of the soil layer and the associated risk of erosion, any access roads that may be built, should (if possible) be constructed during the dry season and ideally all prospecting should occur only in this season in order to prevent run-off and erosion;
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 87 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Any areas of natural, indigenous vegetation should be declared a „no-go‟ area during the construction and operational phases and all efforts must be made to prevent access to this area from construction workers, machinery, domestic animals and the general public;
Where possible, existing access routes and walking paths must be made use of, and new routes limited;
All laydown, storage areas etc should be restricted to the degraded areas, i.e agricultural areas;
A qualified environmental control officer must be on site when construction begins to identify SCCs that will be directly disturbed and to relocate fauna/flora that is found during construction;
Rehabilitation must include re-filling or capping of boreholes, and the area must be re- vegetated with plant and grass species which are endemic to this vegetation type; and
Alien invasive management plan needs to be implemented for the areas surrounding the boreholes and the access roads.
12.1.2 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Faunal Communities
Recommended mitigation and rehabilitation measures for faunal community‟s hinge largely on protecting their habitats and ensuring it remains intact.
12.1.2.1 Important Faunal Mitigation Measure:
Serval was recorded in the project area and is likely to be disturbed by the development. This NT species will likely move out of the area by itself but as an added mitigation to ensure it and other species are out of the area before construction takes place a team should walk through the borehole prospecting area to ensure this species has moved out of the area.
In additional to this the following measures are recommended:
Prior and during vegetation clearance any larger fauna species noted should be given the opportunity to move away from the construction machinery;
Fauna species such as frogs and reptiles that have not moved away should be carefully and safely removed to a suitable location beyond the extent of the development footprint by a suitably qualified ECO trained in the handling and relocation of animals;
Temporary signage should be erected around the project area to prevent workers and members of the public from entering the surrounding farm portions and environments;
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 88 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Waste management must be a priority and all waste must be collected and stored adequately. It is recommended that all waste be removed from site on a weekly basis to prevent rodents and pests entering the site;
No trapping, killing, poaching, snaring or poisoning of any wildlife is to be allowed on site, including snakes, birds, snakes, lizards, frogs, insects or mammals; and
Construction activities and vehicles could cause spillages of lubricants, fuels and construction material. All vehicles and equipment must be maintained, and all re-fuelling and servicing of equipment is to take place in demarcated areas outside of the project area.
12.1.3 Mitigation Measures for Impacts on Wetlands
12.1.3.1 Impact Specific Mitigation Measures
Drilling of holes;
Ensure that the drilling and supporting aspects avoid the wetland and buffer areas.
Compaction via heavy vehicles and drill rigs;
Rip all compacted areas within the drilling footprint areas; and
Revegetate the ripped areas with indigenous grass species.
Ablution facilities;
Ensure that hygienic and functioning temporary ablution facilities are present on site;
Ensure that all ablution facilities on-site be cleaned regularly;
Monitor all ablution facilities daily to ensure that no leaks take pace; and
Establish an area suitable for such ablution facilities outside of the recommended buffer zone.
Storage of waste material, chemicals and fuel;
Laydown yards, camps and storage areas must be beyond the 15m buffer zone. Where possible;
All chemicals and toxicants to be used for the construction must be stored outside the recommended buffer zone and in a bunded area;
No dumping of construction material on-site may take place; and
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 89 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application All waste generated on-site during construction must be adequately managed. Separation and recycling of different waste materials should be supported.
Domestic and industrial waste;
Store all relevant waste material in bunded areas outside the recommended buffer zones; and
Ensure that waste material be removed weekly.
Spills and leaks;
All machinery and equipment should be inspected regularly for faults and possible leaks, these should be serviced off-site;
The contractors used for the project should have spill kits available to ensure that any fuel or oil spills are clean-up and discarded correctly; and
Have action plans on site, and training for contactors and employees in the event of spills, leaks and other impacts to the aquatic systems.
Backfilling material;
Store all excavated material in safe storage yards outside of the recommended buffer zones; and
Backfill the relevant material to such an extent that a heap of excess soil is available on top of the drilled cavity. This will ensure that the cavity is continuously filled during subsidence.
12.1.3.2 General Mitigation Measures
The following general mitigation measures are provided:
Prevent uncontrolled access of vehicles through the water resources;
All contractors and employees should undergo induction which is to include a component of environmental awareness. The induction is to include aspects such as the need to avoid littering, the reporting and cleaning of spills and leaks and general good “housekeeping”; and
Any exposed earth or holes should be rehabilitated promptly by re-fillig with soil and by planting suitable vegetation (vigorous indigenous grasses) to protect the exposed soil.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 90 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 13 Conclusion
From an ecological perspective the proposed prospecting developments are situated predominantly within disturbed and semi-disturbed habitats. Although somewhat disturbed, it is believed these areas may still support some faunal species and there is a moderate likelihood that SCC may occur there. Wetland depressions are located within the 500m assessment regulation area which represent further sensitive areas.
The proposed development is associated with prospecting activities, namely the drilling of eight boreholes in the areas identified in this report. The proposed activities will result in limited direct loss and destruction of habitats (including an Endangered vegetation type, ecosystem and Critical Biodiversity Area), possible direct mortalities and displacement of fauna and flora. Due to the already disturbed nature of the prospecting areas and the distance from the proposed activities to the delineated wetlands, the impact on flora and fauna in the area is regarded as low to low-negative. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures and recommendations in this report must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the impacts associated with the proposed prospecting will remain at a low-negative level.
In the event that environmental authorisation is issued for this project, proven ecological (or environmental) controls and mitigation measures must be entrenched in the management framework.
The following further conclusions regarding biodiversity were reached based on the results of this assessment:
According to the Free State Terrestrial CBA Plan, six of the proposed prospecting areas are situated areas which are classified as „ESA2‟. The two remaining borehole sites are situated in an area which is classified as „CBA 1‟. Both these areas have been extensively altered from their natural condition, mostly due to agricultural transformation of the landscape as well as cattle grazing;
The proposed project area was superimposed on the terrestrial ecosystem threat status. As seen in the project area according to the NBA (2011) falls entirely within one ecosystem, which is listed as EN;
The project area was superimposed on the ecosystem protection level map to assess the protection status of terrestrial ecosystems associated with the development. Based on this data the terrestrial ecosystems associated with the proposed project area are rated as not protected.
There are no true-FEPA wetlands or rivers were identified within the project area or adjacent to any of the proposed prospecting areas;
According to the Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines (2013), six of the boreholes fall within an area categorised as Highest Biodiversity area www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 91 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application The eight prospecting sites are situated entirely within one vegetation type, the Vaal Vet Sandy Grassland vegetation type this vegetation type is classified as EN.
The following further conclusions regarding wetlands were reached based on the results of this assessment:
One HGM type, comprising three (3) HGMunist were identified within the 500m regulation area, namely a depression;
These depressions are endorheic without channelled inflow and are located on benches where run-off water tends to accumulate;
The PES for the assessed HGM units ranges from "Largely Natural" to "Large Modified"; and
The wetland EIS ranged from "Moderate" to "High"; and
"Low" direct human benefits scores were calculated for all three HGM units given the lack of provisioning functions provided by the systems.
It is recommended that the prospecting hole CD05 be relocated to beyond the 15m buffer zone determined for the HGM 3 wetland area.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 92 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application 14 References
ADU (Animal Demography Unit). (2017). Virtual Museum.(Accessed: Feb 2018).
Alexander, G. & Marais, J. (2007). A guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.
Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J & de Villiers, M.S. (Eds). (2014). Atlas and Red List of Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
BGIS. (Biodiversity GIS) (2017). http://bgis.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: June 2018).
BirdLife (2017). Important Bird Areas Factsheet: Chelmsford Dam Nature Reserve. http://www.birdlife.org (Accessed: June 2018).
Bonn Convention (1979). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. www.cms.int/sites/default/files/instrument/CMS-text.en_.PDF (Accessed: June 2018).
BODATSA-POSA (2016). Plants of South Africa - an online checklist. POSA ver. 3.0. http://newposa.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: June 2018).
Branch, W.R. (1998) Field Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.
CBD (convention on Biological Diversity). (1993). https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. (Accessed: June 2018).
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) (1973). www.cites.org. (Accessed: June 2018).
DEA. (2015). National land cover data for SA. https://egis.environment.gov.za/national_land_cover_data_sa (Accessed: June 2018).
Del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A., Fishpool, L.D.C., Boesman, P. & Kirwan, G.M. (1996). HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 2: Passerines. Lynx Editions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) 2005. Final draft: A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and Riparian areas.
Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J., Funke, N. (2011). Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 93 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Du Preez, & Carruthers, V. (2009) A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Eskom (2015). Taylor MR, Peacock F, Wanless RM (Eds). The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
EWT. (2016). Mammal Red List 2016. www.ewt.org.za (Accessed: June 2018).
Fish, L., Mashau, A.C., Moeaha, M.J., Nembudani, M.T. (2015). Identification Guide to Southern African Grasses: An Identification Manual with Keys, Descriptions, and Distributions. SANBI, Pretoria.
FrogMap (2017). The Southern African Frog Atlas Project (SAFAP, now FrogMAP). http://vmus.adu.org.za (Accessed in May 2016).
Griffiths, C., Day, J. & Picker, M. (2016). Freshwater Life: A Field Guide to the Plants and Animals of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryan, P.G. (Eds). (2005). Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of thfiguree John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
Hockey, P.A.R., Dean, W.R.J. & Ryna, P.G. (eds.) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org (Accessed: November 2017).
Johnson, S. & Bytebier, B. (2015). Orchids of South Africa: A Field Guide. Struik publishers, Cape Town.
Kotze DC, Marneweck GC, Batchelor AL, Lindley DC, Collins NB. 2008. A Technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. Mondi Wetland Project.
Land Type Survey Staff. (1972 - 2006). Land Types of South Africa: Digital Map (1:250 000 Scale) and Soil Inventory Databases. Pretoria: ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate, and Water.
Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. Goge, C. (2008). WET-Health, A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health.
Macfarlane, D.M., Dickens, J. & Von Hase, F. (2009). Development of a methodology to determine the appropriate buffer zone width and type for developments associated with wetlands, watercourses and estuaries.
Macfarlane, D.M., Dickens, J. and Von Hase, F. (2009). Development of a methodology to determine the appropriate buffer zone width and type for developments associated with wetlands, watercourses and estuaries Deliverable 1: Literature Review. INR Report No: 400/09.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 94 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Macfarlane, D.M. and Bredin, I. (2017). Buffer zone guidelines for rivers, wetlands and estuaries. Part 1: Technical manual. WRC Report No. TT 715-1-17.
MammalMap (2017). http://mammalmap.adu.org.za/ (Accessed: June 2018).
Measey, G.J. (2011). Ensuring a Future for South Africa's Frogs: A Strategy for Conservation Research. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Minter, L., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kloepfer, D. (2004). Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Smithsonian Institute Avian Demography Unit, Washington; Cape Town.
Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Coterrill, F.D.P. & Schoeman, C. (2010). Bats of southern and central Africa: a biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.
Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.). (2006). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelizia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria South African.
Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. & Powrie, L.W. (Eds.). (2007). Vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1:1 000 000 scale sheet maps. 2nd ed. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
NBA. (2011). Terrestrial Formal Protected Areas. http://bgis.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: August 2017).
NBA. (2012). Terrestrial Ecosystem Threat Status 2012. http://bgis.sanbi.org/. (Accessed: September 2017)
NBF (2009). National Biodiversity Framework. www.environment.gov.za (Accessed: June 2018).
Nel, J. L., Driver, A., Strydom, W. F., Maherry, A. M., Petersen, C. P., Hill, L., Roux, D. J., Nienaber, S., van Deventer, H., Swartz, E. R. and Smith-Adao, L. B. (2011). Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: Maps to support sustainable development of water resources, WRC Report No. TT 500/11. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
NPAES (2011). National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy. www.environment.gov.za (Accessed: June 2018).
Ollis DJ, Snaddon CD, Job NM, and Mbona N. 2013. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. User Manual: Inland Systems. SANBI Biodiversity Series 22. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Pooley, E. (1998): A Field Guide to Wild Flowers: KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Region. The Flora Publications Trust; ABC Bookshop, Durban.
Raimonde, D. (2009). Red list of South African Plants. SANBI, Pretoria.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 95 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application RAMSAR. (1971). The RAMSAR convention. www.ramsar.org (Accessed: June 2018).
Rautenbach, A., Dickerson, T. & Schoeman, M.C. (2014). Diversity of rodent and shrew assemblages in different vegetation types of the savannah biome in South Africa: no evidence for nested subsets or competition. African Journal of Ecology, 52:30-40.
Rountree MW, Malan H and Weston B (editors). 2012. Manual for the Rapid Ecological Reserve Determination of Inland Wetlands (Version 2.0). Joint Department of Water Affairs/Water Research Commission Study. Report No XXXXXXXXX. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
SABAP2 (Bird Atlas Project). (2018). http://vmus.adu.org.za/. Accessed: June 2018.
SANBI. (2010). SANBI Biodiversity Series 14: National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for 2008. www.sanbi.org/documents/sanbi-biodiversity-series-14-national-protected-area- expansion-strategy-for-2008/ (Accessed: June 2018).
SANBI. (2013). Grassland Ecosystem Guidelines: landscape interpretation for planners and managers. http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org (Accessed: June 2018).
SANBI. (2016). Red List of South African Plants version 2017.1. Redlist.sanbi.org (Accessed: August 2018).
SANBI. (2017). Technical guidelines for CBA Maps: Guidelines for developing a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas & Ecological Support Areas using systematic biodiversity planning. Driver, A., Holness, S. & Daniels, F. (Eds). 1st Edition. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
SARCA (2018). South African Reptile Conservation Assessment. http://sarca.adu.org.za/ (Accessed: June 2018).
Skinner J.D. & Chimimba, C.T. (2005). The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (New Edition). Cambridge University Press. South Africa.
Soil Classification Working Group. (1991). Soil Classification A Taxonomic system for South Africa. Pretoria: The Department of Agricultural Development.
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).
Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. (1994). A field guide to the tracks and signs of Southern, Central East African Wildlife. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Taylor, P. (1998). The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press, Durban.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 96 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. & Wanless, R.M. (Eds). (2015). The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2004). Gids tot die grasse van Suider-Afrika. Second Edition. Briza Publikasies, Pretoria.
Van Wyk, B. & Van Wyk, P. (1997). Field guide to trees of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
Van Wyk, B. & Malan, S. (1997). Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld: Also Useful in Adjacent Grassland and Bushveld, Struik Publishers, Cape Town.
Van Wyk, B-E., Van Oudtshoorn, B. & Gericke, N. (2013). Medicinal Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria.
Van Wyk, B-E. & Smith, G.F. (2014). Guide to the Aloes of South Africa. Briza Publishers, Pretoria.
UNFCC. (1994). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. (Accessed: June 2018).
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 97 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX A: Floral species expected to occur in the project area
Family Taxon Author IUCN Ecology Euphorbiaceae Acalypha angustata Sond. LC Indigenous Acanthospermum Not Indigenous; Naturalised Asteraceae glabratum (DC.) Wild Amaranthaceae Aerva leucura Moq. LC Indigenous Agrostis lachnantha var. LC Indigenous Poaceae lachnantha Nees Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Not Indigenous; Naturalised Andropogon LC Indigenous Poaceae appendiculatus Nees Poaceae Anthephora pubescens Nees LC Indigenous Anthospermum rigidum LC Indigenous Rubiaceae subsp. rigidum Eckl. & Zeyh. Scrophulariacea LC Indigenous e Aptosimum elongatum Engl. Asteraceae Arctotis venusta Norl. LC Indigenous Poaceae Aristida bipartita (Nees) Trin. & Rupr. LC Indigenous Aristida congesta subsp. LC Indigenous Poaceae congesta Roem. & Schult. Aristida junciformis LC Indigenous Poaceae subsp. junciformis Trin. & Rupr. Poaceae Aristida meridionalis Henrard LC Indigenous Aristida mollissima subsp. LC Indigenous Poaceae mollissima Pilg. Poaceae Aristida sp. Aristida stipitata subsp. LC Indigenous Poaceae graciliflora Hack. Aristida stipitata subsp. LC Indigenous Poaceae stipitata Hack. Asclepias gibba var. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae media (E.Mey.) Schltr. Apocynaceae Asclepias meyeriana (Schltr.) Schltr. LC Indigenous Amaranthaceae Atriplex suberecta I.Verd. LC Indigenous Not Indigenous; Naturalised; NE Salviniaceae Azolla filiculoides Lam. Invasive Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus glaucus (Lam.) S.G.Sm. LC Indigenous Poaceae Brachiaria eruciformis (Sm.) Griseb. LC Indigenous Poaceae Brachiaria nigropedata (Ficalho & Hiern) Stapf LC Indigenous Poaceae Brachiaria serrata (Thunb.) Stapf LC Indigenous Asphodelaceae Bulbine abyssinica A.Rich. LC Indigenous Bulbostylis hispidula LC Indigenous Cyperaceae subsp. pyriformis (Vahl) R.W.Haines Cyperaceae Bulbostylis humilis (Kunth) C.B.Clarke LC Indigenous Cannabaceae Celtis africana Burm.f. LC Indigenous Poaceae Cenchrus incertus M.A.Curtis NE Not Indigenous; Naturalised Fabaceae Chamaecrista biensis (Steyaert) Lock LC Indigenous Chironia purpurascens (E.Mey.) Benth. & LC Indigenous Gentianaceae subsp. humilis Hook.f.
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 98 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Poaceae Chloris virgata Sw. LC Indigenous Chlorophytum Indigenous Agavaceae angulicaule (Baker) Kativu Asteraceae Chrysocoma obtusata (Thunb.) Ehr.Bayer LC Indigenous Cleomaceae Cleome gynandra L. LC Indigenous Cleomaceae Cleome rubella Burch. LC Indigenous Commelinaceae Commelina livingstonii C.B.Clarke LC Indigenous Nyctaginaceae Commicarpus pentandrus (Burch.) Heimerl LC Indigenous Malvaceae Corchorus asplenifolius Burch. LC Indigenous Crassula lanceolata (Eckl. & Zeyh.) Endl. ex Indigenous Crassulaceae subsp. lanceolata Walp. Crassulaceae Crassula vaillantii (Willd.) Roth Not Indigenous; Naturalised Crotalaria sphaerocarpa LC Indigenous Fabaceae subsp. sphaerocarpa Perr. ex DC. Cycnium tubulosum LC Indigenous Orobanchaceae subsp. tubulosum (L.f.) Engl. Poaceae Cymbopogon caesius (Hook. & Arn.) Stapf LC Indigenous Poaceae Cymbopogon dieterlenii Stapf ex E.Phillips LC Indigenous Poaceae Cymbopogon pospischilii (K.Schum.) C.E.Hubb. NE Indigenous Poaceae Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis Lam. Not Indigenous; Naturalised Cyperus longus var. NE Indigenous Cyperaceae tenuiflorus L. Cyperus margaritaceus LC Indigenous Cyperaceae var. margaritaceus Vahl Cyperus obtusiflorus var. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae flavissimus Vahl Cyperaceae Cyperus sp. Cyperaceae Cyperus sphaerospermus Schrad. LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Cyphia persicifolia C.Presl LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Dichanthium sp. Scrophulariacea LC Indigenous e Diclis petiolaris Benth. Asteraceae Dicoma schinzii O.Hoffm. LC Indigenous Asteraceae Dicoma sp. Poaceae Digitaria eriantha Steud. LC Indigenous Poaceae Digitaria ternata (A.Rich.) Stapf LC Indigenous Diospyros lycioides Indigenous Ebenaceae subsp. lycioides Desf. Dyschoriste Indigenous Acanthaceae transvaalensis C.B.Clarke Poaceae Echinochloa colona (L.) Link LC Indigenous Poaceae Echinochloa holubii (Stapf) Stapf LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Eleocharis dregeana Steud. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Eleocharis limosa (Schrad.) Schult. LC Indigenous Elephantorrhiza LC Indigenous Fabaceae elephantina (Burch.) Skeels Eleusine coracana subsp. LC Indigenous Poaceae africana (L.) Gaertn. www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 99 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Poaceae Elionurus muticus (Spreng.) Kunth LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis biflora Hack. ex Schinz LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis chloromelas Steud. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vignolo ex Janch. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis gummiflua Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis lappula Nees LC Indigenous Eragrostis lehmanniana LC Indigenous Poaceae var. lehmanniana Nees Poaceae Eragrostis micrantha Hack. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis nindensis Ficalho & Hiern LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis pallens Hack. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P.Beauv. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis planiculmis Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis pseudobtusa De Winter NE Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Eragrostis sp. Poaceae Eragrostis stapfii De Winter LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis superba Peyr. LC Indigenous Poaceae Eragrostis tef (Zuccagni) Trotter NE Not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Eragrostis viscosa (Retz.) Trin. LC Indigenous Exormothecace Indigenous ae Exormotheca holstii Steph. Gazania krebsiana LC Indigenous Asteraceae subsp. serrulata Less. Asteraceae Geigeria filifolia Mattf. LC Indigenous Amaryllidaceae Gethyllis transkarooica D.Mull.-Doblies LC Indigenous Gisekia pharnaceoides LC Indigenous Gisekiaceae var. pharnaceoides L. Gladiolus permeabilis LC Indigenous Iridaceae subsp. edulis D.Delaroche Celastraceae Gymnosporia buxifolia (L.) Szyszyl. LC Indigenous Poaceae Harpochloa falx (L.f.) Kuntze LC Indigenous Helichrysum LC Indigenous Asteraceae argyrosphaerum DC. Boraginaceae Heliotropium nelsonii C.H.Wright LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hermannia quartiniana A.Rich. LC Indigenous Hermbstaedtia odorata NE Indigenous Amaranthaceae var. odorata (Burch.) T.Cooke Poaceae Heteropogon contortus (L.) Roem. & Schult. LC Indigenous Malvaceae Hibiscus microcarpus Garcke LC Indigenous Poaceae Hyparrhenia hirta (L.) Stapf LC Indigenous Hypericaceae Hypericum lalandii Choisy LC Indigenous Indigofera daleoides var. NE Indigenous Fabaceae daleoides Benth. ex Harv. Indigofera rhytidocarpa LC Indigenous Fabaceae subsp. rhytidocarpa Benth. ex Harv. Fabaceae Indigofera vicioides var. Jaub. & Spach LC Indigenous www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 100 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application vicioides
Convolvulaceae Ipomoea ommanneyi Rendle LC Indigenous Rubiaceae Kohautia amatymbica Eckl. & Zeyh. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Kyllinga alba Nees LC Indigenous Amaranthaceae Kyphocarpa angustifolia (Moq.) Lopr. LC Indigenous Thymelaeaceae Lasiosiphon capitatus (L.f.) Burtt Davy LC Indigenous Thymelaeaceae Lasiosiphon kraussianus (Meisn.) Meisn. Indigenous Lasiosiphon (Meisn.) J.C.Manning & LC Indigenous Thymelaeaceae sericocephalus Boatwr. Asteraceae Litogyne gariepina (DC.) Anderb. LC Indigenous Lobeliaceae Lobelia thermalis Thunb. LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium arenicola Miers LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium cinereum Thunb. LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium hirsutum Dunal LC Indigenous Solanaceae Lycium horridum Thunb. LC Indigenous Marsileaceae Marsilea macrocarpa C.Presl LC Indigenous Asteraceae Mesogramma apiifolium DC. LC Indigenous Poaceae Microchloa caffra Nees LC Indigenous Microloma armatum var. LC Indigenous Apocynaceae armatum (Thunb.) Schltr. Iridaceae Moraea pallida (Baker) Goldblatt LC Indigenous Iridaceae Moraea polystachya (Thunb.) Ker Gawl. LC Indigenous Scrophulariacea LC Indigenous e Nemesia fruticans (Thunb.) Benth. (Benth. ex Harv.) LC Indigenous Fabaceae Neorautanenia ficifolia C.A.Sm. Not Indigenous; Naturalised;
Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca Graham Invasive Solanaceae Nicotiana longiflora Cav. Not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Odyssea paucinervis (Nees) Stapf LC Indigenous Not Indigenous; Cultivated; NE Cactaceae Opuntia microdasys (Lehm.) Pfeiff. Naturalised; Invasive Apocynaceae Orbea sp. Oxygonum dregeanum NE Indigenous Polygonaceae subsp. canescens Meisn. Ozoroa paniculosa var. (Sond.) R.Fern. & LC Indigenous Anacardiaceae paniculosa A.Fern. Rubiaceae Pachystigma pygmaeum (Schltr.) Robyns LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum coloratum L. LC Indigenous Poaceae Panicum stapfianum Fourc. LC Indigenous Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum Poir. NE Not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Perotis patens Gand. LC Indigenous Polygonaceae Persicaria hystricula (J.Schust.) Sojak LC Indigenous Molluginaceae Pharnaceum brevicaule (DC.) Bartl. LC Indigenous Poaceae Pogonarthria squarrosa (Roem. & Schult.) Pilg. LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Pycreus pumilus (L.) Nees LC Indigenous
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 101 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Apocynaceae Raphionacme hirsuta (E.Mey.) R.A.Dyer LC Indigenous Rhoicissus tridentata Indigenous Vitaceae subsp. cuneifolia (L.f.) Wild & R.B.Drumm. Fabaceae Rhynchosia confusa Burtt Davy NE Indigenous Rhynchosia nervosa var. LC Indigenous Fabaceae nervosa Benth. ex Harv. Ricciaceae Riccia albovestita O.H.Volk Indigenous Ricciaceae Riccia volkii S.W.Arnell Indigenous Rorippa fluviatilis var. (E.Mey. ex Sond.) LC Indigenous Brassicaceae caledonica R.A.Dyer Polygonaceae Rumex lanceolatus Thunb. LC Indigenous Aizoaceae Ruschia sp. Salix mucronata subsp. LC Indigenous Salicaceae mucronata Thunb. Amaranthaceae Salsola rabieana I.Verd. LC Indigenous Salvadora persica var. LC Indigenous Salvadoraceae persica L. Lamiaceae Salvia disermas L. LC Indigenous Hyacinthaceae Schizocarphus nervosus (Burch.) Van der Merwe Indigenous Schmidtia LC Indigenous Poaceae pappophoroides Steud. Schoenoplectus (Roth ex Roem. & LC Indigenous Cyperaceae corymbosus Schult.) J.Raynal Schoenoplectus LC Indigenous Cyperaceae muricinux (C.B.Clarke) J.Raynal Schoenoplectus LC Indigenous Cyperaceae pulchellus (Kunth) J.Raynal Schoenoplectus LC Indigenous Cyperaceae senegalensis (Hochst. ex Steud.) Palla (C.B.Clarke) Goetgh., LC Indigenous Cyperaceae Scirpoides burkei Muasya & D.A.Simpson Scrophulariacea LC Indigenous; Endemic e Selago burkei Rolfe Scrophulariacea e Selago sp. Senna italica subsp. LC Indigenous Fabaceae arachoides Mill. Fabaceae Sesbania notialis J.B.Gillett LC Indigenous; Endemic Poaceae Setaria incrassata (Hochst.) Hack. LC Indigenous Poaceae Setaria sp. Setaria sphacelata var. (Schumach.) Stapf & LC Indigenous Poaceae torta C.E.Hubb. ex M.B.Moss Not Indigenous; Naturalised; NE Poaceae Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Invasive Malvaceae Sphaeralcea bonariensis (Cav.) Griseb. Not Indigenous; Naturalised Poaceae Sporobolus albicans (Nees ex Trin.) Nees LC Indigenous Poaceae Sporobolus oxyphyllus Fish LC Indigenous; Endemic Apocynaceae Stenostelma capense Schltr. LC Indigenous Stipagrostis uniplumis LC Indigenous Poaceae var. neesii (Licht.) De Winter Stipagrostis uniplumis LC Indigenous Poaceae var. uniplumis (Licht.) De Winter
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 102 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Poaceae Tarigidia aequiglumis (Gooss.) Stent LC Indigenous Fabaceae Tephrosia lupinifolia DC. LC Indigenous Poaceae Themeda triandra Forssk. LC Indigenous Poaceae Tragus racemosus (L.) All. LC Indigenous Aizoaceae Trianthema sp. Zygophyllaceae Tribulus terrestris L. LC Indigenous Trichodesma angustifolium subsp. LC Indigenous Boraginaceae angustifolium Harv. Poaceae Trichoneura grandiglumis (Nees) Ekman LC Indigenous Triraphis LC Indigenous Poaceae andropogonoides (Steud.) E.Phillips Poaceae Tristachya rehmannii Hack. LC Indigenous Poaceae Urochloa panicoides P.Beauv. LC Indigenous Vachellia hebeclada LC Indigenous Fabaceae subsp. hebeclada (DC.) Kyal. & Boatwr. Fabaceae Vachellia karroo (Hayne) Banfi & Galasso LC Indigenous Vahlia capensis subsp. Indigenous Vahliaceae capensis (L.f.) Thunb. Vahlia capensis subsp. Indigenous Vahliaceae vulgaris (L.f.) Thunb. Xenostegia tridentata Indigenous Convolvulaceae subsp. angustifolia (L.) D.F.Austin & Staples Ziziphus mucronata Indigenous Rhamnaceae subsp. mucronata Willd. Fabaceae Zornia milneana Mohlenbr. LC Indigenous
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 103 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX B: Avifaunal species expected to occur in the project area
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common Unlisted LC Acrocephalus baeticatus Reed-warbler, African Unlisted Unlisted Acrocephalus gracilirostris Swamp-warbler, Lesser Unlisted LC Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common Unlisted LC Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African Unlisted LC Afrotis afraoides Korhaan, Northern Black Unlisted LC Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite Unlisted Unlisted Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian Unlisted LC Amadina erythrocephala Finch, Red-headed Unlisted LC Amaurornis flavirostris Crake, Black Unlisted LC Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed Unlisted LC Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape Unlisted LC Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed Unlisted LC Anhinga rufa Darter, African Unlisted LC Anser anser Goose, Domestic Unlisted LC Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African Unlisted LC Apus affinis Swift, Little Unlisted LC Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped Unlisted LC Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey Unlisted LC Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed Unlisted LC Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco Unlisted LC Asio capensis Owl, Marsh Unlisted LC Batis pririt Batis, Pririt Unlisted LC Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda Unlisted LC Bubo africanus Eagle-owl, Spotted Unlisted LC Bubulcus ibis Egret, Cattle Unlisted LC Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted Unlisted LC Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Common Unlisted Unlisted Butorides striata Heron, Green-backed Unlisted LC Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped Unlisted LC Calendulauda sabota Lark, Sabota Unlisted LC Calidris minuta Stint, Little LC LC Campethera abingoni Woodpecker, Golden-tailed Unlisted LC Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar Unlisted LC Cercotrichas paena Scrub-robin, Kalahari Unlisted LC Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied Unlisted LC Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz's Unlisted LC Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 104 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Chersomanes albofasciata Lark, Spike-heeled Unlisted LC Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered Unlisted LC Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged Unlisted LC Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diderick Unlisted LC Ciconia ciconia Stork, White Unlisted LC Cinnyris talatala Sunbird, White-bellied Unlisted LC Cisticola aridulus Cisticola, Desert Unlisted LC Cisticola chiniana Cisticola, Rattling Unlisted LC Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky, Neddicky Unlisted LC Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting Unlisted LC Cisticola textrix Cisticola, Cloud Unlisted LC Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant's Unlisted LC Colius colius Mousebird, White-backed Unlisted LC Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled Unlisted LC Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled Unlisted LC Columba livia Dove, Rock Unlisted LC Corvus albus Crow, Pied Unlisted LC Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape Unlisted LC Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common Unlisted LC Creatophora cinerea Starling, Wattled Unlisted LC Crithagra atrogularis Canary, Black-throated Unlisted LC Crithagra flaviventris Canary, Yellow Unlisted LC Crithagra gularis Seedeater, Streaky-headed Unlisted LC Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested Unlisted LC Cypsiurus parvus Palm-swift, African Unlisted LC Delichon urbicum House-martin, Common Unlisted LC Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced Whistling Unlisted LC Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal Unlisted LC Egretta alba Egret, Great Unlisted LC Egretta ardesiaca Heron, Black Unlisted LC Egretta garzetta Egret, Little Unlisted LC Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed Unlisted LC Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered Unlisted LC Emberiza tahapisi Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted Unlisted LC Eremopterix leucotis Sparrowlark, Chestnut-backed Unlisted LC Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common Unlisted LC Estrilda erythronotos Waxbill, Black-faced Unlisted LC Euplectes afer Bishop, Yellow-crowned Unlisted LC Euplectes albonotatus Widowbird, White-winged Unlisted LC Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red Unlisted LC Euplectes progne Widowbird, Long-tailed Unlisted LC Falco amurensis Falcon, Amur Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 105 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Falco naumanni Kestrel, Lesser Unlisted LC Falco rupicoloides Kestrel, Greater Unlisted LC Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed Unlisted LC Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common Unlisted LC Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded Unlisted LC Halcyon leucocephala Kingfisher, Grey-headed Unlisted LC Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged Unlisted LC Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated Unlisted LC Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped Unlisted LC Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock Unlisted Unlisted Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn Unlisted LC Hirundo spilodera Cliff-swallow, South African Unlisted LC Lagonosticta rhodopareia Firefinch, Jameson's Unlisted LC Lagonosticta senegala Firefinch, Red-billed Unlisted LC Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy Unlisted LC Laniarius atrococcineus Shrike, Crimson-breasted Unlisted LC Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) Unlisted LC Lanius collurio Shrike, Red-backed Unlisted LC Lanius minor Shrike, Lesser Grey Unlisted LC Lybius torquatus Barbet, Black-collared Unlisted LC Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape Unlisted LC Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant Unlisted Unlisted Melierax gabar Goshawk, Gabar Unlisted LC Merops apiaster Bee-eater, European Unlisted LC Merops bullockoides Bee-eater, White-fronted Unlisted LC Merops persicus Bee-eater, Blue-cheeked Unlisted LC Mirafra africana Lark, Rufous-naped Unlisted LC Mirafra fasciolata Lark, Eastern Clapper Unlisted LC Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape Unlisted LC Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted Unlisted LC Myrmecocichla formicivora Chat, Anteating Unlisted LC Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern Unlisted LC Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted Unlisted LC Nycticorax nycticorax Night-Heron, Black-crowned Unlisted LC Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua Unlisted LC Ortygospiza atricollis Quailfinch, African Unlisted LC Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa NT NT Parisoma subcaeruleum Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented Unlisted Unlisted Parus cinerascens Tit, Ashy Unlisted LC Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed Unlisted LC Passer domesticus Sparrow, House Unlisted LC Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 106 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed Unlisted LC Philomachus pugnax Ruff Unlisted LC Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater NT LC Phoeniculus purpureus Wood-hoopoe, Green Unlisted LC Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow Unlisted LC Platalea alba Spoonbill, African Unlisted LC Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged Unlisted LC Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy Unlisted LC Plocepasser mahali Sparrow-weaver, White-browed Unlisted LC Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver, Southern Unlisted LC Prinia flavicans Prinia, Black-chested Unlisted LC Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal Unlisted LC Pternistis swainsonii Spurfowl, Swainson's Unlisted LC Pycnonotus nigricans Bulbul, African Red-eyed Unlisted LC Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed Unlisted LC Rhinopomastus cyanomelas Scimitarbill, Common Unlisted LC Rhinoptilus africanus Courser, Double-banded Unlisted LC Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated Unlisted LC Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African Unlisted LC Scleroptila levaillantoides Francolin, Orange River Unlisted LC Scopus umbretta Hamerkop, Hamerkop Unlisted LC Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal Unlisted LC Sporopipes squamifrons Finch, Scaly-feathered Unlisted LC Spreo bicolor Starling, Pied Unlisted LC Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape Unlisted LC Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed Unlisted LC Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing Unlisted LC Struthio camelus Ostrich, Common Unlisted LC Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed Unlisted LC Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little Unlisted LC Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African Unlisted LC Tchagra australis Tchagra, Brown-crowned Unlisted LC Tchagra senegalus Tchagra, Black-crowned Unlisted LC Terpsiphone viridis Paradise-flycatcher, African Unlisted LC Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred Unlisted LC Trachyphonus vaillantii Barbet, Crested Unlisted LC Tricholaema leucomelas Barbet, Acacia Pied Unlisted LC Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood Unlisted LC Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common Unlisted LC Tringa stagnatilis Sandpiper, Marsh Unlisted LC Turdus smithi Thrush, Karoo Unlisted LC Tyto alba Owl, Barn Unlisted LC www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 107 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Upupa africana Hoopoe, African Unlisted LC Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue Unlisted LC Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced Unlisted LC Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith Unlisted LC Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned Unlisted LC Vidua chalybeata Indigobird, Village Unlisted LC Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed Unlisted LC Vidua paradisaea Paradise-whydah, Long-tailed Unlisted LC Zosterops pallidus White-eye, Orange River Unlisted LC Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape Unlisted LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 108 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX C: Mammal species expected to occur in the project area
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Aethomys ineptus Tete Veld Rat LC LC Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock rat LC LC Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest LC LC Antidorcas marsupialis Sclater's Shrew LC LC Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter NT NT Atelerix frontalis South Africa Hedgehog NT LC Atilax paludinosus Water Mongoose LC LC Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal LC LC Caracal caracal Caracal LC LC Ceratotherium simum White Rhinoceros NT NT Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey LC LC Connochaetes gnou Black Wildebeest LC LC Connochaetes taurinus Blue Wildebeest LC LC Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey Musk Shrew LC LC Crocidura fuscomurina Tiny Musk Shrew LC LC Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC LC Damaliscus pygargus Blesbok LC LC Desmodillus auricularis Short-tailed Gerbil LC LC Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros EN CR Eidolon helvum African Straw-colored Fruit Bat LC NT Elephantulus myurus Eastern Rock Sengi LC LC Eptesicus hottentotus Long-tailed Serotine Bat LC LC Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat VU VU Felis silvestris African Wildcat LC LC Genetta genetta Small-spotted Genet LC LC Gerbilliscus brantsii Highveld Gerbil LC LC Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld Gerbil LC LC Herpestes sanguineus Slender Mongoose LC LC Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter VU NT Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC LC Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose LC LC Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC LC Leptailurus serval Serval NT LC Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC LC Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC LC Lepus victoriae African Savanna Hare LC LC Malacothrix typica Gerbil Mouse LC LC Mastomys coucha Multimammate Mouse LC LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 109 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application
Mellivora capensis Honey Badger LC LC Mus musculus House Mouse Unlisted LC Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat VU EN Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat LC LC Neoromicia zuluensis Aloe Bat LC LC Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced Bat LC LC Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC LC Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC LC Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat (Fynbos type) LC LC Panthera pardus Leopard VU VU Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon LC LC Parahyaena brunnea Brown Hyaena NT NT Pedetes capensis Springhare LC LC Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog LC LC Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel NT LC Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC LC Proteles cristata Aardwolf LC LC Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC LC Rattus rattus House Rat Exotic (Not listed) LC Rhabdomys pumilio Xeric Four-striped Mouse LC LC Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat LC LC Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's Horseshoe Bat LC LC Saccostomus campestris Pouched Mouse LC LC Scotophilus dinganii Yellow House Bat LC LC Steatomys krebsii Krebs's Fat Mouse LC LC Steatomys pratensis Fat Mouse LC LC Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew LC LC Suricata suricatta Suricate LC LC Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC LC Syncerus caffer African Buffalo LC LC Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat LC LC Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat LC LC Tragelaphus oryx Common Eland LC LC Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC LC Xerus inauris Cape Ground Squirrel LC LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 110 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX D: Reptile species expected to occur in the project area
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink LC LC Afroedura nivaria Drankensberg Flat Gecko LC LC Agama aculeata aculeata Western Ground Agama LC Unlisted Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater LC LC Chamaeleo dilepis Common Flap-neck Chameleon LC LC Chondrodactylus angulifer Common Giant Gecko LC LC Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater LC LC Heliobolus lugubris Bushveld Lizard LC Unlisted Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals LC LC Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake LC LC Meroles suborbitalis Spotted Desert Lizard LC Unlisted Naja nivea Cape Cobra LC Unlisted Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko LC Unlisted Pachydactylus latirostris Quartz Gecko LC Unlisted Pachydactylus rugosus Common Rough Gecko LC Unlisted Pedioplanis inornata Plain Sand Lizard LC Unlisted Pedioplanis lineoocellata lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard LC Unlisted Pedioplanis namaquensis Namaqua Sand Lizard LC Unlisted Prosymna ambigua Angolan Shovel-snout Unlisted LC Psammobates oculifer Serrated Tent Tortoise LC Unlisted Psammophis trinasalis Fork-marked Sand Snake LC Unlisted Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Grass Snake LC LC Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise LC LC Telescopus beetzii Beetz's Tiger Snake LC Unlisted Trachylepis occidentalis Western Three-striped Skink LC Unlisted Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink LC LC Trachylepis sparsa Karasburg Tree Skink LC Unlisted Xenocalamus bicolor bicolor Bicoloured Quill-snouted Snake LC Unlisted
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 111 Biodiversity & Wetland Baseline & Impact Assessment
Bothaville Prospecting Right Application APPENDIX E: Amphibian species expected to occur in the project area
Conservation Status Species Common Name Regional (SANBI, 2016) IUCN (2017) Amietia angolensis Angola River Frog LC LC Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco LC LC Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina LC LC Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog LC LC Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog NT LC Schismaderma carens African Red Toad LC LC Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad LC LC Sclerophrys gutturalis Guttural Toad LC LC Sclerophrys poweri Power's Toad LC LC Tomopterna cryptotis Tremelo Sand Frog LC LC Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog LC LC Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog LC LC Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC LC
www.thebiodiversitycompany.com [email protected] 112