Zastron Sandstone

Report on the ecological assessment and wetland delineation of the proposed sandstone quarry in Zastron, Free State Province.

March 2018

Prepared by:

Prepared for: Environmental Management Group P.O. Box 28242 Danhof 9310

1 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

DPR Ecologists and Environmental Services is an independent company and has no financial, personal or other interest in the proposed project, apart from fair remuneration for work performed in the delivery of ecological services. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of the study.

Report Version Final 1.0

Report on the ecological assessment and wetland delineation of the proposed sandstone quarry in Zastron, Free State Province. Title

Author DP van Rensburg Mar’18 (Pr.Sci.Nat)

2 Executive Summary

According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) the area consists of Zastron Moist Grassland (Gm 1). This vegetation type is currently listed as being of Least Concern (LC) under the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (Notice 1477 of 2009) (National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004) (Map 2). The vegetation type is not currently subjected to any pronounced transformation pressures. The site is listed as an Ecological Support Area 2 under the Free State Province Biodiversity Management Plan (2015) (Map 3). Although this is not a Critical Biodiversity Area it still functions in ecological support of surrounding natural areas. It is therefore not considered to have a high conservation value. The site also does not contain any rare or endangered species which could significantly increase the conservation value. One protected species were observed on the site. P, sidoides is listed as a protected species under the List of Species that area Threatened or Protected (TOPS) (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)). This is a widespread and common species but is being exploited as a medicinal plant and permits will therefore have to be obtained to remove it.

The proposed sandstone quarry will be developed on the eastern outskirts of the town of Zastron, adjacent to the settlement of Matlakeng (Map 1 & 2). The site consists almost entirely of natural vegetation (Map 1). The site is currently being utilised as communal grazing and consequently the vegetation is subjected to significant overgrazing and trampling. Furthermore, the adjacent urban area also contributes to disturbance of the site. This includes notable littering, impacts such as hunting/herding dogs on the faunal population and notable degradation of the Gryskopspruit including sewage effluent into the stream. The above listed impacts have caused significant degradation of the vegetation on the site which is notably stunted.

The vegetation on the site is still largely natural although significantly degraded by the current land use. Overgrazing and -browsing as a result of the site being utilised as communal grazing area has significantly degraded the vegetation structure and species composition. Furthermore, the proximity of the urban area also causes significant disturbance of the site. This is evident in large amounts of littering and rubbish dumping on the site. The proposed mining of the site is therefore not anticipated to have a high impact. However, several unique and sensitive habitats occur around the site. A small cliff and associated seasonal pools occur adjacent and to the south of the site (Map 1). They are susceptible to erosion and form unique habitats. They are however excluded from the mining area and will not be affected as long as mining activities are kept within the site boundary. The Gryskopspruit, a highly sensitive watercourse, occurs approximately 100 meters to the south of the site (Map 1). It is also unlikely to be affected as long as a 100 meter buffer is kept from this watercourse. In addition, the preservation of the above mentioned sensitive areas around the site is dependent on adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

Obligate wetland vegetation was utilised to determine the presence as well as the border of wetland conditions along the Gryskopspruit as well as surrounding areas. Soil samples indicate the absence of wetland conditions on the site as well as the surrounding slopes. The soil samples taken along the Gryskopspruit, although not very distinct, does have clear indications of the presence of wetland conditions. These conditions are however clearly confined to the main channel and adjacent marginal and lower zones. Several obligate wetland species also

3 occur along the stream banks. This means that these species are confined to wetlands and cannot occur in conditions outside of these systems. As a result, where they occur, wetland conditions can be considered to occur. The Gryskopspruit occurring to the south of the site can be categorised as a channel wetland system (SANBI 2009).

The Gryskopspruit to the south of the site is affected by several impacts. The most significant impacts on the stream will be the release of treated effluent from the adjacent WWTW as well as inflow of untreated sewage from the adjacent urban area. The described impacts will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the stream and it is therefore considered unlikely to have a PES of Category B: Largely Natural, at least in this section of the stream. Despite the somewhat degraded condition of the stream near the site it must still be regarded as being highly sensitive. Not least as a result of its important function in terms of water transportation but also as it is listed as a National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA). However, the site will not be located closer than 100 meters to the stream and as long as this buffer is maintained the impact should remain negligible. In addition, the mining operation should implement adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut- off trenches along the mining boundaries.

The site is situated on a low plateau with moderate slopes and a small cliff surrounding it. Furthermore, a large erosion gulley is present along the southern border of the site. The above should indicate the high erosion potential that the site and proposed mining will result in. Unmitigated, it is clear that the mining activities will result in extensive erosion. However, this can be easily mitigated with standard mining procedures. Firstly, the mining site will be confined to the plateau and will not include the small cliff and associated moderate slopes which will considerably reduce the erosion potential. Secondly, standard storm water measures for small scale mining should be implemented and should significantly reduce the erosion potential. These should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

The impact significance has been determined and has indicated that before mitigation impacts will be mostly moderate with erosion having a potentially moderate-high impact. However, adequate mitigation will decrease impacts considerably to mostly low-moderate.

4 Table of contents

Ecological assessment and wetland delineation.

Declaration of Independence

Executive Summary

1. Introduction 6 1.1 Background 1.2 The value of biodiversity

2. Scope and limitations 8 2.1 Vegetation 2.2 Fauna 2.2 Watercourses 2.3 Limitations

3. Methodology 10 3.1 Desktop study 3.2 Survey 3.3 Criteria used to assess sites 3.4 Biodiversity sensitivity rating (BSR)

4. Ecological overview of the site 14 4.1 Overview of ecology and vegetation types 4.2 Overview of fauna 4.3 Wetland delineation 4.4 Buffer zone determination

5. Anticipated impacts 21

6. Site specific results 23

7. Biodiversity sensitivity rating (BSR) interpretation 25

8. Discussion and conclusions 26

9. Recommendations 29

10. References 31

Annexure A: Maps and Site photos 34 Annexure B: Species list 42 Annexure C: Likely invader weed species 44 Annexure D: Soil samples 46 Annexure F: Impact methodology 49

5 Ecological assessment and wetland delineation.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Natural vegetation is an important component of ecosystems. Some of the vegetation units in a region can be more sensitive than others, usually as a result of a variety of environmental factors and species composition. These units are often associated with water bodies, water transferring bodies or moisture sinks. These systems are always connected to each other through a complex pattern. Degradation of a link in this larger system, e.g. tributary, pan, wetland, usually leads to the degradation of the larger system. Therefore, degradation of such a water related system should be prevented.

Though vegetation may seem to be uniform and low in diversity it may still contain species that are rare and endangered. The occurrence of such a species may render the development unviable. Should such a species be encountered the development should be moved to another location or cease altogether.

South Africa has a large amount of endemic species and in terms of plant diversity ranks third in the world. This has the result that many of the species are rare, highly localised and consequently endangered. It is our duty to protect our diverse natural resources.

South Africa’s water resources have become a major concern in recent times. As a water scarce country, we need to manage our water resources sustainably in order to maintain a viable resource for the community as well as to preserve the biodiversity of the system. Thus, it should be clear that we need to protect our water resources so that we may be able to utilise this renewable resource sustainably. Areas that are regarded as crucial to maintain healthy water resources include wetlands, streams as well as the overall catchment of a river system.

It is well known that quarry mining operations has several detrimental impacts on the environment. These impacts are numerous but the most pronounced impacts are associated with the excavation of large amounts of earth materials, the storage and disposal thereof and the sedimentation associated with it especially where mining takes place near watercourses. This usually causes degradation of waterways due to sedimentation as well as the transformation of the vegetation and ecosystem on the site.

The proposed sandstone quarry will be developed on the eastern outskirts of the town of Zastron, adjacent to the settlement of Matlakeng (Map 1 & 2). The site currently consists of natural vegetation which is being utilised as communal grazing. Coupled with the proximity of the urban area it is consequently significantly degraded. The extent of the site is approximately 5 hectares. The Gryskopspruit, a National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA), is located to the south of the site.

A site visit was conducted on 21 February 2018. The entire footprint of the mining area was surveyed over the period of one day. The site survey was conducted during summer and after adequate rains and is therefore considered to give an accurate representation of the vegetation on the site.

6 For the above reasons it is necessary to conduct an ecological assessment and wetland delineation of an area proposed for development.

The report together with its recommendations and mitigation measures should be used to minimise the impact of the proposed development.

1.2 The value of biodiversity

The diversity of life forms and their interaction with each other and the environment has made Earth a uniquely habitable place for humans. Biodiversity sustains human livelihoods and life itself. Although our dependence on biodiversity has become less tangible and apparent, it remains critically important.

The balancing of atmospheric gases through photosynthesis and carbon sequestration is reliant on biodiversity, while an estimated 40% of the global economy is based on biological products and processes.

Biodiversity is the basis of innumerable environmental services that keep us and the natural environment alive. These services range from the provision of clean water and watershed services to the recycling of nutrients and pollution. These ecosystem services include:

• Soil formation and maintenance of soil fertility. • Primary production through photosynthesis as the supportive foundation for all life. • Provision of food, fuel and fibre. • Provision of shelter and building materials. • Regulation of water flows and the maintenance of water quality. • Regulation and purification of atmospheric gases. • Moderation of climate and weather. • Detoxification and decomposition of wastes. • Pollination of plants, including many crops. • Control of pests and diseases. • Maintenance of genetic resources.

7 2. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

• To evaluate the present state of the vegetation and ecological functioning of the area proposed for the sandstone quarry development. • To identify possible negative impacts that could be caused by the proposed sandstone quarry development. • Identify and delineate wetland areas associated with the Gryskopspruit and other watercourses around the site.

2.1 Vegetation

Aspects of the vegetation that will be assessed include:

• The vegetation types of the region with their relevance to the proposed site. • The overall status of the vegetation on site. • Species composition with the emphasis on dominant-, rare- and endangered species.

The amount of disturbance present on the site assessed according to: • The amount of grazing impacts. • Disturbance caused by human impacts. • Other disturbances.

2.2 Fauna

Aspects of the fauna that will be assessed include:

• A basic survey of the fauna occurring in the region using visual observations of species as well as evidence of their occurrence in the region (burrows, excavations, animal tracks, etc.). • The overall condition of the habitat. • A list of species that may occur in the region (desktop study).

2.3 Wetlands

Aspects of the wetlands that will be assessed include:

• Identification and delineation of watercourses including rivers, streams, pans and wetlands. • Describe condition and status of wetlands and importance relative to the larger system.

2.4 Limitations

Some geophytic or succulent species may have been overlooked due to a specific flowering time or cryptic nature. Several geophytic species may have finished flowering in spring and would likely have been overlooked. Although a comprehensive survey of the site was done it is still likely that several species were overlooked. Due to high levels of overgrazing and disturbance several grass and herb species may have been overlooked as they would be unidentifiable without inflorescences.

8 Some animal species may not have been observed as a result of their nocturnal and/or shy habits.

9 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Several literature works were used for additional information.

Vegetation: Red Data List (Raymondo et al. 2009) Vegetation types (Mucina & Rutherford 2006) Field guides used for species identification (Bromilow 1995, 2010, Coates-Palgrave 2002, Court 2010, Fish et al 2015, Gibbs-Russell et al 1990, Manning 2009, Moffett 1997, Pooley 1998, 2003, Retief & Meyer 2017, Smith et al 1998, Smith & Crouch 2009, Van Oudtshoorn 2004, Van Wyk & Malan 1998, Van Wyk & Van Wyk 1997, Venter & Joubert 1985).

Terrestrial fauna: Field guides for species identification (Smithers 1986a).

Wetland methodology, delineation and identification: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 2004, 2008, Collins 2006, Gerber et al 2004, Kleynhans 2000, Marnewecke & Kotze 1999, Nel et al 2011, SANBI 2009, Van Ginkel et al 2011.

3.2 Survey

The site was assessed by means of transects and sample plots.

Noted species include rare and dominant species. The broad vegetation types present on the site were determined. The state of the environment was assessed in terms of condition, grazing impacts, disturbance by humans, erosion and presence of invader and exotic species.

Animal species were also noted as well as the probability of other species occurring on or near the site according to their distribution areas and habitat requirements. The state of the habitat was also assessed.

The watercourses and wetlands associated with the Gryskopspruit were identified and surveyed where they were affected by the sandstone quarry. These systems were delineated by use of topography (land form and drainage pattern) and riparian vegetation.

The following were used to determine and delineate the rivers, streams, pans and wetlands:

• Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Edition 1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. • Marnewecke, G. & Kotze, D. 1999. Appendix W6: Guidelines for delineation of wetland boundary and wetland zones. In: MacKay (Ed.), H. Resource directed measures for protection of water resources: wetland ecosystems. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

10 The following were used to determine the sensitivity or importance of these identified watercourses:

• Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

• Government of South Africa. 2008. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2008: Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. Government of South Africa, Pretoria.

These guidelines provide the characteristics which can be utilised to determine if a wetland or watercourse is present and also aids in determining the boundary of these systems.

3.3 Criteria used to assess sites

Several criteria were used to assess the site and determine the overall status of the environment.

Vegetation characteristics Characteristics of the vegetation in its current state. The diversity of species, sensitivity of habitats and importance of the ecology as a whole.

Habitat diversity and species richness: normally a function of locality, habitat diversity and climatic conditions. Scoring: Wide variety of species occupying a variety of niches – 1, Variety of species occupying a single nich – 2, Single species dominance over a large area containing a low diversity of species – 3.

Presence of rare and endangered species: The actual occurrence or potential occurrence of rare or endangered species on a proposed site plays a large role on the feasibility of a development. Depending on the status and provincial conservation policy, presence of a Red Data species can potentially be a fatal flaw. Scoring: Occurrence actual or highly likely – 1, Occurrence possible – 2, Occurrence highly unlikely – 3.

Ecological function: All plant communities play a role in the ecosystem. The ecological importance of all areas though, can vary significantly e.g. wetlands, drainage lines, ecotones, etc. Scoring: Ecological function critical for greater system – 1, Ecological function of medium importance – 2, No special ecological function (system will not fail if absent) – 3.

Degree of rarity/conservation value: Scoring: Very rare and/or in pristine condition – 1, Fair to good condition and/or relatively rare – 2, Not rare, degraded and/or poorly conserved – 3.

11 Vegetation condition The sites are compared to a benchmark site in a good to excellent condition. Vegetation management practises (e.g. grazing regime, fire, management, etc.) can have a marked impact on the condition of the vegetation.

Percentage ground cover: Ground cover is under normal and natural conditions a function of climate and biophysical characteristics. Under poor grazing management, ground cover is one of the first signs of vegetation degradation. Scoring: Good to excellent – 1, Fair – 2, Poor – 3.

Vegetation structure: This is the ratio between tree, shrub, sub-shrubs and grass layers. The ratio could be affected by grazing and browsing by animals. Scoring: All layers still intact and showing specimens of all age classes – 1, Sub-shrubs and/or grass layers highly grazed while tree layer still fairly intact (bush partly opened up) – 2, Mono- layered structure often dominated by a few unpalatable species (presence of barren patches notable) – 3.

Infestation with exotic weeds and invader plants or encroachers: Scoring: No or very slight infestation levels by weeds and invaders – 1, Medium infestation by one or more species – 2, Several weed and invader species present and high occurrence of one or more species – 3.

Degree of grazing/browsing impact: Scoring: No or very slight notable signs of browsing and/or grazing – 1, Some browse lines evident, shrubs shows signs of browsing, grass layer grazed though still intact – 2, Clear browse line on trees, shrubs heavily pruned and grass layer almost absent – 3.

Signs of erosion: The formation of erosion scars can often give an indication of the severity and/or duration of vegetation degradation. Scoring: No or very little signs of soil erosion – 1, Small erosion gullies present and/or evidence of slight sheet erosion – 2, Gully erosion well developed (medium to large dongas) and/or sheet erosion removed the topsoil over large areas – 3.

Faunal characteristics Presence of rare and endangered species: The actual occurrence or potential occurrence of rare or endangered species on a proposed site plays a large role on the feasibility of a development. Depending on the status and provincial conservation policy, presence of a Red Data species or very unique and sensitive habitats can potentially be a fatal flaw. Scoring: Occurrence actual or highly likely – 1, Occurrence possible – 2, Occurrence highly unlikely.

12 3.4 Biodiversity sensitivity rating (BSR)

The total scores for the criteria above were used to determine the biodiversity sensitivity ranking for the sites. On a scale of 0 – 30, six different classes are described to assess the suitability of the sites to be developed. The different classes are described in the table below:

Table 1: Biodiversity sensitivity ranking BSR BSR general floral description Floral score equating to BSR class Ideal (5) Vegetation is totally transformed or in a 29 – 30 highly degraded state, generally has a low level of species diversity, no species of concern and/or has a high level of invasive plants. The area has lost its inherent ecological function. The area has no conservation value and potential for successful rehabilitation is very low. The site is ideal for the proposed development. Preferred (4) Vegetation is in an advanced state of 26 – 28 degradation, has a low level of species diversity, no species of concern and/or has a high level of invasive plants. The area’s ecological function is seriously hampered, has a very low conservation value and the potential for successful rehabilitation is low. The area is preferred for the proposed development. Acceptable (3) Vegetation is notably degraded, has a 21 – 25 medium level of species diversity although no species of concern are present. Invasive plants are present but are still controllable. The area’s ecological function is still intact but may be hampered by the current levels of degradation. Successful rehabilitation of the area is possible. The conservation value is regarded as low. The area is acceptable for the proposed development. Not preferred (2) The area is in a good condition although 11 – 20 signs of disturbance are present. Species diversity is high and species of concern may be present. The ecological function is intact and very little rehabilitation is needed. The area is of medium conservation importance. The area is not preferred for the proposed development. Sensitive (1) The vegetation is in a pristine or near pristine 0 - 10 condition. Very little signs of disturbance other than those needed for successful management are present. The species diversity is very high with several species of concern known to be present. Ecological functioning is intact and the conservation importance is high. The area is regarded as sensitive and not suitable for the proposed development.

13 4. ECOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE SITE

4.1 Overview of ecology and vegetation types (Mucina & Ruterford 2006)

Refer to the list of species encountered on the site in Appendix B.

The site consists almost entirely of natural vegetation (Map 1). A small dirt track transects the site but is small and does not cause any significant transformation of the vegetation. The site is also currently being utilised as communal grazing and consequently the vegetation is subjected to significant overgrazing and trampling. Furthermore, the adjacent urban area also contributes to disturbance of the site. This include notable littering, impacts such as hunting/herding dogs on the faunal population and notable degradation of the Gryskopspruit including sewage effluent into the stream. The above listed impacts have cause significant degradation of the vegetation on the site which is notably stunted.

The proposed sandstone quarry will be developed on the eastern outskirts of the town of Zastron, adjacent to the settlement of Matlakeng (Map 1 & 2). The extent of the site is approximately 5 hectares. The Gryskopspruit, a National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA), is located to the south of the site. The dominant vegetation structure on the site consists of a dense grass layer with shrubs occurring on sandstone outcrops and clumps of exotic trees also occur along the channel of the Gryskopspruit.

The topography of the site is variable which is dominated by a low plateau with a gradual slope toward the east and north and contains prominent sandstone outcrops along the rim of the plateau which also forms small cliff areas with a moderate slope toward the Gryskopspruit (Map 1). The topography is still largely intact. The elevation of the site varies from 1622 m on the plateau and decreases to 1613 m along the rim of the plateau and also the border of the site. The site will be confined to the plateau portion of the area and will not include the cliff areas and surrounding slopes.

Geologically the area is characterized by Molteno and Elliot Formations. Molteno Formation, the first of the Stormberg Group, lies on top of the Beaufort Group. The Elliot Formation follows conformably on the Molteno Formation (Malan et al 1999).

The Ca and Ib land types are the most prominent in the area. The lb land type accommodates land where exposed rocks cover 60-80% of the soil surface as is the case over most of the site. These rocky portions may be underlain by soil which would have qualified the unit for inclusion in another broad soil pattern would it not have been for the surface rockiness. Dundee and Oakl eaf soil- forms are the most common soils within this land. Generally the soils in the Zastron area are referred to as 'Podsolie' (pH < 7) soils. Donga and surface erosion are a common phenomenon of these soils (Malan et al 1999). This was also observed at the site.

14 The rainfall is erratic and approximately 600-800 mm per annum.

As mentioned previously the site and surroundings contains a varying topography. The vegetation of each topographical element will be discussed separately. These include the plateau, sandstone outcrop, cliff and vernal pools, erosion gulley and the Gryskopspruit.

The plateau which dominates the site consists mostly of a dense but very short grass layer. Dominant grass species recorded include Aristida congesta, Eragrostis gummiflua, E. curvula, Tragus koelerioides, Trichoneura grandiglumis and Heteropogon contortus. The majority of these are indicators of disturbance and is considered a result of heavy overgrazing. Another clear indicator of disturbance on the site is the presence of the dwarf shrub, Stoebe vulgaris, which is abundant on the site. Imbedded in this grass layer is several herb and dwarf shrubs. This is a natural component of the grassland and include Helichrysum rugulosum, Felicia muricata, F. filifolia, Ipomoea crassipes, Kyllinga alba and Cyperus rupestris. A few geophytic species are also common and include Hypoxis filiformis, Pelargonium sidoides, Chlorophytum fasciculatum and Oxalis depressa. The species diversity is moderate with no rare or endangered species observed. P, sidoides is listed as a protected species under the List of Species that area Threatened or Protected (TOPS) (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)). This is a widespread and common species but is being exploited as a medicinal plant and permits will therefore have to be obtained to remove it. The vegetation is significantly disturbed, mostly as a result of overgrazing although the proximity of the urban area will undoubtedly also contribute to this.

Sandstone outcrops are common along the southern and eastern portions of the site, especially along the edge of the plateau. These outcrops are dominated by a mixture of vegetation growth forms including herbs, grasses, succulents and shrubs amongst others. Grass species include Setaria sphacelata, Brachiaria serrata, Digitaria monodactyla and Themeda triandra; a mixture of species adapted to shallow and deeper soils. Larger shrubs consist of Passerina montana, Searsia erosa and Diospyros lycioides. A myriad of herbaceous and dwarf shrub species also occurs on these outcrops and some of the more common species include Lotononis listii, Hermannia depressa, Gazania krebsiana, Gerbera ambigua, Jamesbrittenia atropurpurea, Manulea paniculata, Psammotropha myriantha and Helichrysum odoratissimum. The vegetation composition of these outcrops are largely natural although it is clear that significant degradation is present. Rubbish dumping among boulders is common and overgrazing is prominent. Overbrowsing of shrubs is also prominent.

Immediately to the south and adjacent to the site a series of vernal pools associated with the small cliff face is present (Map 1). The cliff face is dominated by shrubs and trees of which most are exotic invaders, whilst pools are dominated by a unique assemblage of dwarf sedges, herbs and succulents. Shrubs and trees include Diospyros austro-africana and Cliffortia paucisteminea although the dominant species are the two exotic invaders Pyracantha angustifolia and Acacia dealbata. This indicates a significantly degraded vegetation layer along the cliff face. However, this area is still considered as sensitive in terms of erosion potential and slope. The cliff will however be excluded from development and will therefore not be affected by the mining development. The seasonal pools formed along a portion of the cliff edge includes several dwarf growth forms and includes the dwarf grasses Oropetium capense and Microchloa kunthii, dwarf succulents such as Crassula setulosa and C. dependens and dwarf Isolepis sp. sedges. Other common species include Cheilanthes eckloniana, Pellaea calomelanos and Oxalis depressa. These pools form a unique habitat which also sustains a unique assemblage of species. The habitat is somewhat degraded by the current land use and

15 trampling by domestic stock is evident. They area is however still considered unique and as sensitive habitats. They are however situated outside the mining area and should therefore not be affected as long as all activities are confined to the mining area.

A large and deep erosion gulley has formed to the south of the site and along the slope below the small cliff face. It has a relatively low percentage of vegetation cover and vegetation in it is of secondary establishment. Consequently the vegetation consists mostly of pioneer species which include Lycium horridum, Paspalum dilatatum, Sonchus oleraceus and Cymbopogon pospiscillii. The exotic and invasive tree species, Acacia dealbata, also dominates along this erosion scar. The erosion gulley is not of high conservation value and is also located outside the site boundary but does indicate the high erosion potential of the surrounding area. The storm water management, separation of clean and dirty storm water and erosion control will therefore have to be ample during the mining operation.

As previously mentioned, the Gryskpspruit is situated approximately 100 meters to the south of the site (Map 1). This watercourse is listed as a National Freshwater Priority Area (NFEPA) and is therefore considered to be of high conservation value. However, the section located near the site is heavily degraded mostly as a result of the discharge of untreated sewage from the surrounding urban area. The vegetation along the stream is also indicative of significant levels of disturbance. Pennisetum clandestinum, an invasive and exotic grass (Kikuyu) is dominant along the stream and indicates a disturbed vegetation layer. Other exotic weeds include Rosa eglanteria and Cirsium vulgare. Other hygrophilous vegetation species common along the stream include the sedges Cyperus marginatus, C. congestus, Carex glomerabilis, aquatic herb Mentha longifolia and wetland grass Leptochloa fusca. Although evidently degraded the stream must still be considered as being highly sensitive with a high conservation value. However, the stream will be excluded from the mining area and as long as a 100 meter buffer is kept from the stream the impact on it should be negligible (Map 1). Furthermore, the mining operations will have to ensure the storm water runoff generated on the site is prevented from entering the stream. This can be achieved by adequate berms and cut-off trenches along the perimeter of the mining area.

In conclusion, the vegetation on the site is still largely natural although significantly degraded by the current land use. Overgrazing and -browsing as a result of the site being utilised as communal grazing area has significantly degraded the vegetation structure and species composition. Furthermore, the proximity of the urban area also causes significant disturbance of the site. This is evident in large amounts of littering and rubbish dumping on the site. The proposed mining of the site is therefore not anticipated to have a high impact. However, several unique and sensitive habitats occur around the site. A small cliff and associated seasonal pools occur adjacent and to the south of the site (Map 1). They are susceptible to erosion and form unique habitats. They are however excluded from the mining area and will not be affected as long as mining activities are kept within the site boundary. The Gryskopspruit, a highly sensitive watercourse, occurs approximately 100 meters to the south of the site (Map 1). It is also unlikely to be affected as long as a 100 meter buffer is kept from this watercourse. In addition, the preservation of the above mentioned sensitive areas around the site is dependent on adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

16 4.2 Overview of terrestrial fauna (actual & possible)

Tracks and signs of mammals are present on the site but notably diminished from the natural condition. Due to the site being used as communal grazing and the proximity of urban areas it is highly likely that the site will no longer support a natural mammal population both in terms of diversity and population size. Furthermore, such communal grazing areas close to urban areas are often accompanied by a high number of feral and shepherd dogs and it is considered highly likely that these would have decimated the mammal population on the site. Trapping for food is common practise around urban areas and it is also anticipated likely that this would have significantly decreased the population.

Some reptiles in the region which may be of conservation significance include the Common Crag Lizard (Pseudocordylus melanotus) (Bates 2007). Rocky outcrops on the site were specifically surveyed for these lizards but none could be observed. It is also considered likely that current levels of disturbance are preventing this species from establishing. The only reptile noted was the widespread and common Variable Skink (Trachylepis varia) which is not considered to be of significant conservation value.

A few burrows of small unidentified mammals were observed although it was not apparent that they were inhabited.

The proposed development will transform the majority of the vegetation on the site and thus also the available habitat to fauna. However, the current habitat is already degraded and mammal population already notably diminished and therefore this cannot be considered to be a high impact.

It is also considered likely that several mammal species were overlooked during the survey but owing to the degraded condition of the site and proximity to urban areas it is considered highly unlikely that any rare or endangered species would occur on the site.

In order to ensure no direct impact on the mammals on the site the hunting, capturing or trapping of mammals on the site should be strictly prohibited during construction as well as during operation of the cemetery.

List of some Red Data terrestrial mammals that could occur in the region:

South African Hedgehog Atelerix frontalis Aardwolf Proteles cristatus African Wild Cat Felis lybica Small-Spotted Cat Felis nigripes Bat-Eared Fox Otocyon megalotis Striped Weasel Poecilogale albinucha

It is considered unlikely that any of these species would occur on the site due to the proximity of urban developments and degraded condition of the site.

17 4.3 Wetland Delineation

The Gryskopspruit is located approximately 100 meters to the south of the site (Map 1). This watercourse will be discussed below.

The term watercourse refers to a river, stream, wetland or pan. The National Water Act (NWA, 1998) includes rivers, streams, pans and wetlands in the definition of the term watercourse. This definition follows:

Watercourse means: • A river or spring. • A natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently. • A wetland, lake or dam into which water flows. • Any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks.

Riparian habitat is an accepted indicator of watercourses used to delineate the extent of wetlands, rivers, streams and pans (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 2005).

Obligate wetland vegetation was utilised to determine the presence as well as the border of wetland conditions along the Gryskopspruit as well as surrounding areas. Soil samples were also used to confirm the presence of wetland soils where obligate wetland vegetation indicated wetland conditions (Appendix D). The region has a relatively high rainfall and consequently watercourses and wetlands are easily formed. In addition, sandstone is a permeable sedimentary rock and may often cause seepage wetlands at contact points with impermeable rock types along slopes or cliffs. Consequently soil samples were taken on the site, vernal pools, surrounding slopes as well as the Gryskopspruit to determine if wetland conditions were present in any of these areas.

Soil samples were investigated for the presence of anaerobic evidence which characterises wetland soils. Soil samples indicate the absence of wetland conditions on the site as well as the surrounding slopes. The vernal pools along the cliff edge are also devoid of wetland conditions, most likely as a result of the shallow soil depth and frequent drying of the pools. The erosion gulley exhibits a varying soil profile as soil is constantly eroded away and can therefore not reliably be used to indicate wetland conditions. Obligate wetland plants however indicate the absence of any prominent wetland conditions.

The soil samples taken along the Gryskopspruit, although not very distinct, does have clear indications of the presence of wetland conditions. These conditions are however clearly confined to the main channel and adjacent marginal and lower zones. The floodplain is not extensive, relatively narrow and the floodbench is clearly visible. Soil samples indicate a permanent zone of wetness along the marginal zone and seasonal zone of wetness along the lower zone. According to Kleynans (2000) a desktop assessment of the Gryskopspruit indicates that it is ephemeral in flow regime. This is considered close to the natural flow pattern but has been altered to a large degree by the release of treated effluent from the adjacent Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) as well as increased storm water runoff and untreated sewage from the urban area. Several obligate wetland species occur along the stream banks and include Leptochloa fusca, Cyperus marginatus, C. congestus and Carex glomerabilis. They are listed as being obligate wetland species (DWAF 2008 & Marnewecke & Kotze 1999) and reliably

18 indicate the presence of wetland conditions. This means that these species are confined to wetlands and cannot occur in conditions outside of these systems. As a result, where they occur, wetland conditions can be considered to occur.

The Gryskopspruit occurring to the south of the site can be categorised as a channel wetland system (SANBI 2009):

“An open conduit with clearly defined margins that (i) continuously or periodically contains flowing water, or (ii) forms a connecting link between two water bodies. Dominant water sources include concentrated surface flow from upstream channels and tributaries, diffuse surface flow or interflow, and/or groundwater flow. Water moves through the system as concentrated flow and usually exits as such but can exit as diffuse surface flow because of a sudden change in gradient. Unidirectional channel-contained horizontal flow characterises the hydrodynamic nature of these units. Note that, for purposes of the classification system, channels generally refer to rivers or streams (including those that have been canalised) that are subject to concentrated flow on a continuous basis or periodically during flooding, as opposed to being characterised by diffuse flow (see unchanneled valley-bottom wetland). As a result of the erosive forces associated with concentrated flow, channels characteristically have relatively obvious active channel banks. An active channel is a channel that is inundated at sufficiently regular intervals to maintain channel form and keep the channel free of established terrestrial vegetation. These channels are typically filled to capacity during bankfull discharge (i.e. during the annual flood, except for intermittent rivers that do not flood annually).”

This accurately describes this watercourse. The wetland conditions are most prominent and largely confined to the main channel. This contrasts with a floodplain wetland where wetland condition may increase in the floodplain, adjacent to the main channel.

The Gryskopspruit south of the site was delineated by using obligate wetland vegetation and soil wetness indicators. The following guidelines and frameworks were used to determine and delineate the watercourse:

• Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Edition 1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. • Marnewecke & Kotze 1999. Appendix W6: Guidelines for delineation of wetland boundary and wetland zones. In: MacKay (Ed.), H. Resource directed measures for protection of water resources: wetland ecosystems. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

According to Kleynans (2000) a desktop assessment of the Gryskopspruit to the south of the site is considered to have a PES of Category B: Largely Natural. This is not considered accurate for the stream, at least the section south of the site. Largely as a result of the increase in flow and impacts associated with the adjacent urban area.

The Gryskopspruit to the south of the site is affected by several impacts. The stream has a portion of its origin within the urban area of Zastron (Map 2). This will inevitably cause some degradation of the stream in terms of an increased storm water runoff from the urban environment coupled with pollutants associated with the urban environment. Also associated with the urban area is the crossing of the stream by several roads. This has a significant impact in terms of retarding water flow. This alters the flow regime of the stream to some degree.

19 Other smaller impacts include littering and rubbish dumping in the stream, trampling by domestic stock which will increase the sediment load and overgrazing of the catchment which will also increase sediment runoff into the stream. The most significant impacts on the stream will however be the release of treated effluent from the adjacent WWTW as well as inflow of untreated sewage from the adjacent urban area. This will firstly have a high impact on the flow regime where the seasonal flow will be altered to perennial as a result of continuous release of effluent from the WWTW. The water quality of the stream is also questionable as a result of untreated sewage from the urban area flowing into it. The above described impacts will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the stream and it is therefore considered unlikely to have a PES of Category B: Largely Natural, at least in this section of the stream.

Despite the somewhat degraded condition of the stream near the site it must still be regarded as being highly sensitive. Not least as a result of its important function in terms of water transportation but also as it is listed as a National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA).

However, the site will not be located closer than 100 meters to the stream and as long as this buffer is maintained the impact should remain negligible (Map 1). In addition, the mining operation should implement adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

20 5. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS

Anticipated impacts that the development will have is primarily concerned with the loss of habitat and species diversity but will also include significant impacts in terms of erosion and the proximity of the Gryskopspruit will also be taken into consideration with regards to the impact on watercourses.

The site itself consists of a grassland layer which consists largely of natural vegetation but which is notably degraded as a result of overgrazing by domestic stock and consequently the species diversity is only moderate and without any ecological elements which is considered of high conservation value. Furthermore, the vegetation type present on the site is currently listed as being of Least Concern (LC) and therefore does not have a high conservation value (Map 2). As a result the loss of habitat and species diversity can therefore not be considered as a high impact. However, a small cliff and seasonal pools along the southern border of the site are considered as unique habitats. They will however be excluded from the site and should not be affected by the mining operations as long as they are maintained as no-go areas.

No rare or endangered species could be identified on or immediately around the site. As a result of overgrazing and general disturbance of the site it is considered unlikely that such a species would occur. One protected species were observed on the site. P, sidoides is listed as a protected species under the List of Species that area Threatened or Protected (TOPS) (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)). This is a widespread and common species but is being exploited as a medicinal plant and permits will therefore have to be obtained to remove it. The impact of the loss of any rare or endangered species is therefore considered as low.

The Gryskopspruit is located approximately 100 meters south of the site (Map 1). This is considered as a highly sensitive system and any impacts on it would consequently also be considered as high. However, if a 100 meter buffer from this stream is maintained it is unlikely that the mining operations will have any significant impacts on it. However, it will also be necessary to implement adequate storm water management systems including diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries. This is necessary as the mining operations may increase erosion and also sedimentation which may affect the stream. Should the above be implemented the impact on the stream will remain low.

The site is situated on a low plateau with moderate slopes and a small cliff surrounding it (Map 1). Furthermore, a large erosion gulley is present along the southern border of the site. The above should indicate the high erosion potential that the site and proposed mining will result in. Unmitigated, it is clear that the mining activities will result in extensive erosion. However, this can be easily mitigated with standard mining procedures. Firstly, the mining site will be confined to the plateau and will not include the small cliff and associated moderate slopes which will considerably reduce the erosion potential. Secondly, standard storm water measures for small scale mining should be implemented and should significantly reduce the erosion potential. These should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

Disturbance caused by the proposed mining operations may cause susceptible conditions for the establishment of exotic weeds and invaders. This has the potential to become a moderate

21 impact but should be easily managed as long as adequate monitoring of weed establishment and their continued eradication is maintained.

The development will primarily entail a loss of habitat for fauna which will decrease the population size. This is not anticipated to exceed a low impact as the mammal population on the site is already heavily diminished and degraded.

Please refer to Appendix E for the impact methodology.

Significance of the impact: Impact Severity Duration Extent Consequence Probability Frequency Likelihood Significance Before Mitigation Loss of 3 5 2 3.3 5 3 4 13.2 vegetation type and clearing of vegetation Loss of rare 3 5 1 3 3 3 3 9 or endangered species Impact on 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.5 14 watercourses Erosion 4 4 3 3.6 5 4 4.5 16.2 potential Infestation 3 4 3 3.3 5 3 4 13.2 with weeds and invaders Impact on 2 5 2 3 3 3 3 9 Terrestrial fauna After Mitigation Loss of 3 5 2 3.3 3 5 4 13.2 vegetation type and clearing of vegetation Loss of rare 3 5 1 3 3 3 3 9 or endangered species Impact on 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 9 watercourses Erosion 2 4 2 2.6 3 3 3 7.8 potential Infestation 3 2 1 2 3 2 2.5 5 with weeds and invaders Impact on 2 5 2 3 3 3 3 9 Terrestrial fauna

22 6. SITE SPECIFIC RESULTS

Habitat diversity and species richness: The site itself consists of a low plateau and some sandstone outcrops and therefore represents a moderate habitat diversity. As a result and as well as due to overgrazing pressure the species diversity is also only considered moderate. Surrounding unique habitats such as the seasonal rock pools and cliff face does increase habitat and species diversity but will be excluded from the mining area and are therefore not taken into consideration.

Presence of rare and endangered species: No rare or endangered species could be identified on or immediately around the site. As a result of overgrazing and general disturbance of the site it is considered unlikely that such a species would occur. One protected species were observed on the site. P, sidoides is listed as a protected species under the List of Species that area Threatened or Protected (TOPS) (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)). This is a widespread and common species but is being exploited as a medicinal plant and permits will therefore have to be obtained to remove it.

Ecological function: The ecological function of the site is still natural to a large degree but has been somewhat impaired. The site functions as habitat for a variety of fauna, sustains a specific vegetation type, i.e. Zastron Moist Grassland and also functions as part of the catchment of the adjacent Gryskopspruit. The site still functions as habitat although urban development in close proximity will undoubtedly affect the fauna as a result of hunting and trapping, feral and shepherd dogs and overgrazing which reduces the quality of the habitat. Overgrazing also affects the integrity of the vegetation type to some degree. The functioning as part of the catchment is also still largely intact although the urban area will alter the amount of runoff significantly which will affect the stream to some degree.

Degree of rarity/conservation value: According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006) the area consists of Zastron Moist Grassland (Gm 1). This vegetation type is currently listed as being of Least Concern (LC) under the National List of Threatened Ecosystems (Notice 1477 of 2009) (National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004) (Map 2). The vegetation type is not currently subjected to any pronounced transformation pressures. The site is listed as an Ecological Support Area 2 under the Free State Province Biodiversity Management Plan (2015) (Map 3). Although this is not a Critical Biodiversity Area it still functions in ecological support of surrounding natural areas. It is therefore not considered to have a high conservation value. The site also does not contain any rare or endangered species which could significantly increase the conservation value.

The adjacent seasonal rock pools and small cliff are rather unique habitats and therefore are considered to have a high conservation value (Map 1). They will however be excluded from development and are therefore not taken into consideration.

The Gryskopspruit is also listed as an NFEPA system and therefore has a very high conservation value. It is however located more than 100 meters from the site and provided that adequate storm water management is implemented on the site should not be affected by the mining activities (Map 1). It is therefore also not taken into consideration.

23 Percentage ground cover: The percentage vegetation cover is moderate and has been decreased significantly as a result of sustained overgrazing.

Vegetation structure: The vegetation structure is still natural to some degree although it is evident that overgrazing has increased the dwarf shrub layer (Stoebe vulgaris) and overbrowsing decreases the shrub canopy height.

Infestation with exotic weeds and invader plants: The site is largely free of exotic weeds although substantive infestations are present especially along the cliff and erosion gulley of Pyracantha angustifolia and Acacia dealbata (Appendix C).

Degree of grazing/browsing impact: Grazing by domestic stock is high and sustained over a prolonged period. It is responsible for significant degradation of the vegetation on the site.

Signs of erosion: Erosion on the site is moderate although it is clear the adjacent areas are affected by severe gulley erosion.

Terrestrial animals: Tracks and signs of mammals are present on the site but notably diminished from the natural condition. Due to the site being used as communal grazing and the proximity of urban areas it is highly likely that the site will no longer support a natural mammal population both in terms of diversity and population size. Furthermore, such communal grazing areas close to urban areas are often accompanied by a high number of feral and shepherd dogs and it is considered highly likely that these would have decimated the mammal population on the site. Trapping for food is common practise around urban areas and it is also anticipated likely that this would have significantly decreased the population. A few burrows of small unidentified mammals were observed although it was not apparent that they were inhabited. It is also considered likely that several mammal species were overlooked during the survey but owing to the degraded condition of the site and proximity to urban areas it is considered highly unlikely that any rare or endangered species would occur on the site.

24 Table 2: Biodiversity Sensitivity Rating for the proposed sandstone quarry. Low (3) Medium (2) High (1) Vegetation characteristics Habitat diversity & Species richness 2 Presence of rare and endangered species 3 Ecological function 2 Uniqueness/conservation value 2

Vegetation condition Percentage ground cover 2 Vegetation structure 2 Infestation with exotic weeds and invader plants or 2 encroachers Degree of grazing/browsing impact 3 Signs of erosion 3

Terrestrial animal characteristics Presence of rare and endangered species 3 Sub total 12 12 0 Total 24

7. BIODIVERSITY SENSITIVITY RATING (BSR) INTERPRETATION

Table 3: Interpretation of Biodiversity Sensitivity Rating. Site Score Site Preference Rating Value Sandtsone quarry 24 Acceptable 3

25 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The site proposed for the sandstone quarry has been rated as being acceptable for this development. This is mostly as a result of the degraded condition of the site caused by overgrazing by domestic stock and the proximity of urban areas as well as the exclusion of surrounding sensitive areas from the mining area.

The site consists almost entirely of natural vegetation (Map 1). The site is currently being utilised as communal grazing and consequently the vegetation is subjected to significant overgrazing and trampling. Furthermore, the adjacent urban area also contributes to disturbance of the site. This includes notable littering, impacts such as hunting/herding dogs on the faunal population and notable degradation of the Gryskopspruit including sewage effluent into the stream. The above listed impacts have caused significant degradation of the vegetation on the site which is notably stunted.

26 management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

Obligate wetland vegetation was utilised to determine the presence as well as the border of wetland conditions along the Gryskopspruit as well as surrounding areas. Soil samples were taken on the site, vernal pools, surrounding slopes as well as the Gryskopspruit to determine if wetland conditions were present in any of these areas (Appendix D). Soil samples indicate the absence of wetland conditions on the site as well as the surrounding slopes. The vernal pools along the cliff edge are also devoid of wetland conditions, most likely as a result of the shallow soil depth and frequent drying of the pools. The erosion gulley exhibits a varying soil profile as soil is constantly eroded away and can therefore not reliably be used to indicate wetland conditions. Obligate wetland plants however indicate the absence of any prominent wetland conditions. The soil samples taken along the Gryskopspruit, although not very distinct, does have clear indications of the presence of wetland conditions. These conditions are however clearly confined to the main channel and adjacent marginal and lower zones. Several obligate wetland species also occur along the stream banks. This means that these species are confined to wetlands and cannot occur in conditions outside of these systems. As a result, where they occur, wetland conditions can be considered to occur. The Gryskopspruit occurring to the south of the site can be categorised as a channel wetland system (SANBI 2009).

The Gryskopspruit to the south of the site is affected by several impacts. Smaller impacts include littering and rubbish dumping in the stream, trampling by domestic stock which will increase the sediment load and overgrazing of the catchment which will also increase sediment runoff into the stream. The most significant impacts on the stream will however be the release of treated effluent from the adjacent WWTW as well as inflow of untreated sewage from the adjacent urban area. The above described impacts will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the stream and it is therefore considered unlikely to have a PES of Category B: Largely Natural, at least in this section of the stream. Despite the somewhat degraded condition of the stream near the site it must still be regarded as being highly sensitive. Not least as a result of its important function in terms of water transportation but also as it is listed as a National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Area (NFEPA). However, the site will not be located closer than 100 meters to the stream and as long as this buffer is maintained the impact should remain negligible. In addition, the mining operation should implement adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

27 The impact significance has been determined and has indicated that before mitigation impacts will be mostly moderate with erosion having a potentially moderate-high impact. However, adequate mitigation will decrease impacts considerably to mostly low-moderate.

28 9. RECOMMENDATIONS

• The small cliff and associated seasonal rock pools should be excluded from the mining area as sensitive habitats and should be treated as no-go areas (Map 1).

• The mining area should be confined to the low plateau of the site and should not extend down the slopes as this will increase the erosion potential considerably.

• A buffer of a minimum of 100 meters must be maintained between the mining area and the Gryskopspruit to the south of the site (Map 1).

• The Gryskopspruit and 100 meter buffer zone must be treated as no-go area and no mining activities, material or waste should occur or be placed in this area.

• The mining operation should implement adequate storm water management which should include diverting storm water around the site, separation of clean and dirty storm water, erosion control and berms and cut-off trenches along the mining boundaries.

• The site should be regularly inspected for erosion and this remedied where required. Storm water management measures should also be implemented to prevent increased runoff velocity and erosion.

• The hunting, capturing and trapping of fauna should be prevented by making this a punishable offense during the operation of the mining development.

• One protected species were observed on the site. P, sidoides is listed as a protected species under the List of Species that area Threatened or Protected (TOPS) (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004)). This is a widespread and common species but is being exploited as a medicinal plant and permits will therefore have to be obtained to remove it.

• The monitoring and eradication of weeds will have to take place continuously and followed up after cessation of mining activities (Appendix C). Weeds occurring on the site should also be removed prior to operations.

• Monitoring of mining operations including weed establishment and erosion should take place and should also specifically include any impacts or alterations to the Gryskopspruit.

• In order to ensure that the mining area forms part of the viable ecosystem and does not contribute to degradation of the system after cessation of mining activities the rehabilitation of the mining area should be comprehensive and should include monitoring of rehabilitation after cessation of mining at least for a period of one year after rehabilitation has been completed.

• Rehabilitation of the mining area should be adequate and should include the following: ▪ Spoil and tailings resulting from the mining operations should be returned to excavations in order to aid in re-establishing a more natural topography.

29 ▪ The topography of the site should be re-instated as far as possible. ▪ Eradication and monitoring of weed establishment should take place and should be extended after cessation of mining (Appendix C). ▪ Topsoil should be removed prior to mining where present, protected from wind erosion and weed establishment and replaced on the site during rehabilitation. ▪ Adequate monitoring of rehabilitation success should be done and remedial action taken where required. ▪ After mining has ceased all manmade materials should be removed from the site, i.e. structures, concrete, waste, etc.

30 10. REFERENCES

Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 2014. Edited by Michael F. Bates, William R. Branch, Aaron M. Bauer, Marius Burger, Johan Marais, Graham J. Alexander & Marienne S. de Villiers. SANBI, Pretoria.

Bates, M.F. 2007. An analysis of the Pseudocordylus melanotus complex (Sauria: Cordylidae). Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis. University of Stellenbosch.

Branch, B. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Bromilow, C. 1995. Problem Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications CC, Cape Town.

Bromilow, C. 2010. Problem plants and alien weeds of South Africa. Briza Publications CC, Cape Town.

Coates-Palgrave, M. 2002. Keith Coates-Palgrave Trees of Southern Africa, edn 3, imp. 4. Random House Struik (Pty.) Ltd, Cape Town.

Collins, N.B. 2005. Wetlands: The basics and some more. Free State Department of Tourism, Environmental and Economic Affairs.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (ACT No. 43 OF 1983) Department of Agriculture.

Court, D. 2010. Succulent Flora of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Edition 1. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

DWAF. 2008. Updated manual for the identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas, prepared by M.Rountree, A.L. Batchelor, J. MacKenzie and D. Hoare. Stream Flow Reduction Activities, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

Fish, L., Mashau, A.C., Moeaha, M.J. & Nembudani, M.T. 2015. Identification guide to the southern African grasses. An identification manual with keys, descriptions and distributions. Strelitzia 36. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Government of South Africa. 2008. National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2008: Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. Government of South Africa, Pretoria.

Germishuizen, G. & Meyer, N.L. (eds) 2003. Plants of Southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia 14. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.

Gerber, A., Cilliers, C.J., Van Ginkel, C. & Glen, R. 2004. Easy identification of aquatic plants. Department of Water Affairs, Pretoria.

31 Gibbs Russell, G.E., Watson, L., Koekemoer, M., Smook, L., Barker, N.P., Anderson, H.M. & Dallwitz, M.J. 1990. Grasses of Southern Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa No. 58. Botanical Research Institute, South Africa.

Kleynhans, C.J. 2000. Desktop estimates of the ecological importance and sensitivity categories (EISC), default ecological management classes (DEMC), present ecological status categories (PESC), present attainable ecological management classes (present AEMC), and best attainable ecological management class (best AEMC) for quaternary catchments in South Africa. DWAF report, Institute for Water Quality Studies, Pretoria, South Africa.

Malan, P.W., Venter, H.J.T. & Du Preez, P.J. 1999. Vegetation ecology of the southern Free State: 1. Plant communities of the Zastron area. South African Journal of Botany. 65(4): 260- 269.

Manning, J. 2009. Field Guide to Wild Flowers. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

Marnewecke, G. & Kotze, D. 1999. Appendix W6: Guidelines for delineation of wetland boundary and wetland zones. In: MacKay (Ed.), H. Resource directed measures for protection of water resources: wetland ecosystems. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria.

Moffett, R. 1997. Grasses of the Eastern Free State: Their description and uses. UNIQWA, the Qwa-Qwa campu of the University of the North, Phuthadittjhaba.

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds.) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19.South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10/2004): National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection. Government Notice 1002 of 2011, Department of Environmental Affairs.

National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998). Republic of South Africa.

Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. and Nienaber, S. (2011). Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Pooley, E. 1998. A field guide to wild flowers: Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Region. Natal Flora Publications Trust, Durban.

Pooley, E. 2003. Mountain flowers: A field guide to the flora of the Drakensberg and Lesotho. The Flora Publications Trust, Durban.

Raymondo, D. Van Staden, L. Foden, W. Victor, J.E. Helme, N.A. Turner, R.C. Kamundi, D.A. Manyama, P.A. (eds.) 2009. Red List of South African Plants. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Retief, E. & Meyer, N.L. 2017. Plants of the Free State: Inventory and identification guide. Strelitzia 38. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

32 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).

Smith, G.F., Chesselet, P., Van Jaarsveld, E., Hartmann, H., Van Wyk, B.E., Burgoyne, P., Klak, C. & Kurzweil, H. 1998. Mesembs of the World. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

Smith, G.F. & Crouch, N.R. 2009. Guide to succulents of Southern Africa. Random House Struik (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town.

Smithers, R.H.N. 1986a. Land Mammals of Southern Africa. Macmillan, Johannesburg.

Smithers, R.H.N. 1986b. South African Red Data Book - Terrestrial Mammals. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 125. A report for the Committee for Nature Conservation Research National Programme for Ecosystem Research.

Van Ginkel, C.E., Glen, R.P., Gordon-Grey, K.D., Cilliers, C.J., Musaya, M. & Van Deventer, P.P. 2011. Easy Identification of some South African Wetland Plants. WRC Report No. TT 479/10.

Van Oudtshoorn, F. 2004. Gids tot Grasse van Suider-Afrika. Briza Publications, Pretoria.

Van Wyk, B. & Malan, S. 1998. Field guide to the wild flowers of the Highveld. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.

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

Venter, H.J.T. & Joubert, A.M. 1985. Climbers, trees and shrubs of the Orange Free State. P.J. de Villiers Publishers, Bloemfontein.

33 Annexure A: Maps and Site photos

34 35 36 37

Figure 1: General panorama of the site.

Figure 2: Panorama of the site. Note the proximity of urban areas in the background. The prominent small grey shrubs (red) is Stoebe vulgaris, a clear indicator of disturbance and a degraded vegetation layer.

Figure 3: Panorama of one of the sandstone outcrops on the site. Littering is evident her.

Figure 4: Another panorama of the site where sandstone clearly outcrops.

Figure 5: Panorama of the site where erosion and low vegetation cover is clearly visible.

Figure 6: View of one of the sandstone outcrops. Note prominent littering here.

Figure 7: Panorama of the Gryskopspruit south of the site (blue). A portion of the small cliff is also visible (red). Note tree clumps of exotic invaders along the cliff and stream.

Figure 8: Panorama of the rock pools and cliff edge. This portion will be excluded from the site.

Figure 9: Close-up view of the seasonal rock pools. This is a unique habitat which will be excluded from the mining area.

Figure 10: Panorama of the cliff edge (red) to the south of the site which will be excluded from the mining area. The Gryskopspruit is also indicated (blue).

Figure 11: Panorama of the erosion gulley to the south of the site. This clearly indicates the susceptibility of the area to erosion.

Figure 12: Panorama of the Gryskopspruit (blue).

Figure 13: Close-up view of the main channel of the Gryskopspruit. Water colour and odour clearly indicate poor water quality.

41 Appendix B: Species list

Species indicated with an * are exotic.

Protected species are coloured orange and Red Listed species red.

Species Growth form *Acacia dealbata Tree *Cirsium vulgare Herb *Pennisetum clandestinum Grass *Pyracantha angustifolia Shrub *Rosa eglanteria Shrub Arctotis arctotheca Herb Aristida congesta Grass Berkehya onopordifolia Herb Blechnum australe Fern Brachiaria serrata Grass Carex glomerabilis Sedge Cheilanthes eckloniana Fern Chlorophytum fasciculatum Geophyte Cliffortia paucisteminea Shrub Commelina africana Herb Convolvulus thunbergii Geophyte Conyza podocephala Herb Crassula dependens Succulent Crassula setulosa Succulent Cymbopogon pospischillii Grass Cynodon dactylon Grass Cyperus congestus Sedge Cyperus marginatus Sedge Cyperus rupestris Sedge Dicoma anomala Herb Digitaria monodactyla Grass Diospyros austro-africana Shrub Diospyros lycioides Shrub Eragrostis curvula Grass Eragrostis gummiflua Grass Eragrostis nindensis Grass Felicai filifolia Dwarf shrub Felicia muricata Dwarf shrub Gazania krebsiana Herb Gerbera ambigua Herb Gomphocarpus fruticosus Herb Haplocarpha scaposa Herb Harpochloa falx Grass Helichrysum odoratissimum Dwarf shrub Helichrysum rugulsoum Dwarf shrub

42 Helichrysum sp. Herb Hermannia depressa Herb Heteropogon contortus Grass Hypoxis filiformis Geophyte Indigofera hedyantha Herb Ipomoea crassipes Herb Isolepis sp. Sedge Jamesbrittenia atropurpurea Dwarf shrub Jamesbrittenia aurantiaca Herb Kyllinga alba Sedge Leptochloa fusca Grass Lotononis listii Herb Lycium horridum Dwarf shrub Manulea paniculata Herb Mentha longifolia Herb Microchloa kunthii Grass Mossia intervalaris Succulent Oropetium capense Grass Oxalis depressa Geophyte Paspalum dilatatum Grass Passerina montana Shrub Pelargonium sidoides Geophyte Pellaea eckloniana Fern Polygala amatymbica Herb Psammotropha myriantha Herb Scirpus ficinoides Sedge Searsia erosa Shrub Selago galpinii Herb Setaria sphacelata Grass Sonchus oleraceus Herb Stoebe vulgaris Dwarf shrub Themeda triandra Grass Tragus keolerioides Grass Trichoneura grandiglumis Grass Tristachya leucothrix Grass

43 Appendix C: Likely invader weed species

Invader weed species on the site may not be limited to these species but these are considered to be the most likely and significant invaders to occur. Additional sources should be consulted to confirm invader weed species as well as the best method to eradicate them.

According to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, No. 43 of 1983 any Category 1 declared plants must be controlled by the land user on whose land such plants are growing.

Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu/Kikoejoe

Type: Weed Category: 1b

The weed is sensitive to Glyphosate herbicides.

Rosa eglanteria Sweetbrier/Wilde Roos

Type: Weed Category: 1

Mechanical control is labour intensive as the whole root crown must be dug up to prevent coppicing.

Chemical control is the most effective control method. Cut down and paint stump (summer- autumn) with metsulfuron-methyl.

Pyracantha angustifolia Firethorn/Branddoring

Type: Invader Category: 3

Several herbicides are known to be effective. These include Round-up, Starane, Access, Grazon, Garlon and Brush Off.

The method of application depends on the herbicide used.

44 Cirsium vulgare Scotch Thistle/Skotse Dissel

Type: Weed Category: 1

Mechanical removal is effective to control this weed. Cutting should be done below soil level and no leaves should remain.

Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle/Silverwattel

Type: Invader Category: 1

Long-term control is required as they coppice easily and produce large numbers of seed. A combination of chemical, mechanical and management techniques are required for effective long-term control.

45 Appendix D: Soil Samples

Obligate wetland vegetation was utilised to determine the presence and border of wetlands. Soil samples were used to confirm the wetland conditions along the Gryskopspruit as well as areas surrounding the site. Soil samples were investigated for the presence of anaerobic evidence which characterises wetland soils.

Within wetlands the hydrological regime differs due to the topography and landscape. For instance; a valley bottom wetland would have a main channel that is below the water table and consequently permanently saturated, i.e. permanent zone of wetness. As you move away from the main channel the wetland would become dependent on flooding in order to be saturated. As a result along this hydrological regime areas of permanent saturation, seasonal and temporary saturation would occur. At some point along this gradient the saturation of the soil would be insufficient to develop reduced soil conditions and therefore will not be considered as wetland.

Within wetland soils the pores between soil particles are filled with water instead of atmosphere. As a result available oxygen is consumed by microbes and plantroots and due to the slow rate of oxygen diffusion oxygen is depleted and biological activity continues in anaerobic conditions and this causes the soil to become reduced.

Reduction of wetland soils is a result of bacteria decomposing organic material. As bacteria in saturated soils deplete the dissolved oxygen they start to produce organic chemicals that reduce metals. In oxidised soils the metals in the soil give it a red, brown, yellow or orange colour. When these soils are saturated and metals reduced the soil attains a grey matrix characteristic of wetland soils.

Within this reduction taking place in the wetland soils there may be reduced matrix, redox depletions and redox concentrations. The reduced matrix is characterised by a low chroma and therefore a grey soil matrix. Redox depletions result in the grey bodies within the soil where metals have been stripped out. Redox concentrations result in mottles within the grey matrix with variable shape and are recognised as blotches or spots, red and yellow in colour.

Soil wetness indicator is used as the primary indicator of wetlands. The colour of various soil components are often the most diagnostic indicator of hydromorphic soils. Colours of these components are strongly influenced by the frequency and duration of soil saturation. Generally, the higher the duration and frequency of saturation in a soil profile, the more prominent grey colours become in the soil matrix.

Coloured mottles, another feature of hydromorphic soils, are usually absent in permanently saturated soils and are at their most prominent in seasonally saturated soils, becoming less abundant in temporarily saturated soils until they disappear altogether in dry soils (Collins 2005).

The following soil wetness indicators can be used to determine the permanent, seasonal and temporary wetness zones. The boundary of the wetland is defined as the outer edge of the temporary zone of wetness and is characterised by a minimal grey matrix (<10%), few high chroma mottles and short periods of saturation (less than three months per year). The seasonal zone of wetness is characterised by a grey matrix (>10%), many low chroma mottles and significant periods of wetness (at least three months per year). The permanent zone of wetness

46 is characterised by a prominent grey matrix, few to high chroma mottles, wetness all year round and sulphuric odour (rotten egg smell).

According to convention hydromorphic soil must display signs of wetness within 50 cm of the soil surface (DWAF 2005).

Table 1: Soil samples taken on and around the site including the Gryskopspruit.

Soil sample taken on the site within the low Soil sample taken on the site within the low plateau portion. plateau portion. No soil wetness characters are present. A grey No soil wetness characters are present. A matrix is absent and no discernible mottling is grey matrix is absent and no discernible visible. Wetland conditions are clearly absent. mottling is visible. Wetland conditions are clearly absent.

Soil sample taken at the edge of one of the Soil sample taken within the erosion gulley to seasonal rock pools on top of the small cliff. the south of the site. As a result of No soil wetness characters are present. A grey continuous soil erosion the soil sample is matrix is absent and no discernible mottling is considered unreliable for the indication of visible. Wetland conditions are clearly absent. wetland conditions and here obligate wetland vegetation was used.

Soil sample taken in the lower zone of the Soil sample taken in the marginal zone of the Gryskopspruit banks. Gryskopspruit. Soil wetness indicators are not very clear Note here a prominent grey matrix is present although a low grey matrix <10% and feint and feint mottling is discernible. This is mottling is discernible indicating a temporary clearly indicative of wetland conditions. zone of wetness and the border of wetland conditions.

Soil sample taken below the small cliff and on the moderate slope toward the Gryskopspruit. No soil wetness characters are present. A grey matrix is absent and no discernible mottling is visible. Wetland conditions are clearly absent.

48 Appendix E: Impact methodology

The environmental significance assessment methodology is based on the following determination: Environmental Significance = Overall Consequence x Overall Likelihood

Determination of Consequence Consequence analysis is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative information and the outcome can be positive or negative. Several factors can be used to determine consequence. For the purpose of determining the environmental significance in terms of consequence, the following factors were chosen: Severity/Intensity, Duration and Extent/Spatial Scale. Each factor is assigned a rating of 1 to 5, as described below and in tables 6, 7, 9 and 10.

Determination of Severity Severity relates to the nature of the event, aspect or impact to the environment and describes how severe the aspects impact on the biophysical and socio-economic environment. Table 7 will be used to obtain an overall rating for severity, taking into consideration the various criteria.

Table 7: Rating of severity Type of Rating criteria 1 2 3 4 5 Quantitative 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Small / Disastrous Insignificant / Significant / Great / Very Qualitative Potentially Extremely Non-harmful Harmful harmful harmful harmful Slightly Totally Social/ Intolerable/ Unacceptable Acceptable / tolerable / unacceptable / Community Sporadic / Widespread I&AP satisfied Possible Possible legal response complaints complaints objections action Very low cost Substantial to mitigate/ cost to Prohibitive cost High potential mitigate / to mitigate / to mitigate Potential to Low cost to High cost to Little or no Irreversibility impacts to mitigate mitigate mitigate mechanism to level of impacts / mitigate impact insignificance / Potential to Irreversible Easily reverse reversible impact Biophysical (Air quality, Moderate Significant Very water Insignificant Disastrous change / change / significant quantity and change / change / deterioration deterioration change / quality, waste deterioration deterioration or or or deterioration production, or disturbance disturbance disturbance disturbance or disturbance fauna and flora)

49 Determination of Duration Duration refers to the amount of time that the environment will be affected by the event, risk or impact, if no intervention e.g. remedial action takes place.

Table 8: Rating of Duration Rating Description 1: Low Almost never / almost impossible 2: Low-Medium Very seldom / highly unlikely 3: Medium Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 4: Medium-High Often / regularly / likely / possible 5: High Daily / highly likely / definitely

Determination of Extent/Spatial Scale Extent refer to the spatial influence of an impact be local (extending only as far as the activity, or will be limited to the site and its immediate surroundings), regional (will have an impact on the region), national (will have an impact on a national scale) or international (impact across international borders).

Table 9: Rating of Extent / Spatial Scale Rating Description 1: Low Immediate, fully contained area 2: Low-Medium Surrounding area 3: Medium Within Business Unit area of responsibility 4: Medium-High Within Mining Boundary area 5: High Regional, National, International

Determination of Overall Consequence Overall consequence is determined by adding the factors determined above and summarised below, and then dividing the sum by 4.

Table 10: Example of calculating Overall Consequence Consequence Rating Severity Example 4 Duration Example 2 Extent Example 4 SUBTOTAL 10 TOTAL CONSEQUENCE:(Subtotal divided by 4) 3.3

Likelihood The determination of likelihood is a combination of Frequency and Probability. Each factor is assigned a rating of 1 to 5, as described below and in Table 11 and Table 12.

Determination of Frequency Frequency refers to how often the specific activity, related to the event, aspect or impact, is undertaken.

50 Table 11: Rating of frequency Rating Description 1: Low Once a year or once/more during operation/LOM 2: Low-Medium Once/more in 6 Months 3: Medium Once/more a Month 4: Medium-High Once/more a Week 5: High Daily

Determination of Probability Probability refers to how often the activity/even or aspect has an impact on the environment.

Table 12: Rating of probability Rating Description 1: Low Almost never / almost impossible 2: Low-Medium Very seldom / highly unlikely 3: Medium Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 4: Medium-High Often / regularly / likely / possible 5: High Daily / highly likely / definitely

Overall Likelihood Overall likelihood is calculated by adding the factors determined above and summarised below, and then dividing the sum by 2.

Table 13: Example of calculating the overall likelihood Consequence Rating Frequency Example 4 Probability Example 2 SUBTOTAL 6 TOTAL LIKELIHOOD (Subtotal divided by 2) 3

Determination of Overall Environmental Significance The multiplication of overall consequence with overall likelihood will provide the environmental significance, which is a number that will then fall into a range of LOW, LOW-MEDIUM, MEDIUM, MEDIUM, MEDIUM-HIGH or HIGH, as shown in the table below.

Table 14: Determination of overall environmental significance Significance or Risk Low- Moderate- Low Moderate High Moderate High Overall Consequence X 1 - 4.9 5 - 9.9 10 - 14.9 15 – 19.9 20 - 25 Overall Likelihood

Qualitative description or magnitude of Environmental Significance This description is qualitative and is an indication of the nature or magnitude of the Environmental Significance. It also guides the prioritisations and decision making process associated with this event, aspect or impact.

51 Table 15: Description of the environmental significance and the related action required. Significance Low- Moderate- Low Moderate High Moderate High Impact Impact is of Impact is of Impact is real, Impact is real Impact is of the Magnitude very low order low order and and potentially and highest order and therefore therefore substantial in substantial in possible. likely to have likely to have relation to relation to Unacceptable. very little real little real other impacts. other impacts. Fatal flaw. effect. effect. Can pose a Pose a risk to Acceptable. Acceptable. risk to the the company. company Unacceptable Action Maintain Maintain Implement Improve Implement Required current current monitoring. management significant management management Investigate measures to mitigation measures. measures. mitigation reduce risk. measures or Where Implement measures and implement possible monitoring improve alternatives. improve. and evaluate management to determine measures to potential reduce risk, increase in where risk. possible. Where possible improve