Appendix D2 Botanical Biodiversity Baseline and Impact Assessment Report for the Mine Waste Solutions Kareerand Tailings Storage Facility Extension Project -De Castro and Brits, 2018 BOTANICAL BIODIVERSITY BASELINE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE MINE WASTE SOLUTIONS KAREERAND TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY EXTENSION PROJECT (Stilfontein, North West Province) Prepared by: De Castro & Brits c.c. Author: Tony de Castro (Pr. Nat. Sci) DATE: March 2018 STATUS: Final Draft Specialist reports and reports on specialist processes - Checklist Reference to section of specialist report or NEMA Regs (2014) - Appendix 6 justification for not meeting requirement 1 A specialist report or a report on a specialised process prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain - (a) i the person who prepared the report; and Title page (a) ii the expertise of that person to carry out Appendix 12 the specialist study or specialised process; (b) a declaration that the person is Appendix 13 independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE purpose for which, the report was prepared; (d) the date and season of the site 3. APPROACH investigation and the relevance of the 5. LIMITATIONS season to the outcome of the assessment; (e) a description of the methodology adopted 3. APPROACH in preparing the report or carrying out the 4. METHODOLOGY specialised process; (f) the specific identified sensitivity of the 8. DESCRIPTION OF site related to the activity and its VEGETATION UNITS AND associated structures and infrastructure LANDCOVER TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (g) an identification of any areas to be 11.2 Threatened and Near avoided, including buffers; Threatened species Appendixes 4 and 7 (h) a map superimposing the activity Figure 2 including the associated structures and APPENDIX 4 infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to APPENDIX 7 be avoided, including buffers; APPENDIX 9 (i) a description of any assumptions made 5. LIMITATIONS and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; i Specialist reports and reports on specialist processes - Checklist Reference to section of specialist report or NEMA Regs (2014) - Appendix 6 justification for not meeting requirement (j) a description of the findings and potential 12. DESCRIPTION OF THE implications of such findings on the PROPOSED impact of the proposed activity, including INFRASTRUCTURE identified alternatives, on the FOOTPRINTS environment; 13. IMPACT ASSESSMENT (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in 14. SUMARRY AND the EMPr CONCLUSIONS – Mitigation measures (l) any conditions for inclusion in the 14.4 SUMMARY AND environmental authorisation CONCLUSIONS - Summary of mitigation measures (m) any monitoring requirements for 14.4 SUMMARY AND inclusion in the EMPr or environmental CONCLUSIONS – Summary authorisation of mitigation measures (n) a reasoned opinion - .i as to whether the proposed activity or 14.3 SUMMARY AND portions thereof should be authorised and CONCLUSIONS – Potential impacts of the project .ii if the opinion is that the proposed activity 14.4 SUMMARY AND or portions thereof should be authorised, CONCLUSIONS – Summary any avoidance, management and of mitigation measures mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a description of any consultation process 3. APPROACH that was undertaken during the course of 4.3 METHODOLOGY - carrying out the study; Analysis of the occurrence of ‘species of conservation concern’ (sensu Raimondo et al., 2009) (p) a summary and copies if any comments - that were received during any consultation process, and - (q) any other information requested by the - competent authority. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 1 3 APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 2 4 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Stratification and vegetation and sensitivity mapping ........................................................... 3 4.2 Floristic survey and vegetation sampling ................................................................................ 5 4.3 Analysis of the occurrence of ‘species of conservation concern’ (sensu Raimondo et al., 2009) 6 4.4 Diversity analysis ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.5 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 7 5 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 8 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 9 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................. 9 7.1 Locality and land-use .............................................................................................................. 9 7.2 Physiography ......................................................................................................................... 12 7.3 Broad-scale vegetation and habitat patterns ....................................................................... 12 8 DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION UNITS AND LANDCOVER TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ......... 17 9 SPECIES LIST AND ALIENS PLANT SPECIES ..................................................................................... 37 10 PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES ...................................................................................................... 40 11 PLANT ‘SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN’ (sensu Raimondo et al., 2009) ...................... 41 11.1 Declining species ................................................................................................................... 44 11.2 Threatened and Near Threatened species............................................................................ 45 12 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS .......................................... 51 13 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 55 13.1 Loss of vegetation types ....................................................................................................... 56 13.2 Loss of spatially restricted plant communities / habitats ..................................................... 59 13.3 Loss of flora ........................................................................................................................... 62 13.4 Loss of plant ‘species of conservation concern’ ................................................................... 64 13.5 Closure/Decommissioning Phase .......................................................................................... 68 13.6 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................. 68 14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 69 14.1 Description of the study area................................................................................................ 69 iii 14.2 Description of the project infrastructure footprints ............................................................. 72 14.3 Potential impact of the project ............................................................................................. 73 14.4 Summary of mitigation and management measures ........................................................... 73 15 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 78 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Guidelines for botanical biodiversity sensitivity categories. .................................................... 4 Table 2: Dominant and common plant taxa of the Rand Highveld Grassland (Gm 11) and Vaal Reefs Dolomite Sinkhole Woodland (Gh12) vegetation types (extracted from Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Dominant species indicated with (d). .................................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Broad-scale vegetation / land-cover type units identified within the MWS Kareerand TSF Extension Project study area. ................................................................................................................ 18 Table 4: Percentage of the MWS Kareerand TSF Extension Project study area occupied by each of the identified broad-scale vegetation and land-cover type units, number of surveyed sites in each unit which are included in floristic table in Appendix 3, average species richness per 100m2, and perceived biodiversity/conservation value of each unit. ......................................................................................