Biodiversity report

Transcription

Biodiversity report

Biodiversity impact assessment for the proposed
coalmining development by Keldoron in the Newcastle
area, Kwazulu-Natal.
Borent CC (Reg. No. 2006/049925/23)
44 Golf Gardens
Hazelwood
Pretoria
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 8
1.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Information provided for performing the biodiversity impact assessment................................ 10
1.2 Composition of this report........................................................................................................ 10
2.
BIO-MONITORING OF WATER QUALITY THROUGH SASS5.............................................. 12
2.1 Introduction to SASS5 assessment......................................................................................... 12
2.2 Methods................................................................................................................................... 12
Site Selection........................................................................................................................... 12
SASS5 Method........................................................................................................................ 13
Invertebrate Habitat Assessment (IHAS)................................................................................. 14
Abiotic Water Parameters........................................................................................................ 14
2.3 Results..................................................................................................................................... 15
Site Selection And Sampling Limitations.................................................................................. 15
SASS5 Results And Ecological Categories............................................................................ 18
Interpretation Of Ecological Category In Context................................................................... 18
2.4 Discussion (SASS5 analysis).................................................................................................. 22
Method Limitations................................................................................................................... 24
Proposed Bio-monitoring.......................................................................................................... 24
Relevance Of Observed River Health Status........................................................................... 25
Infrastructure placement.......................................................................................................... 25
EMP Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 26
3.
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT …............................................................................................ 27
3.1. Assignment.............................................................................................................................. 27
3.2. Rationale.................................................................................................................................. 28
3.3 Study area............................................................................................................................... 29
Location................................................................................................................................... 29
Vegetation types...................................................................................................................... 29
3.4. Methods................................................................................................................................... 29
Vegetation and flora................................................................................................................. 29
Conservation value.................................................................................................................. 30
Sensitivity................................................................................................................................. 31
Species richness...................................................................................................................... 32
2
3.5. Results: vegetation and flora.................................................................................................... 35
Vegetation classification........................................................................................................... 35
Description of the plant communities....................................................................................... 35
Grassland on sandy soil …..................................................................................................... 35
Grassland on vertic soil …...................................................................................................... 38
Wet grassland ….................................................................................................................... 40
Old fields …............................................................................................................................ 43
Open woodland on rocky hill slopes …................................................................................... 45
Bush clumps…......................................................................................................................... 46
Spruit vegetation….................................................................................................................. 50
River vegetation….................................................................................................................... 53
Dams and pan…...................................................................................................................... 55
Red data species..................................................................................................................... 57
Protected trees........................................................................................................................ 58
Medicinal plants....................................................................................................................... 58
Alien plants.............................................................................................................................. 58
3.6. Impact assessment (vegetation study)..................................................................................... 58
Methods................................................................................................................................... 58
Results..................................................................................................................................... 59
Discussion............................................................................................................................... 61
3.7 General discussion and conclusion (vegetation study)............................................................ 62
4.
DESKTOP STUDY OF INSECTS AT THE MINING AREA..................................................... 63
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 63
General introduction............................................................................................................... 63
Which invertebrates or what should be conserved?............................................................... 64
Which groups should be surveyed or monitored?.................................................................. 65
Invertebrates protected by NEMBA........................................................................................ 66
Invertebrates protected by the Kwazulu-Natal Province......................................................... 69
4.2 Methods.................................................................................................................................. 73
4.3 Results and Discussion.......................................................................................................... 73
Rhopalocera (Butterflies)........................................................................................................ 73
Odonata (Dragonflies & Damselflies)...................................................................................... 76
Mygalomorphae (Baboon and Trapdoor spiders).................................................................... 76
Scorpiones (Scorpions)........................................................................................................... 82
Coleoptera: Carabidae (Ground & Tiger beetles)................................................................... 82
Heteroptera (True Bugs)......................................................................................................... 83
3
4.4 The potential impacts of the mine on the invertebrate fauna and
mitigation measures................................................................................................................ 84
Direct habitat destruction........................................................................................................ 84
Light pollution......................................................................................................................... 85
Habitat fragmentation............................................................................................................. 87
Soil and water pollution.......................................................................................................... 88
Dust pollution.......................................................................................................................... 89
Road mortality......................................................................................................................... 89
Spread and establishment of alien invasive species............................................................... 90
Negative effect of human activities.......................................................................................... 91
5.
SURVEY OF HERPETOFAUNA ON THE MINING AREA...................................................... 93
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 93
5.2 Methods ….............................................................................................................................. 93
5.2 Desktop study.......................................................................................................................... 93
5.2 Field methods......................................................................................................................... 98
5.3 Results................................................................................................................................... 99
5.4 Discussion..............................................................................................................................102
General. .................................................................................................................................102
Current Disturbances.............................................................................................................102
Species of conservation concern...........................................................................................103
Herpetofauna sensitivity mapping......................................................................................... 103
Recommendations for the EMP..............................................................................................106
6.
SURVEY OF AVIFAUNA ON THE MINING AREA..................................................................110
6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................110
6.2 Methods..................................................................................................................................110
Desktop study.........................................................................................................................110
Field study...............................................................................................................................111
6.3 Results....................................................................................................................................111
6.4 Discussion...............................................................................................................................111
7.
SURVEY OF MAMMAL FAUNA ON THE MINING AREA.......................................................112
7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................112
7.2 Methods..................................................................................................................................112
Desktop study.........................................................................................................................112
4
.
Field study...............................................................................................................................112
7.3 Results.................................................................................................................................. 113
7.4 Discussion..............................................................................................................................113
Towards recommendations for the EMP.................................................................................114
8.
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................115
8.1 Plant or animal species of special conservation concern......................................................115
8.2 Impact identification and mitigation....................................................................................... 115
8.3 Relative sensitivity of the different zones on the Keldoron properties...................................116
8.5 Placement of the mining infrastructure..................................................................................118
8.6 Towards the EMP...................................................................................................................118
9.
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 124
APPENDIX 1. SASS5 data sheets............................................................................................... 128
APPENDIX 2. Butterfly species that potentially occur in the study area...................................... 132
APPENDIX 3. Mygalomorphae (baboon & trapdoor spiders) that potentially
occur in the Keldoron Colliery area........................................................................ 137
APPENDIX 4. Scorpions that potentially occur in the area of the Keldoron Colliery.................... 139
APPENDIX 5: List of Herpetofauna.............................................................................................. 140
APPENDIX 6. List of Avifauna....................................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX 7. List of Mammals..................................................................................................... 150
APPENDIX 8. Map of proposed mining mining rights area........................................................... 152
APPENDIX 9. Map of mining developments, open-cast areas and infrastructure........................ 153
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1.
Satellite image (courtesy Google Analytics) indicating the mining rights
areas as well as the locations of the proposed coal mining developments.…..... 11
Figure 2.1.
SASS5 sample sites in relation to the Keldoron properties near Newcastle. ….. 16
Figure 2.2.
Photographs of SASS5 sites …............................................................................17
Figure 2.3.
Taxa sensitivity spread per SASS5 sample site................................................... 19
Figure 2.4.
Scatterplot for the spatial group “North Eastern Uplands – Upper” for
the four SASS5 sites, including colour coding for Biological Bands..................... 19
Figure 2.5.
Influence of cattle on the Keldoron properties near Newcastle............................ 21
Figure 2.6.
Mining activities adjacent of the Ngangane. ….................................................... 23
Figure 3.1.
Vegetation map of the site, northern site above, southern site below ….............. 33
Figure 3.2.
Sensitivity map of the sites, northern site above, southern site below................. 34
Figure 3.3a&b. The Grassland on sandy soil …........................................................................... 37
Figure 3.4a.
Grassland on vertic soil, sometimes with scattered trees.................................... 39
Figure 3.4b.
Grassland on vertic soil, sometimes with scattered trees.................................... 40
Figure 3.5a&b. The Wet Grassland............................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.6.
Old Field vegetation.............................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.7a&b. The Open Woodland on the hill slope, sometimes with heritage walls................. 47
Figure 3.8a.
Bush Clump vegetation along the stream and alien trees in the vicinity............... 49
Figure 3.8b.
Bush Clump vegetation along the stream and alien trees in the vicinity............... 50
Figure 3.9a&b. Spruit vegetation – note the grassland to the spruit edge …................................ 52
Figure 3.10a&b. River vegetation ….............................................................................................. 54
Figure 3.11a&b: Dams …............................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3.12.
A small pan........................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.13.
Exampleof a heavily grazed sandy grassland...................................................... 62
Figure 5.1
Temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) for the duration of the
fieldwork during this survey. …............................................................................. 95
Figure 5.2
Northern portion of the study area showing greater detail on the tracks
and sampling points. …........................................................................................ 96
Figure 5.3
Southern portion of the study area showing greater detail
on the tracks and sampling points........................................................................ 97
Figure 5.4
A selection of the observed and photographed reptile species...........................100
Figure 5.5
A selection of the observed and photographed amphibian species....................101
Figure 5.6.
Contours (20 m) clearly showing the position of the rocky ridges in
relation to the proposed mining activities............................................................107
6
Figure 5.7.
Sensitivity maps for A) Reptiles and B) Amphibia, based on
the ranking system described in the text.............................................................108
Figure 6.1
Four bird species photographed at the Keldoron properties................................111
Figure 7.1
Large-spotted genet Genetta tigrina photographed during a night
survey and black-backed jackal Canis mesomelas photographed
by an automated camera.....................................................................................113
Figure 8.1
Landscape classification indicating five habitat zones, based on
the botanical survey.............................................................................................120
Figure 8.2
Sensitivity importance of habitat zones for each of the four vertebrate
animal groups......................................................................................................121
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Overview of SASS5 sample site details. .......................................................................15
Table 2.2 Biological bands and ecological categories for the interpretation of SASS5 data ..........20
Table 2.3 Results of SASS5, IHAS and water quality parameters for each of the four SASS5
sample sites. ................................................................................................................. 20
Table 2.4 Description of monitoring suitability for each of the four SASS5 sample sites................23
Table 3.1 Impact Table (vegetation survey) ..................................................................................60
Table 4.1. Invertebrate species protected by NEMBA. ...................................................................67
Table 4.2. Red Data butterfly species of KwaZulu-Natal ................................................................74
Table 4.3 Red Data Dragon- and Damselfly species of KwaZulu-Natal.........................................78
Table 5.1 Information for the herpetofauna active searching sampling sites (NCA1 – NCA6)........94
Table 5.2 Example table for reptiles of how sensitivity ranks were calculated for
each habitat type...........................................................................................................105
Table 8.1 Impact table of proposed mining activities on biodiversity at the Keldoron properties..122
Table 8.2 Sensitivity rankings of habitat zones for each of the vertebrate animal
groups...........................................................................................................................123
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Keldoron 22 Properties (Pty) Ltd wishes to develop parts of the farms Tuam, Walmsley and
Vreda near Newcastle, Kwazulu-Natal as a coal mine. This study investigates the biodiversity
impact that the proposed development is expected to have. We also propose mitigation
procedures for these impacts, enabling the EMP to minimise the effect of the mining activities
on biodiversity. The proposed mining area does not lie within any of the threatened ecosystems
defined by NEM:BA. We expect about 3 000 species of invertebrates would be present on site.
No Red Data invertebrates are predicted to occur on site but several genera and species,
protected by the NEM:BA, potentially occur at the site. Although threatened plant and
vertebrate animals were observed on site, the proposed development is unlikely to have a
strong effect on these taxa.
2. The ecologically sensitive areas are the wetlands, wet grasslands and rocky hills. These need
to be protected. We suggest protection of the rocky hills and wetland areas as a conservation
unit in an effort to offset the damage caused by the mining activities.
3. The proposed infrastructure is not well placed, with effects on two water catchment areas and
on sensitive rocky hills. The infrastructure needs to be moved. We suggest an alternative
location of infrastructure in the connecting section of the property, away from hills or eastwards
flowing drainage lines.
4. No detailed information about the exact placement of facilities such as roads and dumps, as
well as the procedures for handling water and dust were provided. Therefore we cannot
comment on the impact of these issues. The most significant expected impacts are:
a) Total destruction of biodiversity in the opencast excavations. There are no mitigation
procedures for this process, apart from rehabilitation after mine closure.
b) Trampling of reptiles and amphibia by heavy truck traffic between the opencast areas and
the plant. This impact can be largely reduced by doing road construction in a way to
counteract this impact.
c)
Water runoff and leachate from the dumps are likely to affect water quality in the catchment
area(s) and will affect water plants and animals. Suitable mitigation procedures need to be
instituted. We did not receive enough information to propose more specific measures.
d) The management of the areas around the opencast pits and infrastructure needs to be
drastically improved. Currently heavy overgrazing and trampling destroys large amounts of
biodiversity. Proper management of the veld, involving the reduction of cattle, rotation of
grazing as well as extending the period between fires, will largely restore the biodiversity.
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Location of property
Keldoron Properties 22 (Pty) Limited, wishes to initiate opencast coal mining on the farms
Tuam, One Tree, Walmsley, Vreda, Diamond, Jubilee and Milnedale in the district of Newcastle,
Kwazulu-Natal. This report is intended to evaluate the biodiversity impact of these developments
as well as to point out certain alternatives with respect to the mitigation of these biodiversity
impacts.
The property (approximately 7058 Ha in extent) is roughly divided into four sections (Figure 1):
•
Northern section (Tuam, One Tree); 2668 Ha.
This section comprises a mixture of old lands, low hills and temporary wetlands. The part
of this section that is intended for opencast mining largely falls within the old lands on these
farms.
•
Connecting section (Part of Walmsley) ; 448 Ha
This section lies just north of a disused coal mine. It comprises a low hill and grassland that
has some severe soil erosion. This section is intended to have a road for the transport of
coal from the northern section to the central section.
•
Central section (Walmsley, Vreda, Diamond, Jubilee) ; 3407 Ha
This section contains the largest portion that is intended for opencast mining, as well as the
infrastructure required to manage and process the opencast product. The washing plant on
this section is intended to handle coal mined in the northern section and in this section
itself.
•
Southern section (Milnedale) ; 535 Ha
This section is not intended for immediate mining and comprises degraded grassland and
old lands.
The site is located just south-east of Newcastle (Figure 1). The initial development will comprise
two opencast mines mostly on the farms Taum 13485 and Walmsley 4266, with plants on the farm
Vreda 9922. The proposed development areas have well-defined drainage lines, from the east and
eventually running into the Ngagane River some 6 km to the west, a vertical fall of just less than
200m.
9
The following applies:
•
The site does not fall within a conservancy.
•
The site does not fall within a protected area.
•
There are wetlands (spruits and river) on the site.
•
The site is topographically a fairly homogeneous, slightly undulating, plain and with
spruits present. Some rocky hills are found on the site.
1.2 Information provided for performing the biodiversity impact assessment.
Two maps were provided, one indicating the mining rights areas (Appendix 9), the other
indicating the proposed placement of infrastructure and the areas earmarked for opencast mining
(Appendix 9). More accurate information about the extent of dumps, the amount and sites of water
extracted from rivers and the other descriptors of the mining process were not supplied.
1.3 Composition of this report.
This report has seven sections :
1. SASS5 assessment of water quality making use of invertebrate biodiversity, based on field
work during February 2012.
2. A study of the vegetation of the area, based on field work during February 2012, and with
focus on the zones demarcated for opencast mining and for the establishment of
infrastructure.
3. A desktop study of the invertebrates of the site and the foreseeable impact of the mining
development on the invertebrate fauna.
4. A study of the herpetofauna of the area, based on field work during February 2012.
5. A study of the avifauna of the area, based on field work during February 2012.
6. A study of the mammals of the area, based on field work during February 2012.
7. Overall discussion and recommendations for an EMP.
10
Figure 1.1 Satellite image (courtesy Google Analytics) indicating the mining rights areas as well
as the locations of the proposed coal mining developments.
11
2. BIO-MONITORING OF WATER QUALITY THROUGH SASS5
(This section written by U.K. Verburgt)
2.1 Introduction to SASS5 analysis
The proposed mining activity on the Keldoron properties near Newcastle has potential impacts
on the health of the associated aquatic systems: drainage lines and streams are bound to collect
mining debris, processing residues, leachate and polluted run-off and transport it into larger rivers
as well as wetlands. The water quality for use and consumption by humans is therefore at stake
and animal and plant communities can be altered with severe effects on food webs and therefore a
decrease in biodiversity.
During this assessment period (14 – 19 February 2012), the SASS5 method was applied to
acquire baseline data on the ‘river health’ of streams associated with the Keldoron properties.
Therefore the “biological band” and “ecological category”, which are widely used indicators of river
health (Dallas 2007, see Table 2), were determined based on the SASS5 results of four sample
sites. The SASS5 method uses aquatic macroinvertebrates as response indicators to water quality,
thereby allowing for an evaluation of overall river health. SASS5 sample sites were selected,
assessed and evaluated for their suitability to act as baseline data for future bio-monitoring as part
of an environmental management plan (EMP).
The Keldoron properties near Newcastle fall into the “North Eastern Uplands” Ecoregion, which
is a very diverse region, incorporating lowlands, hills and mountains, dominated by grassland,
Natal Central Bushveld and Valley Thicket vegetation. The rainfall season reaches from early to
late summer with a mean annual precipitation of 600mm to 1000mm (Kleynhans et al. 2005). The
sampled sites are furthermore spatially grouped into the “Upper” longitudinal zone (Dallas 2005,
Dallas 2007), based on the geomorphological zonation of the river channels and characteristic
gradients (Rowntree & Wadeson 2000).
.
2.2 SASS5 methods
The SASS5 method (Dickens & Graham 2002) was used in order to monitor drainage lines of
the Keldoron properties as a rapid method to determine and monitor river health. The following
approaches and methods were applied during this process:
Site Selection : Sample sites and potential monitoring points were chosen carefully in order to
maximise the reliability of the SASS5 results. Extensive reconnaissance by vehicle and on foot was
undertaken to determine suitable sites based on the following criteria:
•
Strategic location in terms of determining the areas of impact as well as relevant reference
sites
12
•
Extent of water flow, as the SASS5 method is only applicable in flowing systems
•
Habitat diversity to increase robustness of SASS5 results
•
Site accessibility to allow for efficient and regular bio-monitoring
Four sites were chosen at Keldoron, each representing a significant drainage basin of the
mining rights area (see section 2.3.1).
SASS5 scoring: The SASS5 method (South African Scoring System, version 5, Dickens & Graham,
2002) is an approach, which allows the rapid assessment of the health of a running water system
based on its resident macroinvertebrate assemblage. The method is widely recognised and
popular for bio-monitoring purposes due to its time and cost efficiency. For this method, a variety of
macroinvertebrate groups have been assigned sensitivity scores, which relate to their tolerance to
pollution. The sensitivity of a taxon is correlated to its score on a scale from 1 – 15: the higher the
score the less tolerant to pollution (more sensitive), where 1 – 5 indicates high, 6 – 10 moderate
and 11 – 15 low tolerance to pollution (most sensitive taxa) (Gerber & Gabriel 2002 A). A strict
sampling protocol is followed in order to capture representative samples of the resident
macroinvertebrates, per site. This includes a specific netting procedure (with a mesh size of 1mm
on a 30 cm square frame) as well as visually observed and hand-picked specimens. The captured
macroinvertebrates are thereafter identified (Gerber & Gabriel 2002 A & B) and recorded
immediately on site. The SASS5 method results in three main scores (outlined below) which are
instrumental in determining the ecological category of a site which indicates the systems
modification status and subsequently the river (stream) health:
•
“SASS5 score”: a cumulative value of the sensitivity scores of each taxon encountered. The
SASS5 score on its own is not an indication of river health as a high value can be the result
of many insensitive taxa, as well as of fewer more sensitive taxa. This score has to be
interpreted in conjunction with the “Number of taxa”.
•
“Number of taxa”: the count of how many different invertebrate taxa (usually families or
orders, as defined per SASS5 sample sheets, Dallas 2005) were identified. The higher the
count, the more different taxa are present in the system, representing higher diversity. This
value on its own does also not indicate river health, as a large number of insensitive taxa
can be present in a largely modified, unnatural setting. The number of taxa has to be
interpreted in conjunction with the “SASS5 score”.
•
“ASPT”: the “average score per taxa” is the most robust and repeatable score, as it is a
function of the actual SASS5 score and the number of taxa. It is calculated by dividing the
SASS5 score by the number of taxa, resulting in a mean sensitivity score of the
encountered macroinvertebrates. Even though a high ASPT indicates better river health,
13
further interpretation in context is essential (see details below).
The SASS5 score and the ASPT are used to represent each SASS5 site in a scatterplot where
the ASPT is plotted as a function of the SASS5 score (Dallas 2007). The position of the data point
within the scatterplot results in a site “health rating” (also referred to as biological band or
ecological category) for this specific SASS5 site. The relevant scatterplots are selected depending
on the ecoregion and zonation of each site (see below). This is important as reference scatterplots
have been derived from extensive data sets (Dallas 2007, DWAF 2007) representing many
ecoregions and zonations. The ecological bands have been calculated uniquely per spatial group
based on the available reference data using percentiles in order to assist the evaluation of data
collected within a particular spatial group (Dallas 2007).
In addition to the three above mentioned values, the available habitat diversity has an effect on
the actual SASS5 results and their robustness needs to be taken into account during data
interpretation (Dickens & Graham 2002). As rivers with a large variety of habitats cater for a greater
diversity of invertebrates, it is important to, where possible, maximise habitat diversity through
thorough site selection. In order to allow for adequate data interpretation, the available sample
habitat and stream condition were assessed using an invertebrate habitat assessment (IHAS, see
below) to accompany the SASS5 results. In order to maximise habitat diversity and enhance the
reliability of the SASS5 results samples were collected along a relatively long stretch of river,
including habitats from up to 50m upstream and 50m downstream of the provided site coordinates.
A set of abiotic water parameters was also recorded for each site to further assist with the
interpretation of the SASS5 scores (see below).
Invertebrate Habitat Assessment (IHAS): The suitability of the sampled habitat was established
using the Invertebrate Habitat Assessment (IHAS) method (Peter McMillan, CSIR). This method
allows for the evaluation of the sampling habitat as well as actual stream condition and results in
an overall percentage score. Scores above 55% are generally considered to provide adequate
sample conditions, scores above 65% indicate good sample habitat. Habitats rated 55% and lower
are inadequate and do not cater for reliable SASS5 results.
Abiotic Water Parameters: A portable Multi-meter (Hach: HQ40d) was used to measure
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen as well as oxygen saturation, TDS (total dissolved solids) and
conductivity. These parameters are not required for the SASS5 method, but can be useful in
assisting with data interpretation, as abnormalities in water quality are often impossible to identify
visually during the site visit.
14
2.3 Results
Site selection and sampling limitations
Site selection was difficult due to the seasonality of most flowing water systems in the study
area and the multiple influences affecting the Ngangane river to the West. Even though the first
site visit took place during the rainfall season (Kleynhans et al 2005), most streams on site showed
relatively low to no flow. This unfortunately limits their suitability to apply the SASS5 method, as
macroinvertebrate diversity decreases in the absence of flowing water and macroinvertebrate
communities suffer, if flow ceases seasonally. Nevertheless, four SASS5 sites were selected in
order to strategically collect baseline data and evaluate potential strategic bio-monitoring points
(Fig. 2.1, Table 2.1). Three sites were chosen on the western side of the drainage line running
through the property, as the majority of runoff and potential mining contamination collects in
drainage lines transporting water westwards: Site NC_SASS_WEST, NC_SASS_NORTH and
NC_SASS_SOUTH (Figs. 2.1, 2.2) were chosen to determine the ecological category of the
respective drainage lines (western, northern and southern), flowing into the Ngangane river. Only
one site was chosen east of the watershed, as few drainage lines have the potential to transport
mining pollutants eastwards: NC_SASS_EAST was chosen to collect baseline data on the eastern
runoff from the property towards the Buffelsrivier.
Table 2.1 Overview of SASS5 sample sites, chosen to represent a significant portion of the runoff
from the Keldoron properties.
Location
Site
(date sampled)
NC_SASS_WEST
(16. Feb 2012)
NC_SASS_NORTH
(17. Feb 2012)
NC_SASS_SOUTH
(17. Feb 2012)
NC_SASS_EAST
(19. Feb 2012)
Drainage River
Western
drainage
towards
Ngangane
Northern
drainage
towards
Ngangane
Southern
drainage
towards
Ngangane
Eastern
drainage
towards
Buffelsrivier
Peripheral info
Zonation /
Gradient
E
coordinates
S
coordinates
Elevation
in m
Hydrological
type
Prominent
marginal
vegitation
Surrounding
activities
upper
zone / >
0.005
29.985347
-27.863696
1174.52
Seasonal
Grasses,
Cyperus spp
Farming
(cattle)
upper
zone / >
0.005
30.015529
-27.787818
1186.00
Seasonal
Cyperus spp,
grasses
Farming
(cattle)
upper
zone / >
0.005
30.004980
-27.922062
1249.72
Seasonal
Grasses,
Cyperus spp
Farming
(cattle)
upper
zone / >
0.005
30.086343
-27.859033
1237.10
Seasonal
Grasses,
sedges,
Phragmites
spp
Farming
(cattle)
15
Figure 2.1 Location of SASS5 sampling sites with respect to drainage lines on the Keldoron properties
16
NC_SASS
WEST
NC_SASS
NORTH
NC_SASS
EAST
NC_SASS
SOUTH
Figure 2.2 Photographs of SASS5 sites (two photographs per site)
17
2.3.2. SASS5 results and ecological categories
The following provides an overview on the site-specific SASS5 results in terms of the sensitivity
of taxa encountered per site (Fig. 2.3). The actual SASS5 score sheets are appended to the
document (see Appendix 1).
•
NC_SASS_WEST: the ASPT of NC_SASS_WEST was relatively low (4.45), indicating a
high pollution tolerance of the resident taxa. Even though the number of taxa found was
relatively high, amongst the 22 taxa recorded, the majority (16) had a low sensitivity score.
Six taxa were classified as having medium sensitivity / pollution tolerance and none of the
taxa were highly sensitive.
•
NC_SASS_NORTH: 17 taxa were recorded, of which ten were of high pollution tolerance,
six were moderately sensitive and one taxon was highly sensitive in its tolerance to pollution
(the presence of more than two different types of Baetidae / Family of Small Minnow flies,
accounts for a score of “12” for this rather sensitive taxon). The resulting ASPT was with
5.12 the highest amongst the four sample points, as 41% of the taxa encountered had
sensitivity rankings of moderate to high, requiring water of reasonable quality.
•
NC_SASS_SOUTH: no sensitive taxa were identified. Of the 21 taxa found two thirds (14)
were of low sensitivity, one third (7) of medium sensitivity, resulting in an ASPT of 4.95.
•
NC_SASS_EAST: amongst the 16 encountered taxa, none showed high sensitivity. Five
taxa of medium sensitivity and 16 taxa of low sensitivity were identified, which resulted in the
lowest ASPT (4.44) recorded during this sample period.
The ecological category of the sample points provides an indication of river health and is derived
from comparing the results (ASPT and SASS5 score) of each sample point to an existing reference
dataset (Dallas 2007) from the same zonation / spatial group . The positioning of the data point
within the respective scatterplot (Fig. 2.4) identifies the biological band of the sampled site which
corresponds to an ecological category and provides information on the modification status and
integrity of a system (Table 2.2). All four sites are, based on the results from this sample
period, classified as category E systems, indicating serious river modification. The SASS5
results (values) used to establish the biological band / ecological category for each site can be
viewed in Table 2.3.
Interpretation of ecological categories in context
In order to evaluate the SASS5-based ecological category results, each site was interpreted in
conjunction with peripheral information observed (e.g. hydrological type, marginal vegetation,
surrounding activities) and additional information collected (e.g. IHAS, abiotic water parameters),
available in Table 2.1 and Table 2.3.
18
Figure 2.3 Taxa sensitivity per SASS sample site.
Figure 2.4 Scatterplot for the spatial group “North Eastern Uplands - Upper” for the four SASS5
sites including colour coding for Biological Bands (Dallas 2007); NC_SASS5_WEST: square;
NC_SASS5_NORTH: diamond; NC_SASS5_SOUTH: triangle; NC_SASS5_EAST: circle.
19
Table 2.2 Biological bands and ecological categories for the interpretation of SASS5 data (Dallas 2007)
Biological Band
A
B
C
D
E
F
Ecological Category
Natural
Good
Fair
Poor
Seriously modified
Critically modified
Description
Unmodified natural
Largely natural with few modification
Moderately modified
Largely modified
Seriously modified
Critically or extremely modified
Colour code
Blue
Green
Yellow
Red
Purple
Black
Table 2.3 Results of SASS5, IHAS and water quality parameters for each of the four SASS5 sample sites.
SASS results
IHAS
Water parameters
Site
(date sampled)
SASS
5
score
Taxa
diversity
ASPT
Biological
band
Ecological
category
Habitat
score
Habitat suitability
Temperature
(°C)
pH
Dissolved
oxygen
Oxygen
saturation
TDS
(mg/l)
Conductivity
(μS/cm)
NC_SASS_WEST
(16. Feb 2012)
98
22
4.45
E
Seriously
modified
78%
Good
23.2
7.7
6.6
89%
791
1582
87
17
5.12
E
Seriously
modified
56%
Adequate,
borderline
inadequate
23.2
8.3
5.8
80%
153
305
104
21
4.95
E
Seriously
modified
65%
Adequate,
tendency good
32.1
8.2
6.3
101%
203
407
71
16
4.44
E
Seriously
modified
56%
Adequate,
borderline
inadequate
18.5
8.1
7.7
94%
91
182
NC_SASS_NORT
H
(17.
Feb 2012)
NC_SASS_SOUT
H
(17.
Feb 2012)
NC_SASS_EAST
(19. Feb 2012)
20
Even though all sites fall into the biological category E, this result should not be overinterpreted, as sample conditions were not ideal due to the fact that all sample sites appeared to
be seasonal streams (i.e. flowing annually at a predictable time of year, but ceasing to flow for
some time each year). The flow observed was relatively low for all four sites, suggesting that the
flow is likely to cease during the dry season which is characterised by lower flow. If this seasonality
should be confirmed during the dry season visit, it reduces opportunities for the establishment of a
complex macroinvertebrate community, which limits diversity and thus the reliability of the SASS5
results. Thus caution must be applied to not over-interpret low SASS5 results directly as poor
water quality. The marginal vegetation of all sites was suboptimal for sampling as very little “leafy”
vegetation was available (no broad leaves, almost exclusively stems and blades – less suitable to
anchor and shelter a large variety of aquatic invertebrates). Surrounding farming activities
influence all four sampled drainage lines due to the frequent use by cattle (Fig. 2.5), reducing
channel quality and therefore habitat diversity. The IHAS scores confirmed the sample habitat to be
of good quality only for NC_SASS_WEST with a habitat score of 78%. The NC_SASS_SOUTH
habitat scored 65%, thus being classified as adequate, borderline good habitat. The sites
NC_SASS_ N and NC_SASS_EAST only had habitat scores of 56%, providing adequate, but
borderline inadequate habitat. No abiotic water qualities of concern were detected for any of the
sites. The results of NC_SASS_EAST were further influenced due to heavy rains two days prior to
sample collection, resulting in sample dilution and difficulties in sample habitat selection (sampling
of this site was postponed until the very last day of the visit to minimise this effect.).
Figure 2.5 Cattle on the Keldoron properties near Newcastle, affecting water quality through
excessive trampling, overgrazing and carcasses in the stream.
21
2.4 Discussion
Using the SASS5 method for the assessment of river integrity is cost and time efficient providing
almost instant results. However, the combined results of the SASS5 method, IHAS, abiotic water
parameters and peripheral information suggest that none of the sample sites are ideal for the
collection of appropriate bio-monitoring data. This is mostly due to the fact that the sites appear to
be only seasonally flowing (Table 2.4). In order to verify and finalise the suitability of each site for
bio-monitoring purposes, a second site visit, including data collection, is planned during the dry /
low flow season and will result in an update of this report. To avoid the difficulties associated with
seasonal streams, larger perennial systems to the west (Ngagane river) and in the east
(Buffelsrivier) of the Keldoron properties were considered for sample collection, but selected
against as they suffer too many diverse influences from other industries and human activities. Even
though regular sampling could be performed easily in these rivers, the data yielded would be
inconclusive in terms of the origin of water quality changing agents. It would therefore be extremely
difficult to relate any changes to run-off from the Keldoron properties:
•
West: The Ngagane river directly borders coal mining activities upstream (Fig. 2.6) as well
as a chemical plant (Karbochem (Pty) Ltd) just downstream of the main drainage entries
from the Keldoron properties. Both are influencing the Ngaganes’ water quality due to the
runoff of processing debris and potential chemical spills (as occurred for example on the
16th of February 2012 where cyanide from Karbochem (Pty) Ltd leaked into the Ngagane,
leading to the death of several cows due to water pollution). Furthermore, vast drainage line
systems, running through extensive settlements, enter the Ngangane from the west,
potentially introducing water quality changing agents.
•
East: The few larger eastwards drainage lines on the Keldron property run through
extensive human settlements and farming activities collecting potential pollutants and are
thus strongly influenced by human activities before entering the Buffelsrivier. The
Buffelsrivier is, furthermore, too far removed from the Keldoron properties to provide
relevant data for the bio-monitoring of property run-off.
A significant ecological factor that affects water quality and the diversity of macroinvertebrates
on the Keldoron properties is overgrazing. The resulting trampling and siltation degrades the
streams (Fig. 2.5). While grazing actually contributes to biodiversity, unmanaged overgrazing has a
strong degrading affect.
22
Table 2.4 Description of monitoring suitabilities of each of the SASS5 sample sites.
Site
(date sampled)
Biologica
l band
Habitat suitability
(based on IHAS)
Water
abnormalities
Hydrological
type*
Suitability for
monitoring
NC_SASS_WEST
(16. Feb 2012)
E
Good
None
Seasonal
MODERATELY
SUITABLE
NC_SASS_NORTH
(17. Feb 2012)
E
Adequate, borderline
inadequate
None
Seasonal
POORLY SUITED
NC_SASS_SOUTH
(17. Feb 2012)
E
Adequate, tendency
good
None
Seasonal
MODERATELY
SUITABLE
NC_SASS_EAST
(19. Feb 2012)
E
Adequate, borderline
inadequate
None
Seasonal
POORLY SUITED
Grey fields indicate unfavourable circumstances for monitoring suitability
* requires revision based on dry / low flow season visit
Figure 2.6 Mining activities adjacent to the Ngagane river and immediately upstream of the
Keldoron mining areas. Top: View from East; Bottom: View from West.
23
Limitations of methods
As the SASS5 method uses aquatic macroinvertebrates as response indicators the method is
limited, if suitable perennial systems are lacking, as is the case for Keldoron properties. The
SASS5 method is not applicable and does not produce reliable results in lentic systems (standing
water bodies) and wetlands (Dickens & Graham 2002); flowing systems are required for successful
application. Since results derived using the SASS5 method gain robustness with increasing habitat
diversity and flow continuity the hydrological type of a sample site should preferably be perennial
(flowing all year round). As the evaluation of the hydrological type of a system is often difficult,
especially if the sites were first visited during summer / high flow (as for this study), these may
need to be revised depending on the findings during the upcoming winter visit (low flow season).
Based on the information gathered during this summer visit, the SASS5 method is unfortunately
not ideal to monitor river health for the Keldoron properties, as no suitable perennial systems are
available for regular sampling throughout the year. Furthermore, it was difficult to find sites of good
sampling habitat (IHAS), further limiting the method.
Nevertheless, considering not only the lack of perennial streams but also the lack of permanent
standing surface water bodies allowing for extensive alternative water quality assessments, such
as chemical analysis and diatom response, SASS5 should be considered for bio-monitoring to
support other methods. This means that, although the use of SASS5 for measuring year-round
water quality is limited in the case of the Keldoron properties, it still provides robust
evidence of the health of the macroinvertebrate water fauna as long as seasonable flow
persists.
Proposed Bio-monitoring
Because there are coal mining activities upstream of the Keldoron properties (Fig. 2.6), it
becomes important to understand how much degradation of water sources occurs at these
upstream sites. This is important in order to be able to evaluate what the effect of the proposed
mining activities at Keldoron will be on stream quality, given that these external factors also play a
role. Based on the results of the summer visit it is therefore recommended to apply SASS5 for
bio-monitoring at all four sites in conjunction with detailed water quality measures,
including chemical analysis of sulphate to chloride ratios (indicative of mining pollution) of
available surface and ground water (a freshwater specialist should be consulted in this regard).
The species composition and specific abundances of amphibian communities may also act as a
useful tool for monitoring water quality on the property (a specialist should be consulted in this
regard). By sampling all four points and comparing them to the current baseline data (e.g. by
adding the results to the scatterplot) a change in water quality can be detected and linked to a
24
specific area of origin within the Keldoron properties. Slight shifts in water quality (data points) are
expected due to the natural variability of a river system as well as the approaches of different
SASS5 practitioners. However, in the case of a remarkable shift towards lower river health an
investigation needs to be triggered in order to establish the exact origin of the pollution, counteract
the impact and mitigate the potential ecological damage.
SASS5 bio-monitoring samples should be collected on a monthly basis starting approximately
one month after the onset of the rainy season to allow for the establishment of the aquatic
macroinvertebrates assemblages. Thereby the effects of contaminants which have collected
throughout the dry season (winter) can be detected as more sensitive taxa would fail to establish
themselves, resulting in reduced ASPTs. Thereafter, sample collection should continue for each
site until flow has ceased. The ecological integrity of a site can therefore be monitored over time,
potential degradations can rapidly be noted and further loss of ecological integrity can be
prevented. Furthermore, if river health steadily increases, due to responsible management of the
mining property, the results can enhance the mine’s public image.
Relevance of observed river health status
The recorded river health data (February 2012) should primarily be used as baseline data to
compare future data against. This will allow the detection of changes and can therefore help
prevent ecological disasters. However, as the detected health status of drainage lines is poor and
reveals shortcomings of the current management it should not be neglected to utilise the data as
guidelines when composing/revising an environmental management plan (EMP).
As previously mentioned above, the river health for all four sites (based on their relatively low
ASPTs and SASS5 scores) were classified as “ecological category E”, indicating serious river
modification and subsequently poor river health. Besides the fact that the robustness of the SASS5
results is limited for drainage systems on the Keldoron properties, river health appears mainly
and strongly affected by overutilization through cattle farming and the observed river health
status is of concern.
Reconsideration for infrastructure placement
Mining related activities in and around the proposed infrastructure are likely to result in negative
impacts, such as the run-off of processing debris and chemicals, accidental fuel and lubricant spills
from machinery as well as improperly discarded waste accumulating in the drainage lines. For coal
mines, acid mine drainage from pumped water is an additional constraint. As these impacts cannot
be ruled out to occur during the project lifespan, it is essential to minimise their potential spatial
25
extent, by strategically positioning the infrastructure and thereby protecting the water supply for not
only humans but also for fauna and flora depending on drainage line water. The Keldoron
properties extend across the watershed line (Figure 2.1) and potential contaminations could
therefore be flushed into river systems both in the West (Ngangane) and in the East (Buffelsrivier).
It is therefore highly recommended to limit mining activities to one side of the watershed. Since the
majority of the Keldoron properties are located on the areas West of the watershed line (Fig. 2.1), a
repositioning of the proposed infrastructure to the western side of the watershed would effectively
reduce any potential contaminants to one river system only.
The positioning of the ‘discard dump’, the ‘return water dam’, the ‘plant’ and the
‘contractors camp’ should be reconsidered (Fig. 2.1), as these impose risks of eastwards water
contamination through, mining debris (dump& plant), processing chemicals (dump & plant),
garbage (plant & camp)
and sewage (camp). The distribution of contaminants through water
channels occurs rapidly, and even if swift mitigation occurs the impact can be significant and cause
casualties, as recently witnessed after the cyanide spill of Karbochem. The unnecessary risks of
endangering large numbers of local inhabitants, animals and plants can be avoided if the eastern
side of the watershed remains free of mining, mining related activities and infrastructure. Any
potentially problematic run-off will therefore only enter aquatic systems to the West and will be
easier to mitigate and/or counteracted in a worst-case scenario. Considering this aspect should be
key in order to demonstrate responsible mine management towards the environment and
communities.
EMP Recommendations
Enhancing river health and water quality on the Keldoron properties should be one of the main
goals of a holistic EMP as healthy aquatic systems provide a valuable resource for humans and an
essential foundation for ecosystem health and biodiversity. The following key points to enhance
water quality and limit potential contamination problems were identified during the summer visit:
Cattle management. A reduction in the number of cattle as well as a strict rotation system will
reduce the extent of channel modification through erosion due to trampling and contamination due
to cattle faeces and urine. Over time, improved management of livestock is expected to result
in the overall improvements of the drainage line systems, subsequently reflecting in improved
aquatic heath of standing water bodies.
Regular monitoring of streams. As indicated above, the regular monitoring of streams, using the
SASS5 approach is crucial for detecting any on-site pollution or degradation of water.
26
3. VEGETATION ASSESSMENT OF AREAS FOR PROPOSED MINING DEVELOPMENT
(This section written by G.J. Bredenkamp)
3.1. Assignment
EcoAgent CC Ecology and Biodiversity Consultants was appointed by Borent CC to undertake
an independent assessment of the vegetation and flora, of the site. In accordance with The Natural
Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003) only a person registered with the Council may practice
in a consulting capacity. Prof GJ Bredenkamp of EcoAgent CC undertook an independent
assessment of the vegetation and flora that would be affected by the proposed development on the
farms Taum, Walmsley and Vreda in the Newcastle district, KwaZulu-Natal. A field survey was
conducted on the 15-16 March 2012.
This assignment is in accordance with the EIA Regulations (No. R543-546, Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 18 June 2010) emanating from Chapter 5 of the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998).
The assignment is interpreted as follows:
Compile a study on
•
Vegetation with special emphasis on the possible presence of red data species on the site,
In order to compile the vegetation and flora study, the following had to be done:
a.

Initial preparations:
Obtain all relevant maps, aerial photographs and information on the natural environment of
the concerned area. This includes a red data species list for the Flora.
b.
Vegetation and habitat survey: In each vegetation type / plant community on site:

Determine relatively homogeneous potential ecological units / plant communities /
ecosystems on recent aerial photographs.

Determine the broad habitat features within each homogeneous unit.

List the plant species (trees, shrubs, grasses and herbaceous species of special interest)
present in each ecological unit for plant community and ecosystem description.

Identify potential red data plant species, protected species, possible encroacher species
and exotic plant species.

Identify potential habitat for the red data species that may be present in the area.
27
c. Plant community delimitation and description

Process data (vegetation and habitat) to determine vegetation types / ecosystems on an
ecological basis.

Describe the habitat and vegetation

Prepare a vegetation map of the area if more than one plant community is present.

Prepare an ecosystem sensitivity map for the planning of the development.
d. General

Identify and describe ecologically sensitive areas.

Identify problem areas in need of special treatment or management, e.g. bush
encroachment, erosion, degraded areas, reclamation areas.

Make recommendations on aspects that should be monitored during development.
3.2. Rationale
It is widely recognised that it is of utmost importance to conserve natural resources in order to
maintain ecological processes and life support systems for plants, animals and humans. To ensure
that sustainable development takes place, it is therefore important that the environment is
considered before relevant authorities approve any development. This led to legislation protecting
the natural environment. The Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the National Environmental
Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004) ensure the protection of ecological
processes, natural systems and natural beauty as well as the preservation of biotic diversity in the
natural environment. It also ensures the protection of the environment against disturbance,
deterioration, defacement or destruction as a result of man-made structures, installations,
processes or products or human activities. A draft list of Threatened Ecosystems was published
(Government Gazette 2009) as part of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act,
2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). These Threatened Ecosystems are described by SANBI & DEAT (2009).
All components of the ecosystems (physical environment, vegetation, animals) of a site are
interrelated and interdependent. A holistic approach is therefore imperative to effectively include
the development, utilisation and where necessary conservation of the given natural resources in an
integrated development plan, which will address all the needs of the modern human population
28
(Bredenkamp & Brown 2001).
It is therefore necessary to make a thorough inventory of the plant communities and biodiversity
on the site, in order to evaluate the biodiversity and possible rare species. This inventory should
then serve as a scientific and ecological basis for the planning exercises.
3.3. Study area
Location
The site falls within the Sub-Escarpment Grassland Bioregion of Mucina & Rutherford (2006) in
the Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland. The site is a fairly flat to slightly undulating plain.
There are signs of old croplands, but most of the site and surrounding habitats are natural
grasslands that have been used for grazing livestock. There are also several other human impacts,
such as small dams on the streams, vehicle tracks and foot paths. Sparsely woody vegetation is
found mainly along the small hills, mainly as scattered trees and bushes. Most of the areas have
low alien infestation, except around the dwellings.
Vegetation Types
The site is located directly South of Newcastle. The regional geology is dominated by Mudstone
and shale of the Ecca and Beaufort Groups of the Karoo Supergroup. The deep red structureless
soils of the plains are of the Hutton form while shallower soils on the ridges and rocky outcrops are
of the Mispah or Glenrosa forms.
The site is situated within the Natal Sour Sand Veld as described by Acocks (1988), but Northeastern Sandy Highveld is also prominent in the area. Low & Rebelo (1996) described the
vegetation of the area as North Eastern Moist Grassland. According to the most recent vegetation
map of South Africa the vegetation on the study site is Northern KwaZulu-Natal Moist Grassland
though the site is close to the border of Low Escarpment Moist Grassland, (Mucina & Rutherford,
2006). In general the area is covered by grassland, often dominated by Hyparrhenia hirta, but the
rocky areas have an open shrubby component. Some areas were ploughed in the past and are
now covered by Hyparrhenia hirta. Wetlands, forming part of the drainage systems of larger
spruits, are prominent features of the landscape.
3.4. Methods
Vegetation and Flora
The site was visited on 15 -16 March 2012 by Prof GJ Bredenkamp accompanied by a zoology
team of specialists and an aquatic specialist.
29
The vegetation was stratified into relatively homogeneous units on recent aerial photographs of
the area. At several sites within each homogeneous unit a description of the dominant and
characteristic species was made. These descriptions were based on total floristic composition,
following established vegetation survey techniques (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Westhoff
& Van der Maarel 1978). Data recorded included a list of the plant species present, including trees,
shrubs, grasses and forbs. Comprehensive species lists were therefore derived for each plant
community / ecosystem present on the site. These vegetation survey methods have been used as
the basis of a national vegetation survey of South Africa (Mucina et al. 2000) and are considered to
be an efficient method of describing vegetation and capturing species information. Notes were
additionally made of any other features that might have an ecological influence.
The identified systems are not only described in terms of their plant species composition, but
also evaluated in terms of the potential habitat for red data plant species.
Red data plant species for the area were obtained from the SANBI databases, with updated
threatened status, (Raimondo et al 2009). These lists were then evaluated in terms of habitat
available on the site, and also in terms of the present development and presence of man in the
area, as follows:
•
Protected trees are according to the list provided by the National Forests Act 1998 (Act 84
of 1998). Other protected plants are according to the National Environmental
•
Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004), or provincial regulations.
•
Alien invasive species, according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act
No.43 of 1983) as listed in Henderson (2001), are indicated.
•
Medicinal plants are indicated according to Hutchings et al. (1996), Van Wyk, Van
Oudthoorn & Gericke (1997) and Arnold et al. (2002).
•
The field observations were supplemented by literature studies from the area (Smit 1992;
Smit et al. 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1995a, 1995b).
Conservation Value
The following conservation value categories were used for each site:
High:
Ecologically sensitive and valuable land with high species richness and/or sensitive
ecosystems or red data species that should be conserved and no development
allowed.
30
Medium-high: Land where sections are disturbed but which is in general ecologically sensitive to
development/disturbances.
Medium:
Land on which low impact development with limited impact on the vegetation /
ecosystem could be considered for development. It is recommended that certain
portions of the natural vegetation be maintained as open space.
Medium-low: Land of which small sections could be considered to conservation but where the
area in general has little conservation value.
Low:
Land that has little conservation value and that could be considered for
development with little to no impact on the vegetation.
Sensitivity
High and Low sensitivity is indicated as follows:
High:
High and Medium-High conservation priority categories mentioned above are
considered to have a High sensitivity and development should not be supported.
Portions of vegetation with a Medium conservation priority should be conserved.
Medium:
Medium conservation priority category mentioned above are considered to have a
Medium sensitivity
Low:
Medium-Low and Low conservation priority categories mentioned above are
considered to have a Low sensitivity and development may be supported.
Plant species were recorded in each plant community with an indication of the status of the species
by using the following symbols:
A = Alien woody species
P = Protected trees species
D = Dominant
p = provincially protected species
d = subdominant
RD = Red data listed plant
G = Garden or Garden Escape
W = weed
M = Medicinal plant species
31
Species Richness
Species Richness is interpreted as follows: Number of indigenous species recorded in the
sample plots representing the plant community. Alien woody species and weeds are not included.
No of
Category
species
1-24
Low
25-39
Medium
40-59
High
60+
Very High
32
Figure 3.1. Vegetation map of the areas to be developed for mining, northern site above, southern
site below
33
Figure 3.2. Sensitivity map of the areas to be developed for mining, northern site above, southern
site below
34
3.5 Results: Vegetation and Flora
Vegetation Classification
The following nine different plant communities / ecosystems were identified:
Plant Community
Conservation
Sensitivity
Species
Value
richness
1. Grassland on sandy soil
M
M
H
2. Grassland on vertic soil
ML
ML
H
3. Wet grassland
H
H
M
4. Old Fields
L
L
L
5. Open Woodland on hill slopes
MH
H
H
6. Bush clump
M
M
M
7. Spruit vegetation
H
H
M
8. River vegetation
H
H
L
9 Dams and Pan
H
H
L
Description of the Plant Communities
a. Grassland on sandy soil
Tall grassland, grazed by cattle, occurs scattered in the northern and southern parts of the site.
The vegetation is considered primary grassland, though intensively grazed by cattle. The tallgrowing grass, Hyparrhenia hirta is mostly dominant. Other prominent, abundantly present species
include Eragrostis curvula, Eragrostis gummiflua and Cymbopogon excavatus, indicating some
disturbance. Several forb species are present, though they are scattered and never dominant.
These features indicate that this grassland is disturbed, though still rich in plant species,
therefore regarded as having Medium-low Conservation Value and Medium Sensitivity.
Number of species recorded:
Indigenous
Trees and
shrubs
Grasses
Forbs
Total
Total
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
1
Aliens /
Weeds
0
1
0
0
0
27
30
58
0
3
3
27
33
61
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
6
8
35
The following plant species were recorded from this plant community:
Trees and Shrubs
Diospyros lycioides
Grasses and sedges
Abildgaardia ovata
Aristida canescens
Aristida congesta subsp barbicollis
Aristida congesta subsp congesta
Aristida diffusa
Bulbostylis hispidula
Cymbopogon excavatus
dM
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus obtusiflorus var flavissimus
Digitaria eriantha
Eragrostis chloromelas
Eragrostis curvula
d
Eragrostis gummiflua
d
Eragrostis lehmanniana
Eragrostis nindensis
Eragrostis plana
Eragrostis racemosa
Eragrostis superba
Heteropogon contortus
Hyparrhenia hirta
Melinis repens
Paspalum distichum
Perotis patens
Pogonarthria squarrosa
Sporobolus africanus
Themeda triandra
Trichoneura grandiglumis
Forbs
Anthospermum hispidulum
Becium obovatum
Berkheya echinacea
Chaetacanthus costatus
Chamaecrista mimosoides
Conyza podocephala
Crassula lanceolata
Geigeria burkei
Gomphrena celosioides
Haplocarpha scaposa
Helichrysum aureonitens
Helichrysum nudifolium
Helichrysum pilosellum
Helichrysum rugulosum
Hermannia betonicifolia
Hypoxis hemerocallidea
Ipomoea crassipes
Justicia anagalloides
Kohautia cynanchica
Monsonia angustifolia
Monopsis decipiens
Nemesia denticulata
Nidorella anomala
Oenothera tetraptera
Polygala hottentotta
Richardia braziliensis
Schkuhria pinnata
Selago densiflora
Senecio erubescens
Tephrosia capensis
Vernonia oligocephala
Wahlenbergia caledonica
Zornia capensis
W
M
M
M
RD
M
M
D
d
W
MW
M
1. Grassland on sandy soil
Status
Primary grassland grazed by cattle
Soil
deep sandy-loam
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
Medium
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
2
Medium
Low
Need for
Low
rehabilitation
Hyparrhenia hirta, Eragrostis curvula, Eragrostis gummiflua,
36
Discussion. The area of this plant community represents primary grassland, well utilised and often
degraded but still primary, high in species richness and with a single red data species present. The
proposed development can be supported in this area.
Figure 3.3a & b. The Grassland on sandy soil
37
b. Grassland on vertic soil
Tall grassland, heavily grazed by cattle, occurs scattered in the southern parts of the site.
The vegetation is generally considered primary grassland, though several old fields occur scattered
in the area and the grassland is intensively grazed by cattle. The grasses Themeda triandra,
Hyparrhenia hirta and Cymbopogon excavatus are often dominant. Other clay-specific grass
species present include Setaria incrassata and Aristida bipartita. Several forb species are present,
though they are scattered and never dominant. Trees occur in localised localities.
These features indicate that this grassland is utilised, though still rich in plant species,
therefore regarded as having Medium Conservation Value and Medium Sensitivity.
Trees and Shrubs
Acacia karroo
Acacia sieberiana
M
Elephantorrhiza elephantina M
Grasses and sedges
Abildgaardia ovata
Aristida bipartita
Aristida diffusa
M
Diheteropogon amplectens
Elionurus muticus
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis plana
Eragrostis racemosa
Hyparrhenia hirta
Paspalum distichum
Setaria incrassata
Themeda triandra
d
M
Forbs
Acalypha angustata
Berkheya echinacea
Conyza podocephala
Crabbea acaulis
Geigeria burkei
Gladiolus crassifolius
Haplocarpha lyrata
Hermannia depressa
Indigofera hedyantha
Ipomoea crassipes
Ipomoea ommaneyi
Ledebouria sp
Monopsis decipiens
Rhynchosia minima
Salvia repens
Scabiosa columbaria
Selago densiflora
Senecio erubescens
Striga bilabiata
Tephrosia capensis
M
W
M
M
d
D
W
M
38
Grassland on vertic soil
Status
Soil
deep black clay
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
Medium-low
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
2
Medium-Low
Low
Need for
Low
rehabilitation
Themeda triandra, Hyparrhenia hirta, Eragrostis gummiflua
Indigenous Aliens /
Weeds
Trees and 3
0
shrubs
Grasses
20
0
Forbs
30
2
Total
53
2
Total
Red Data
Medicinal
0
Protecte
d
0
3
20
32
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
8
2
Figure 3.4a. Grassland on vertic soil, sometimes with scattered trees.
39
Figure 3.4b. Grassland on vertic soil, sometimes with scattered trees.
Discussion. The area of this plant community represents primary grassland with several old fields,
well utilised and often degraded, high in species richness and with no red data species present.
The proposed development can be supported in this area.
c. Wet Grassland
This grassland occurs in a shallow drainage line feeding into a dam. This grassland is heavily
grazed by cattle, occurs localised in the northern part of the site. The vegetation is considered
primary grassland, though grazed by cattle. The grasses Hyparrhenia hirta and Eragrostis
gummiflua are often dominant. Other moist-specific grass and sedge species present include
Eragrostis plana, Imperata cylindrica, Leersia hexandra, Aristida junciformis, Eleocharis
acutangula and Fuirena pubescens. Some and forb species are present, though they are scattered
and never dominant.
These features indicate that this grassland is moist, representing a wetland, therefore regarded
as having High Conservation Value and High Sensitivity.
40
Trees and Shrubs
nil
Grasses and sedges
Aristida junciformis
Brachiaria eruciformis
Cyperus species (various)
Eleocharis acutangula
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis plana
Eragrostis superba
Fuirena pubescens
Hyparrhenia hirta
Imperata cylindrica
Kyllinga erecta
Leersia hexandra
Paspalum dilatatum
d
DM
Forbs
Conyza podocephala
Chlorophytum sp
Haplocarpha lyrata
Hibiscus aethiopicus
Hypoxis filiformis
Monopsis decipiens
d
d
Persicaria serrulata
Rhynchosia minima
Salvia repens
Senecio erubescens
Wet Grassland
Status
wetland
Soil
deep black clay
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
High
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
2
High
Low
Need for
Low
rehabilitation
Hyparrhenia hirta, Eragrostis gummiflua, Eragrostis gummiflua,
Imperata cylindrica
Indigenous
Aliens /
Weeds
0
Total
Trees and
0
0
shrubs
Grasses
17+
0
17+
Forbs
11
0
11
Total
28+
0
28+
+ more than one Cyperus species were found
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Discussion. The area of this plant community represents a wetland, well utilised and often
degraded but still primary, medium in species richness and with no red data species present.
However, all wetlands are considered as sensitive and are protected by law (Water Act). The
proposed development can not be supported in this area.
41
Figure 3.5a & b. The Wet Grassland
42
d. Old Fields
Representing 9 Plots
This vegetation represents an Old Field, where cultivation stopped long ago and the vegetation is
in an advanced stage of succession. It occurs in the northern part of the site. The vegetation is
considered secondary grassland. The tall-growing grass, Hyparrhenia hirta is mostly dominant.
Other prominent, abundantly present species include Eragrostis curvula and Cynodon dactylon, as
typically found on old fields.. Several forb species are present, though they often weedy or
indicating a late successional stage. The vegetation has Low Conservation Value and Low
Sensitivity.
Trees and Shrubs
Stoebe vulgaris
Wl
Grasses and sedges
Cynodon dactylon
d
Eragrostis curvula
D
Eragrostis plana
M
Hyparrhenia hirta
Melinis repens
Paspalum distichum
Pogonarthria squarrosa
Forbs
Conyza bonariensis
Conyza podocephala
Hypochaeris radicata
Lactuca inermis
Osteospermum muricatum
Pseudognaphaleum luteoalbum W
W
Schkuhria pinnata
MW
Selago densiflora
Senecio erubescens
Verbena bonariensis
W
Verbena braziliensis
W
W
W
M
W
W
W
D
Old Field
Status
Soil
deep sandy-loam
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
Low
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
2
Low
Low
Need for
Low
rehabilitation
Hyparrhenia hirta, Eragrostis curvula, Eragrostis gummiflua,
43
Indigenous
Trees and
shrubs
Grasses
Forbs
Total
Total
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
0
Aliens /
Weeds
1
1
0
0
0
10
5
15
0
11
12
10
16
27
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
Discussion. The area of this plant community represents secondary grassland, well utilised and
degraded, low in species richness and with no red data species present. It has low conservation
value and low sensitivity. The proposed development can be supported in this area.
Figure 3.6. Old Field vegetation
44
e. Open Woodland on rocky hill slopes
This is a mixed grassland with Acacia nilotica trees found scattered about. The vegetation
is grazed by cattle, and occurs in the south-eastern part of the site. The hill slope is rocky and
there are various heritage walls in the area. The vegetation is considered primary grassland,
though intensively grazed by cattle. The grass Themeda triandra is mostly dominant. Other
prominent species include Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia hirta and Cymbopogon excavatus.
Several forb species are present, though they are scattered and never dominant. These features
indicate that this grassland is grazed, though still rich in plant species, therefore regarded as
having Medium-High Conservation Value and Medium Sensitivity.
Trees and Shrubs
Acacia nilotica
Acacia sieberiana
Aloe marlothii
Canthium gilfillanii
d
p
Diospyros lycioides
Euclea crispa
Opuntia ficus-indica
Searsia tomentosa
M
A
Grasses and sedges
Abildgaardia ovata
Aristida adscendens
Aristida canescens
Aristida diffusa
dM
Cynodon dactylon
Digitaria eriantha
Diheteropogon amplectens
Elionurus muticus
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis plana
Eragrostis racemosa
Eragrostis superba
Hyparrhenia hirta
Melinis repens
Microchloa caffra
Themeda triandra
Trachypogon spicatus
Forbs
Acalypha angustata
Becium obovatum
Berkheya echinacea
Chlorophytum sp
Conyza podocephala
Corchorus asplenifolius
Crabbea acaulis
Eucomus autumnalis
RD
Euphorbia clavarioides subsp truncata
Felicia muricata
Geigeria burkei
Gerbera ambigua
Haplocarpha scaposa
M
M
Helichrysum pilosellum
M
Hermannia depressa
Hermannia sp
Hypoxis sp
Ipomoea ommaneyi
Monsonia angustifolia
Pentanisia prunelloides
Phyllanthus maderaspatensis
Rhynchosia minima
d
M
d
D
45
Rhynchosia totta
Scabiosa columbaria
M
Schistostephium crataegifolium
Schkuhria pinnata
MW
Selago densiflora
Senecio erubescens
Senecio venosus
Solanum panduriforme
Striga elegans
Tephrosia capensis
Vernonia natalensis
Zornia capensis
M
Open Woodland on rocky hill slopes
Status
Soil
Shallow rocky sandyloam
Medium-High
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
2-10
Medium-High
Low
Need for
Low
rehabilitation
Themeda triandra, Hyparrhenia hirta, Eragrostis curvula,
Indigenous
Trees and
shrubs
Grasses
Forbs
Total
Total
Red Data Protected
Medicinal
7
Aliens /
Weeds
1
8
0
1
1
24
45
76
0
1
2
24
46
78
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
6
9
Discussion. The area of this plant community represents primary grassland, high in species
richness and with a single red data species and a single protected species present. The
placement of the suggested infrastructure in this area will have to be approved by an
ecologist before the proposed development can be supported.
46
Figure 3.7a & b. The Open Woodland on the hill slope, sometimes with heritage walls
47
f. Bush Clumps
A large Bush Clump occurs along a spruit in an area where there have been mining activities, old
farmstead and many planted alien trees, notably Pinus and Eucalyptus. The bush is situated within
a highly disturbed grassland. Acacia natalensis and Acacia karroo are prominent in the bush
clump. The bush clump, being very restricted in distribution and rare within the area, has a Medium
Conservation Value and Medium Sensitivity.
Trees and Shrubs
Acacia karroo
Acacia natalitia
Clerodendrum glabrum
Grasses
Andropogon eucomus
Andropogon schirensis
Aristida congesta
Cynodon dactylon
Digitaria eriantha
Eragrostis curvula
Forbs
Berkheya echinacea
Chenopodium album
Conyza bonariensis
Geigeria burkei
Hypoxis sp
Lactuca inermis
Pollichia campestris
M
M
d
M
d
W
W
M
Diospyros lycioides
Euclea crispa
Searsia dentata
Eragrostis plana
Hyparrhenia hirta
Imperata cylindrica
Melinis repens
Paspalum distichum
Scabiosa columbaria
Schkuhria pinnata
Selago densiflora
Senecio sp
Solanum panduriforme
Tagetes minuta
Tephrosia capensis
dM
M
M
D
W
MW
M
W
M
Bush Clump
Status
Dense bush with associated fauna habitats and on river bank
Soil
Deep, on large termitaria
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
Medium
Low
Rockiness
% cover
Sensitivity:
Need for
rehabilitation
Acacia natalitia, acacia karroo
0
Medium
Low
48
Indigenous Aliens /
Weeds
Trees and shrubs 6
0
Grasses
15
0
Forbs
13
5
Total
34
5
Total
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
6
15
18
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
8
Discussion. Although this bush clump is fairly disturbed and quite limited in extent, it still has
medium species richness. No red data species were found during the field survey. The area is
regarded to have a Medium sensitivity.
It is suggested that the spruit area with the bush clump should be avoided and not
developed into mining.
Figure 3.8a. Bush Clump vegetation along the stream and alien trees in the vicinity.
49
Figure 3.8b. Bush Clump vegetation along the stream and alien trees in the vicinity.
g. Spruit vegetation
The proposed development areas have well defined drainage lines. Those on Taum mostly
drains north-eastwards and eventually runs into the Ngagane River. The Ngagane River transects
a very small part on the north-eastern corner of Taum.
On Vreda the Schurwer Rand is a water shed. From here several drainage lines run
eastwards, and transects Walmsley. Some drainage lines run westwards and eventually
northwards to join the Tendeka River. At certain localities small dams occur in the streams. Satellite
photography indicates that the drainage lines in this area are not in good condition with significant
soil erosion, perhaps due to overgrazing, other mining, frequent burning and agricultural activity in
the area. Both of the opencast mines will cross important drainage lines.
The vegetation on the banks of the spruits was grassland with no visual riparian zone. The
vegetation on the banks of the Ngagane River contains several tree and shrub species, with a
definite riparian zone..
50
Trees and Shrubs
Acacia natalitia
A
Pinus sp
A
Grasses and Sedges
Andropogon eucomus
Bulbostylis fimbriatus
M
Cynodon dactylon
d
Cyperus spp (several)
Elionurus muticus
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis lehmanniana
Eragrostis plana
dM
Imperata cylindrica
M
Paspalum dilatatum
Paspalum urvillei
Phragmites australis
Schoenoplectus corymbosus
Setaria sphacelata
Typha capensis
dM
Forbs
Berkheya echinacea
Cirsium vulgare
Conyza podocephala
Geigeria burkei
Haplocarpha lyrata
Hermannia lancifolia
Kohautia amatymbica
Striga bilabiata
W
W
Spruit vegetation
Status
Watercourse/ Wetland
Soil
Clay
Rockiness
0-2%
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
High
Sensitivity:
High
Low
Need for
rehabilitation
Eragrostis plana, Typha capensis,
Low
Indigenous
Trees and
shrubs
Grasses
sedges
Forbs
Total
Total
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
1
Aliens /
Weeds
1
2
0
0
1
20
0
20
0
0
4
10
31
2
3
12
34
0
0
0
0
0
5
Discussion. The species richness is medium along the spruits. All water courses have high
conservation value and are therefore considered to be sensitive and protected by law
(Water Act)
51
Figure 3.9a & b. Spruit vegetation – note the grassland to the spruit edge
52
h. River vegetation
The proposed development areas have well defined drainage lines. Those on Taum mostly drains
north-eastwards and eventually runs into the Ngagane River. The Ngagane River transects a very
small part on the north-eastern corner of Taum. The shrubby vegetation on the banks of the
Ngagane River forms a definite riparian zone and contains mainly Searsia leptodictya but the alien
Salix babylonica is also present. There are telephone poles along the spruit. The following plant
species were recorded from this plant community:
Trees and Shrubs
Salix babylonica
Searsia leptodictya
Grasses and Sedges
Cynodon hirsutus
Digitaria eriantha
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis plana
Hemarthria altissima
Forbs
Cirsium vulgare
Conyza podocephala
Crinum bulbispermum
Oenothera rosea
Persicaria serrulata
AM
Sesbania punicea
A
d
Imperata cylindrica
M
Paspalum dilatatum
Paspalum urvillei
Phragmites australis
Setaria sphacelata
Typha capensis
dM
dM
W
Plantago lanceolata
Ranunculus multifidus
Sida alba
Sida dregei
Verbena bonariensis
RD
W
River vegetation
Status
Watercourse/ Wetland
Soil
Clay
Rockiness
0-2%
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
High
Sensitivity:
High
Low
Need for
rehabilitation
Eragrostis plana, Typha capensis,
Indigenous
Aliens /
Weeds
2
Trees and
1
shrubs
Grasses
14+
0
sedges
Forbs
8
2
Total
23+
4
+ several Cyperus species were found
Low
Total
Red Data Protected
Medicinal
3
0
0
1
14+
0
0
3
10
27+
1
1
0
0
0
4
53
Discussion. The species richness is low along the River. All water courses have high
conservation value and are therefore considered to be sensitive and protected by law
(Water Act)
Figure 3.10a & b. River vegetation
54
I. Dams and Pan
Several small dams and a small pan occur in the area. These areas are densely covered
with hygrophilous grass and sedges, the most prominent being Phragmites australis, Typha
capensis, Eragrostis plana, Hemarthria altissima and Leersia hexandra.
The following plant
species were recorded from this plant community:
Trees and Shrubs
Acacia karroo
Acacia natalitia
Grasses and Sedges
Andropogon eucomus
Cyperus esculentus
Eragrostis bicolor
Eragrostis plana
Hemarthria altissima
Imperata cylindrica
Forbs
Berkheya echinacea
Cirsium vulgare
Haplocarpha scaposa
M
Salix babylonica
Diospyros lycioides
AM
Kyllinga alata
Leersia hexandra
d
Mariscus congestus
Paspalum dilatatum
Setaria nigrirostris
Setaria sphacelata
DM
d
M
Oenothera rosea
Ranunculus multifidus
Verbena bonariensis
W
M
W
Dams and pan
Status
Wetland
Soil
Black clay
Rockiness
0%
Conservation
priority:
Agricultural
potential:
Dominant spp.
High
Sensitivity:
High
Low
Need for
Medium
rehabilitation
Eragrostis plana, Hemarthria altissima, Leersia hexandra
Indigenous Aliens /
Weeds
Trees and
2
2
shrubs
Grasses
15
0
sedges
Forbs
4
2
Total
21
4
Total
Red Data
Protected
Medicinal
4
0
0
2
15
0
0
2
6
25
1
1
0
0
2
6
Discussion. The species richness is low in this wetland. All wetlands have high conservation value
and are therefore considered to be sensitive. The man-made dams are all located in streams,
resulting in them also being sensitive, with high conservation value. These areas are also
good habitat for a variety of bird species.
55
Figure 3.11a & b: Dams
56
Figure 3.12. A small pan
Red Data Species
A Threatened Species and Species of Conservation Concern list for the Grids 2729DD and
2730CC were obtained from the POSA database on the SANBI website. Threatened species are
those that are facing high risk of extinction, indicated by the categories Critically Endangered,
Endangered and Vulnerable. Species of Conservation Concern include the Threatened Species,
but additionally have the categories Near Threatened, Data Deficient, Critically Rare, Rare and
Declining. This is in accordance with the new Red List for South African Plants (Raimondo et al.
2009). However, the POSA list is based on herbarium specimens housed in the National
Herbarium of SANBI, therefore many plant species that do occur in the area are not listed. The
grassland habitat at this site is suitable for Hypoxis hemerocallidea and Crinum bulbispermum,
both found on the site.
The status of both these species is Declining, which means that this species is not
threatened, but is a species of conservation concern. The individuals or populations of this species
on the site will generally not be threatened by the development of the mine. It is suggested that the
individuals of Crinum bulbispermum and Hypoxis iridifolia that occur directly within the mining site
be rescued and planted in the adjacent grassland not affected by the development, or at the
garden of the mine offices.
57
Red Listed species of concern include the following species POSA database for grid
2729DD and 2730CC (Raimondo et al. 2009):
Species
Merwilla plumbea (Lindl.) Speta
Status
NT
Acalypha caperonioides Baill. var. caperonioides
Crinum bulbispermum (Burm.f.) Milne-Redh. & Schweick.
Hypoxis hemerocallidea Fisch., C.A.Mey. & Avé-Lall.
DDT
Declining
Declining
Habenaria kraenzliniana Schltr.
NT
Habitat on site
No
Possibly but not
found
Found along River
Found in grassland
Possibly but not
found
Protected Trees
No protected trees are found on the site.
Medicinal Plants
The many medicinal plants are listed under the individual plant communities and not
repeated here.
Alien Plants
Very few alien woody plants were found on the site. Locally, especially at the old
homesteads, are stands or individuals of Acacia mearnsii / Acacia dealbata and also Eucalyptus sp
and Pinus sp, while a few ornamental trees and shrubs remained.
3.6. Impact Assessment
Methods
The following generic criteria drawn from published literature and general South African practise
will be used to describe magnitude and significance of impacts in an objective, systematic manner.
These criteria are:
•
Extent or scale of the impact (what size of the area will be affected?)
•
Duration (how long will the impact last?)
•
Intensity (the intensity of the impact is considered by examining whether the impact is
destructive or benign, whether it destroys the impacted environment, alters its
functioning, or slightly alters the environment itself.
•
Probability (how likely is it that the impact will occur?)
•
Significance (how severe will the impact be?)
•
Mitigatory potential and mitigation measures
Impacts should be identified for the construction and operational phases of the proposed
development. Proposed mitigation measures should be practical and feasible such that they can
58
be realistically implemented by the applicant. The impacts are given in table form. Conventions and
definitions used in these tables are described below:
Extent of impact
Site:
Effect confined to the development area
Local:
Effect limited to within 3-5km of the development area
Regional:
Effect extends beyond the borders of the development area to
influence the area as a whole.
Duration of impact
Short:
Effect last for a period up to five years
Medium:
Effect continues for a period of between five and ten years
Long:
Effect continues for a period in excess of 10 years
Permanent: Effect lasts permanently
Intensity
Low:
Medium:
High:
Will have no or little effect on the vegetation and fauna
Will have some effect but parts of vegetation will remain in tact
Will destroy the vegetation or habitat for fauna completely
Probability of occurrence
Low:
Less than 33% chance of occurrence
Medium:
Between 33 and 66% chance of occurrence
High:
Greater than 66% chance of occurrence
Significance
Low:
Where the impact will have a relatively small effect on the
environment which does not need to be accommodated
Medium:
Where the impact can have an influence on the environment
that might require modification of the project
High:
Where the impact definitely has an impact on the environment
and needs mitigation
Status
Positive:
Impact will be beneficial to the environment
Negative:
Impact will not be beneficial to the environment
Neutral:
No positive or negative impact
Confidence
Low:
Medium:
High:
It is uncertain whether the impact will occur
It is likely that the impact will occur
It is relatively certain that the impact will occur
The results are indicated in Table 3.1
59
Table 3.1 Impact Table with significance of impact coded by colour (green=least significant, red=most significant)
Impact on
Vegetation
Grasslands (sandy or vertic soils)
Extent
Duration
Intensity
Probability
Significance
Status
Confidence
Site
Permanent
High
High
Medium
Neg
High
Wet grasslands on rocky hills
Regional
Permanent
Low
High
High
Neg
High
Old fields
Open woodland
Site
Site
Permanent
Permanent
High
High
Medium
High
Low
High
Neg
Neg
High
High
Bush clumps
Site
Permanent
High
High
Medium
Neg
High
Spruits, rivers, dams and pans
Regional
Permanent
Low
High
High
Neg
High
Impact on Plant species
Indigenous species
Alien woody plant species
Site
Site
Permanent
Permanent
Medium
Low
High
High
Low
High
Neg
Pos
High
High
60
Discussion
a. Communities 1 and 2 (Grasslands -sandy and vertic soils)
The impact on natural grassland on the plains vegetation is of Medium significance. Mining
development will take place in these areas, and the vegetation will be destroyed in most cases, this
vegetation is of Medium sensitivity, mainly because it is primary grassland vegetation, though it is
fairly disturbed by grazing and former and present habitation, the species richness is still High.
Mitigation measures
•
Rehabilitate as soon as possible after mining activity in a particular area or section ceased
•
Avoid erosion at all times, also by addressing overgrazing
•
Protect any vegetation not in the direct way of the mining operations
b. Community 3 (Wet Grassland)
This is a narrow strip of wetland forming the upper reaches of the spruit (Fig. 3.1), and this
area should be avoided if at all feasible.
c. Community 4 (Old fields)
These areas were transformed either for agriculture or for homesteads on the farm.
Consequently the natural vegetation had been destroyed before and is regarded as secondary with
Low species richness and Low sensitivity. The significance of the development impact is therefore
regarded as being Low.
Mitigation measures
•
Avoid erosion at all times, also by addressing overgrazing
•
Rehabilitate as soon as possible after mining activity in a particular area or section ceased
d. Community 5 (Open woodlands on rocky hills)
The conservation value and sensitivity of the hilly areas (Schurwer Rand) are considered to
be Medium-High, while the species richness is High. The significance of any impacts is therefore
High. The precise location of the planned infrastructure should be investigated in detail by the
biodiversity team to ensure authorization.
e. Community 6 (Bush clumps)
The sensitivity of this Bush Clump is medium, largely to its location adjacent to the spruit.
Protecting the spruit system will include the bush clump.
f. Communities 7, 8 and 9 (Spruit, river, dams, pan)
61
These are the Dam, Pan and Spruit ecosystems. The wetlands are protected ecosystems
and no development should be allowed within the 1:100 year flood line, or 32 m from the edge of
the wetland / spruit. However, it is recommended that this buffer be even larger wherever possible.
A special, additional impact assessment will be needed at the localities where the spruits
have to be diverted for mining purposes. In this case special mitigation measures will be
needed.
Mitigation measures
•
Construct proper bridges over streams.
•
Avoid erosion at all times.
•
Rehabilitate and stabilise the stream banks immediately after construction.
•
Use only indigenous grasses and other species for the rehabilitation.
•
Avoid all pollution at all times.
3.7. General discussion and conclusion: vegetation study
Nine plant communities were identified. The primary grassland vegetation has a Medium
sensitivity, while the secondary vegetation and disturbed areas have a Low sensitivity. Most of the
area is therefore suitable for mining development. The rocky hilly area on Schurwer Rand is
however more sensitive in terms of habitat, plant and fauna diversity, and for the specific location
of the planned infrastructure, more detailed biodiversity investigation will be needed. The wetlands
and spruits are protected by law and no development should take place within the 1:100 year flood
line or within 32 m from the edge of the spruit or wetland.
Figure 3.13 Example of heavily grazed sandy grassland, inhibiting tuft formation and seeding.
62
4. DESKTOP SURVEY OF INSECTS ON THE MINING AREA
(This section written by D.J. Jacobs)
4.1
INTRODUCTION
General Introduction
The importance of invertebrates in ecosystems can hardly be overstressed. They make up
the major part of the earth's biodiversity and it is estimated that more than 70% of all species are
invertebrates while only about 2.4% are plants (embryophytes) and 0.4% are vertebrates
(Hammond 1992). Globally about 1 million insect species have been described, but this is less than
20% of the estimated more than 5 million insect species in existence. Various estimates of the
South African insect richness have been done (Scholtz & Holm 1985, Gastron 1992, Samways
1994, Scholtz & Chown 1995) ranging from 43 565 species (Scholtz & Chown 1995) to 240 000
species (Samways 1994). 60 000 - 80 000 species is certainly a realistic figure and if all
invertebrates are included it should exceed 100 000 species.
About 3 000 species of invertebrates could be expected to occur in a healthy grassland
ecosystem in an area like that at the Keldoron Colliery site. Roughly 50% of these would be fairly
common (for at least some time of the year) and resident, while the other 50% would include less
common residents, regular migrants from nearby areas and rare vagrants that arrived by chance
after dispersal flights, etc. Some species will only be present (in the adult stage) for a few weeks or
even a few days during a year. Some species that spend most of their life in sheltered places e.g.
under the ground will emerge only once or twice per year for dispersal flights (usually in the spring
or after good rains). Although the majority of species emerge and are active during the summer
months, a few species may prefer the winter.
A major predicament is that our knowledge of the South African invertebrate fauna is very
limited. In most groups there are many undescribed species in museum collections and data on
general biology, habitat, host plants, distribution area, etc. are not available, even for most of the
described species. There are few professional taxonomists in South Africa and they are usually
specialised in a family or two. For several invertebrate orders and most invertebrate families there
are no resident specialists in South Africa. Museum collections are generally not well organised or
complete (except for those groups with resident specialists) and they do not have identification
collections for most groups. Neither do identification guides for the majority of groups exist.
Consequently it is very difficult and expensive to obtain reliable identifications.
The only groups for which such data are fairly comprehensive, are the butterflies and
Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) and that is mostly due to the efforts of many knowledgeable
amateurs who have gathered the data over many years. These are consequently the only insect
groups in South Africa for which Red Data lists exist (Henning & Henning 1989, Henning et al.
63
2005, Samways 2006). Amateur collectors of the other groups which are not as spectacular, are
rare but they should be actively encouraged. It is indeed likely that some insect species will be
described after they have already become extinct in nature. Wheeler's (1990) prediction that 50%
of all insect species will have become extinct by 2020 (with an annual loss of 167 000 species
worldwide) is unrealistic, but thousands of species will certainly become extinct during the next
century.
Which invertebrates or what should be conserved?
There is general consensus that all species, that is the total biodiversity, should be
conserved. Most species have healthy and viable populations and do not need any special
conservation measures. On the other hand some species have a small population size, occur in a
limited area, are threatened by development (transforming the area where they occur) or are
threatened because of exploitation (e.g. the pet trade). Such invertebrates need special
conservation actions.
Internationally a set of criteria [the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria] has been agreed upon with which all
organisms can be classified into different categories namely Extinct, Extinct in the wild, Critically
endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near threatened (NT), Least concern (LC),
Data deficient (DD), and Not evaluated (NE). To be able to classify a species in most of these
categories e.g. endangered, vulnerable or even least concern, sufficient information about the
species needs to exist as the criteria are highly quantified and well-defined. The necessary
information, especially on rare taxa, is usually lacking in the case of invertebrates.
The only sizeable groups of insects that have been evaluated in South Africa and for which
Red Data lists exist, are the butterflies and the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). The reasons
are that the butterflies and dragonflies have a history of collection by amateur collectors because of
their splendour. Such collectors have accumulated information about all the species over a long
period of time. Beside these groups, very few other invertebrates (stag beetles of the genus
Colophon, a few ants and the velvet worm Peripatopsis alba) have been evaluated and red listed.
Very scant information is available on the absolute majority of invertebrates and they have not
been evaluated.
Taking into account the lack of information on invertebrate taxa, it makes sense that as
large a portion of the biodiversity in as large area as possible should be conserved. Although it
would not guarantee the conservation of all vulnerable taxa, the majority of them could be
protected in this manner. The conservation of biodiversity is not accomplished by small
conservation areas but by large nature reserves or areas where development is friendly to
64
conservation.
Which groups should be surveyed or monitored?
The sheer number of invertebrate species in any region in South Africa, and the poor state
of our knowledge about them, practically preclude detailed biodiversity surveys that include all
species. In view of this fact, the most common approaches to the problem worldwide is to:
•
Choose representative indicator groups known to be involved in important ecological
processes, or that are associated with particular habitats, and sample them at
biologically relevant time periods.
•
Groups for which experts are available to identify the collected specimens, should be
selected
•
Identify species that are known or thought to be rare or vulnerable to habitat
transformation and sample and monitor their populations.
•
Identify threatened habitats and sample all invertebrate fauna in those particular
(usually restricted) habitats.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above, the following criteria are also taken into account when
selecting indicator groups:
1.
Groups that contain known Red Data and protected species (e.g. butterflies, dragon- and
damselflies, baboon and trapdoor spiders, scorpions, tiger beetles).
2.
Groups that can easily be used in monitoring various aspects concerning the environment
like rehabilitation and changes in the biodiversity over time (e.g. ants, leafhppers).
Practical standardized collecting and monitoring methods should be available for the
groups in order to obtain quantitative and comparable data.
3.
Groups with many species that potentially have limited distribution areas - normally groups
with many species that have a low vagilities or/and are flightless (e.g. ground beetles,
leafhoppers)
4.
Groups which give a good estimate of the total biodiversity of the area (e.g. the true bugs).
Taken the above criteria into account, the following groups have been selected for desktop
study in the Keldoron Colliery area:
1.
Butterflies (Rhopalocera)
65
2.
Dragon- and damselflies (Odonata)
3.
Baboon and trapdoor spiders (suborder Mygalomorphae of the order Araneae)
4.
Scorpions (Scorpiones)
5.
Ground and tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
6.
True bugs (Heteroptera)
Invertebrates protected by NEMBA
Chapter 4 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, No. 10 of 2004
(NEMBA), provides for the protection of species that are threatened or in need of protection to
ensure their survival in the wild by prohibiting the carrying out a restricted activity involving a
specimen of such species without a permit. A restricted activity in relation to a specimen of a listed
threatened or protected species, means(i)
hunting, catching, capturing or killing any living specimen of a listed threatened or
protected species by any means, method or device whatsoever, including searching,
pursuing, driving, lying in wait, luring, alluring, discharging a missile or injuring with intent
to hunt, catch, capture or kill any such specimen;
(ii)
gathering, collecting or plucking any specimen of a listed threatened or protected species;
(iii)
picking parts of, or cutting, chopping off, uprooting, damaging or destroying, any specimen
of a listed threatened or protected species;
(iv)
importing into the Republic, including introducing from the sea, any specimen of a listed
threatened or protected species;
(v)
exporting from the Republic, including re-exporting from the Republic, any specimen of a
listed threatened or protected species;
(vi)
having in possession or exercising physical control over any specimen of a listed
threatened or protected species;
(vii)
growing, breeding or in any other way propagating any specimen of a listed threatened or
protected species, or causing it to multiply;
(viii)
conveying, moving or otherwise translocating any specimen of a listed threatened or
protected species;
(ix)
selling or otherwise trading in, buying, receiving, giving, donating or accepting as a gift, or
in any way acquiring or disposing of any specimen of a listed threatened or protected
species; or
(x)
any other prescribed activity which involves a specimen of a listed threatened or protected
66
species.
The Minister, by notice in the Government Gazette, publishes a list of critically endangered
species (being any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the
immediate future),
endangered species (being any indigenous species facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild in the near future, although they are not a critically endangered species),
vulnerable species (being any indigenous species facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the
wild in the medium-term future, although they are not a critically endangered species or an
endangered species) and protected species (being any species which are of such high
conservation value or national importance that they require national protection, although they are
not listed in one of the other catagories. The Minister must review the lists at least every five years.
The list that was published in terms of this Act in 2007 contains several species of invertebrates
(Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Invertebrate species protected by NEMBA.
(The highlighted genera and species potentially occur at the Keldoron Colliery area)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Critically Endangered Species
None
Endangered Species
Colophon spp All species
Stag Beetles
Vulnerable Species
Peripatopsis alba
White Cave Velvet Worm
Protected Species
Aloeides clarki
Ceratogyrus spp All species
Echinodiscus bisperforatus
Dromica spp All species
Graphipterus assimilis
Coega Copper Butterfly
Horned Baboon Spiders
Pansy Shell
Tiger Beetles
Velvet Ground Beetle
67
Scientific Name
Hadogenes spp All species
Haliotis midae
Harpactira spp All species
Ichnestoma spp All species
Manticora spp All species
Megacephala asperata
Megacephala regalis
Nigidius auriculatus
Oonotus adspersus
Oonotus interioris
Oonotus rex
Oonotus sericeus
Opisthacanthus spp - All species
Opistophthalmus spp All species
Platychile pallida
Prosopocoilus petitclerci
Prothyma guttipennis
Common Name
Flat Rock Scorpions
South African Abalone
Common Baboon Spiders
Fruit Chafer Beetles
Monster Tiger Beetles
Tiger Beetle
Tiger Beetle
Stag Beetle
Stag Beetle
Stag Beetle
Stag Beetle
Stag Beetle
Creeping Scorpions
Burrowing Scorpions
Tiger Beetle
Stag Beetle
Tiger Beetle
Pterinochilus spp All species
Golden Baboon Spiders
Most of the species in the list are not protected because they are endangered or rare, but
because they are (or have the potential to be) commercially exploited, either by the pet trade or by
collectors who trade specimens. It seems that these insects are not at all considered in the
evaluation of development applications. This is, strictly spoken, a contravention of the law as
development will inevitably kill the majority of specimens of such species living in the area,
68
especially in the case of invertebrates like baboon spiders and scorpions that do not readily move
away from their burrows.
Invertebrates protected by the Kwazulu-Natal Province
The KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Amendment Act, 1999 (Act No. 5
of 1999) protects certain invertebrates (listed as “specially protected indigenous animals” in the
Fourth Schedule or as “protected indigenous animals” in the Fifth Schedule) in terms of Sections
52 and 53 as follows:
52
No person may capture, harm, hunt, purchase, release, sell or translocate a specially
protected indigenous animal or a protected indigenous animal, except under the authority
of a permit issued by the Conservation Service and in accordance with any special
protective measures under section 55.
53
A person in possession of a specially protected indigenous animal or a protected
indigenous animal about which there is a reasonable suspicion that:
(1)
the animal has not been lawfully acquired from a person entitled to sell it; or
(2)
the possession of the animal is not authorised by a relevant permit, and who is
unable to give a satisfactory account of his or her possession, commits an offence.
The following invertebrates are listed in the Fourth Schedule as “specially protected indigenous
animals”:
Butterflies and moths
Stygionympha wichgrafi grisea
Greyish Wichgraf's brown
Omipholidotos peucetia penningtoni
Pennington's white mimic
Durbania amakosa albescens
Amakosa rocksitter
Iolaus lulua
White-spotted sapphire
Lepidochrysops ketsi leucomacula
White-blotched ketsi blue
Orachrysops ariadne
Karkloof blue
Chrysoritis orientalis
Eastern opal
Callioratis millari
Millar=s tiger moth
Dragonflies
Pseudagrion umzingaziense
Umsingazi sprite
Syncordulia gracilis
Yellow syncordulia
69
Urothemis luciana
St. Lucia basker
Fruit chafers
Ichnestoma nasula
Lamellothyrea descarpentriesi
Elaphinis pumila
Acrothyrea rufofemorata
Eudicella trimeni
Molluscs
Laevicaulis haroldi
Onycophorans
Opisthopatus roseus
The following invertebrates are listed in the Fifth Schedule as “protected indigenous animals”:
Butterflies
Dingana alaedeus
Wakkerstroom widow
Dingana dingana
Dingaan's widow
Acraea rabbiae
Clear-wing acraea
Acraea satis
East Coast acraea
Euryphura achlys
Mottled green nymph
Durbania amakosa flavida
Amakosa rocksitter
Aslauga australis
Southern purple
Iolaus diametra natalica
Natal Yellow-banded sapphire
Hypolycaena lochmophila
Coastal hairstreak
Capys penningtoni
Pennington's protea butterfly
Aloeides merces
Wakkerstroom copper
Chrysoritis oreas
Drakensberg daisy copper
70
Chrysoritis phosphor borealis
Scarce scarlet
Anthene minima
Little hairtail
Lepidochrysops pephredo
Estcourt blue
Papilio euphranor
Forest swallowtail
Spialia confusa confusa
Confusing sandman
Abantis bicolor
Bicoloured skipper
Metisella meninx
Marsh sylph
Metisella syrinx
Bamboo sylph
Borbo ferruginea dondo
Ferrous skipper
Fresna nyassae
Variegated acraea hopper
Dragonflies
Chlorolestes draconicus
Drakensberg sylph
Pseudagrion newtoni
Newton's sprite
Enallagma rotundipenne
Scarce blue
Enallagma sinuatum
Mysterious blue
Agriocnemis falcifera falcifera
Sickle wisp
Agriocnemis gratiosa
Zanzibar wisp
Agriocnemis pinheyi
Pinhey's wisp
Agriocnemis ruberrima ruberrima
Red wisp
Onychogomphus supinus
Scarce hooktail
Gynacantha zuluensis
Zulu darner
Hemicordulia asiatica
Asian hemicordulia
Orthetrum robustum
Robust orthetrum
Diplacodes deminuta
Tiny percher
Trithemis pluvialis
River dropwing
Zyxomma atlanticum
Cryptic zyxomma
Parazyxomma flavicans
Scarce zyxomma
Aethriamanta rezia
Rezia
71
Fruit chafers
Pachnoda discolor
Uloptera planata
Cytothyrea rubriceps ichthyrus
Trichocephala brincki
Caelorrhina relucens
Lonchothyrea mozambica
Heteroclita raeuperi
Anoplocheilus globosus
Phoxomeloides laticincta
Taurhina splendens
Anisprrhina serripes
Raceloma jansoni
Raceloma natalensis
Diplognatha striata
Rhinocoeta cornuta
Xeloma aspersa
Xeloma leprosa
Cosmiophaenia rubescens
Rhabdotis semipunctata
Rhabdotis sobrina
Polystalactica furfurosa
Discopeltis bellula
Discopeltis tricolor tricolor
Pseudoclinteria cincticollis
Molluscs
Chlamydephorus bumupi
Chlamydephorusdimidius
72
4.2
Methods
Different sources have been consulted to determine which species of the target groups
have been observed, reported or collected in the study area or potentially occur there. These
sources include the following:
(1)
Databases of Peter Roos.
(2)
Databases of the Transvaal Museum.
(3)
G. Henning Collection of butterflies.
(4)
Southern African Butterfly Conservation Assessment
(5)
Many scientific publications.
Various experts and other interested or concerned persons were consulted regarding the
different invertebrate groups or other aspects of the report, namely:
1.
Ian Engelbrecht, Principle Nature Conservation Scientist: Invertebrates, Gauteng
Deptartment of Agriculture and Rural Development, Johannesburg, South Africa. (Scorpions &
mygalomorph spiders)
2.
Dr Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural
Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. (Spiders)
3.
Peter Roos, G. Henning & P. Roos CC, Pretoria.(Butterflies)
A probability of occurrence (low, medium or high) was assigned to some species that may
occur in the area. Many factors are considered in evaluating a species, including the suitability of
the habitat and climate, how far from the farm the species have been recorded in the past, etc. The
probability assigned to a species is a very rough indicator and is defined as follows:
low
-
probability of less than 30%
medium
-
probability between 30% and 70%
high
-
probability of more than 70%
4.3
Results and discussion
The selected groups are discussed beneath and endangered, vulnerable, protected or
rare invertebrates that have a probability to occur on the site are indicated.
73
Rhopalocera (Butterflies) (based partly on insets from G. Henning & P. Roos cc.)
Butterflies belong to the Suborder Rhopalocera of the Order Lepidoptera. They are day
living and some species are very spectacularly coloured and therefore are favoured by amateur
collectors. Ten families and about 850 species have been recorded from southern Africa. As a
group the butterflies are relatively well known and the distribution and biology of most species are
known. The Red Data Book (Henning et al. 2005) red listed 10 species from the KwaZulu-Natal
(Table 4.2).
Table 4.2. Red Data butterfly species of KwaZulu-Natal
Family & name
Status
Remarks
Nymphalidae
Dingana dingana
Vulnerable
Found amongst rocky ridges in the Grassland
Biome in the midlands of KwaZulu-Natal. This
species is restricted to a few localities in the
KwaZulu-Natal midlands from the Drakensberg
foothills in the west, eastwards to the Estcourt,
Mooi River and Greytown areas. There are
agricultural development and habitat modification
threats.
Capys penningtoni
Vulnerable
Found among trees of Protea caffra and P.
simplex (Proteaceae) on mountain slopes in the
KwaZulu-Natal midlands and adjacent foothills of
the Drakensberg. The species is very local even
though its foodplant is widespread.
Chrysoritis lyncurium
Vulnerable
Inhabits rocky outcrops in high-rainfall montane
grasslands. This taxon is only known from a sites
in the Eastern Cape and from one colony at
Bushmansnek in KwaZulu-Natal.
Durbania amakosa
albescens
Vulnerable
Occur in rocky coastal grassland with rocks
containing the needed lichen as well as algae. It
has an extent of occurrence of about 50 km2 from
near Margate to near Port Edward.
Durbania amakosa flavida
Endangered This subcoastel subspecies is found on suitable
lichen/algae covered rocks in montane grassland
at an altitude between 450 and 900 m. It is found
from the Shongweni Dam, inland of Durban to the
forest reserves near Nkandla and Ngoye in
KwaZulu-Natal.
Lepidochrysops hypopolia
Extinct
Lycaenidae
Caught at Blue Bank near Ladysmith in KZN
(1870) and Potchefstroom (North West Province)
74
Family & name
Status
Remarks
(1879). No verified specimens have been seen
since 1879.
Lepidochrysops ketsi
leucomacula
Vulnerable
The butterfly is found in Pondoland-Ugu
Sandstone Coastal Sourveld a few kilometers
inland from the coast in the southern parts of
KZN and the northeastern parts of the Eastern
Cape. The major threat is coastal development.
Lepidochrysops pephredo
Vulnerable
Found on high altitude grassy slopes and rocky
ridges from the KZN midlands to the escarpment.
It is known from a few localities near Estcourt,
Mooi River, Bulwer and near the Mount-auxsources Hotel.
Orachrysops ariadne
Endangered Known only from a few localities in the midlands
of KZN at Karkloof, Benvie Estates, Wahroonga,
Klaarkloof and at Nkandla near Eshowe.
Hesperiidae
Metisella meninx
Vulnerable
This species inhabits marshes in wetlands at
altitudes of 1400 to 1700 m.
The majority of the Red Data species do not occur in the general area of the site. The only
Red Data species that has been recorded from the general area is Metisella meninx. However, it
normally occurs at high altitudes of more than 1400 metres above sea level (m.a.s.l.). The study
area is generally between 1200 and 1300 m.a.s.l. with the highest points less than 1400 m.a.s.l. It
is thus highly unlikely that Metisella meninx will occur in the sudy area. None of the Red Data
species are thus expected to occur in the study area.
A list of species that have been recorded from the two quarter degree quadrants (2729DD &
2730CC) or potentially occur there was compiled using historic and current butterfly collection data
using a large collection of printed papers and the following databases and collections:
Transvaal Museum database - Lepdoptera (2003).
P. Roos Collection database (2010)
G. Henning Collection.
Bill Teare Collection records (acknowledgement: D.Kroon for copy).
Afrotropical Butterflies and Skippers, No15 (2010) database CD.
A total of 150 species belonging to following 5 families are predicted to potentially occur in
or near the study area (refer to Appendix 2):
Papilionidae: 3 species
75
Pieridae:
16 species
Nymphalidae: 37 species
Lycaenidae:
65 species
Hesperioidea: 29 species
Odonata (Dragonflies & Damselflies)
The dragonflies and damselflies are a relatively small group (158 species - Tarboton 2002)
of insects associated with wetlands as their young (najades) are aquatic and needs water to live in.
Samways (2006) presented a National Red List of South African Odonata. McGeoch et al. (2011)
advocated the use of the Odonata in monitoring programmes.
Samways (2006) listed 17 Red Data species for KwaZulu-Natal (Table 4.3). On closer
examination, most of the red data species are only threatened on a national scale and not on a
global scale as they are distributed over several to many African countries. The global status of 11
of the species are deemed to be LC (least concern) whereas that of the 6 endemic species are
either VU (vulnerable) or EN (endangered). It is misleading to assign red data status to widespread
and common insects only because their southernmost distribution limit falls just inside our northern
border. It is to be expected that edge populations of invertebrates would be unstable and extinction
and re-colonisation events will continuously take place in such areas. There are many common
invertebrates with mainly tropical distributions that just reach our northern or north-eastern borders
(especially in the Limpopo Province and KwaZulu-Natal) and it will be impractical, misleading, and
counterproductive to utilize valuable resources and time towards the conservation of populations of
such species.
None of the 6 red listed endemic species occur near the study area and it is thus highly
unlikely that any of these species will be encountered there.
Mygalomorphae (Baboon and Trapdoor spiders)
Baboon spiders belong to the family Theraphosidae of the suborder Mygalomorphae. The
family is divided into 8 subfamilies but only the Harpactirinae, represented by 8 genera
(Ceratogyrus, Brachionopus, Harpactira, Harpactirella, Idiothele, Augacephalus, Trichognatha and
Pterinochilus)) and 47 species, occur in southern Africa (Dippenaar-Schoeman 2002, Gallon
2002). All species belonging to the genera Ceratogyrus (Horned Baboon Spiders), Harpactira
(Common Baboon Spiders) and Pterinochilus (Golden Baboon Spiders) are protected by NEMBA.
The majority of the protected species are common and widespread and are only protected
because of their potential exploitation by the pet trade.
76
A few species of baboon spiders potentially occur on the site (refer to Appendix 3). It is, however,
expected that only 2 or 3 species will actually be found in the area
Trapdoor spiders can be found in all habitats and can construct their burrows in
unexpected places, e.g. on bare patches of ground, in moss covered banks, under leaf litter, under
stones or rocks, etc. They are more frequently encountered in clay than sandy or stony soil. The
burrows of trapdoor spiders are sometimes found in colonies - perhaps the result of spiderlings
that have settled near the burrow of their mother. Spiderlings usually disperse by walking away
from their mother's burrow but dispersal by ballooning has been observed in some ctenizid
spiderlings (Coyle 1983). Trapdoor spiders are also long-living invertebrates and individuals living
to 7 years of age have been reported.
Trapdoor spiders are usually nocturnal and sit-and-wait predators. The spider usually
waits behind a slightly open trapdoor for potential prey to pass within striking distance and then
leaps onto it. It never leaves the burrow completely as the claws of the hind legs keep a firm grip
on the rim (Dippenaar-Schoeman 2002).
Trapdoor spiders belong to several families of the Mygalomorphae, namely the Atypidae
(purseweb spiders), Barychelidae (trapdoor baboon spiders), Ctenizidae (cork-lid trapdoor
spiders), Cyrtaucheniidae (wafer-lid trapdoor spiders),
Idiopidae (front-eyed trapdoor spiders),
Migidae (tree andbanded-leg trapdoor spiders) and Nemesiidae (wishbone trapdoor spiders).
No data exist on the trapdoor spiders of the general area of the site and it seems that very
little collecting has been done in the vicinity of the site. The list presented in Appendix 3 is thus
preliminary, incomplete and not creditable and it is expected that few of these species actually
occur in the area and it is possible that undescribed species may be found during a survey.
It is expected that one to five trapdoor spider species occur in the area.
77
Table 4.3 Red Data Dragon- and Damselfly species of KwaZulu-Natal
Family & species
ANISOPTERA (Dragonflies)
Aeshnoidea
Aeshnidae
Gynacantha villosa
Grünberg 1902
Gomphoidea
Gomphidae
Lestinogomphus
angustus Martin 1912
Neurogomphus
zambeziensis
Libelluloidea
Corduliidae
Syncordula gracilis
(Burmeister) 1839
Common
name
Hairy
Duskhawker,
Brown
Duskhawker
Spined
Fairytail
Zambezi
Siphontail
Banded
Duskdarter
Urothemis luciana Balinsky St Lucia
Distribution
KwaZulu-Natal, to Tanzania
and Senegal; October and
December
Red Data
Status
National Global
Habitat
VU
LC
Streams in swamp forest.
NT
LC
Bush- or tree-fringed, fairly
swift rivers.
VU
LC
Tall grass and other low
vegetation near wide,
meandering rivers.
Western Cape, Eastern
Cape and KwaZulu-Natal;
October to December
VU
VU
Clear, fast, hard-bottomed
rivers in treeless river
valleys.
KwaZulu-Natal and
Northern Province, to East
Africa; December to April
KwaZulu-Natal, to
equatorial Africa;
December
KwaZulu-Natal (endemic);
EN
LC
Marshy pools.
VU
LC
Coastal, hot, swamp forest.
VU
LC
Semi-open coastal bush with
KwaZulu-Natal and
Gauteng, to equatorial
Africa; November, January
and February
Status unresolved, Northern Province, to
based on one
Zaire; December
specimen
Yellow Presba Endemic
Libellulidae
Diplacodes pumila Dijkstra Dwarf Percher
2006
Parazyxomma flavicans
(Martin) 1908
Remarks
78
Family & species
1961
ZYGOPTERA (Damselflies)
Calopterygoidea
Chlorocyphidae
Chlorocypha consueta
(Karsch) 1899
Common
name
Remarks
Basker
Distribution
Red Data
Status
National Global
November and December
Habitat
lakes and pools.
Ruby Jewel
Occurrence record KwaZulu-Natal, to Malawi
in South Africa
and Angola
based on a single
specimen.
VU
NT
Clear, rocky, montane
streams.
Opal Slim
(As Aciagrion cf.
zambiense)
LC
??
Extensive marshland
bordered by trees.
Aciagrion pinheyi
Emeraldstriped Slim
Endemic ?
VU
VU
Agriocnemis gratiosa
Gracious Wisp
VU
LC
Pools and pans with an
abundance of grasses,
reeds and lilies, and with
fringing thick bush.
Tree-fringed pools and
Coenagrionoidea
Coenagrionidae
Aciagrion dondoense
Not known in South Africa
prior to February 2001,
where it was located at
Mfabeni swamp, Cape
Vidal, KwaZulu-Natal. To
date, it is only known from
this site, and may have
been forced south by the
floods of February 2000 in
Mozambique. As it is
known only from this one
site which periodically
almost dries out, this
species may be prone to
regional extinction.
KwaZulu-Natal (Cape
Vidal) to Tanzania coast
KwaZulu-Natal (Ndumo
Game Reserve)
KwaZulu-Natal; January
79
Family & species
Gerstaecker 1891
Agriocnemis ruberrima
ruberrima Balilnsky 1961
Common
name
Remarks
Orange Wisp
Endemic
Pseudagrion coeleste
umsingaziense Balinsky
1963
Catshead
Sprite
(southern
form)
Endemic
Pseudagrion inopinatum
Balinsky 1971
Badplaas
Endemic
Sprite, Scarce
Sprite,
Balinsky's
Sprite
Harlequin
Endemic
Sprite,
Newton's
Sprite
Pseudagrion newtoni
Pinhey 1962
Lestoidea
Lestidae
Lestes dissimulans Fraser Cryptic
1955
Spreadwing
Lestes ictericus Gerstaeker Tawny
1869
Spreadwing
Distribution
Red Data
Status
National Global
Habitat
marshes.
Marshes with shallow water
and abundance of tall,
reddish reeds.
KwaZulu-Natal; November,
March and May. This
subspecies is only known
from coastal, northern
KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa.
The known persistent
populations are only in the
Richard's Bay area,
KwaZulu-Natal. Individual
specimens have been
recorded at Cape Vidal and
Sodwana Bay.
KwaZulu-Natal and
Mpumalanga; October to
December
EN
EN
VU
VU
Lily-filled grassy n1argins of
lakes with a partial tree
canopy.
EN
EN
Montane streams with an
abundance of tall grasses
and herbs on the banks.
Eastern Cape, KwaZuluNatal; December to March
VU
VU
Fine, tall grasses and reeds
at the margins of swift, clear,
upland rivers.
Northern Province, to
Botswana and equatorial
Africa; December
VU
LC
KwaZulu-Natal and
Northern Province, to
VU
LC
Waterholes and pools with
an abundance of tall grasses
and reeds, with nearby thick
bush.
At Ndumo Game Reserve, it
was at a still reach of river
80
Family & species
Common
name
Remarks
Distribution
Botswana, Namibia and
equatorial Africa; February
and March
Red Data
Status
National Global
Habitat
with a profusion of grasses
on the banks.
81
Scorpiones (Scorpions)
Scorpions belong to the Class Arachnida and Order Scorpiones. The Scorpiones
comprises 19 families, 66 genera and about 1520 species worldwide.
Scorpions are long-lived organisms, usually 2 - 10 years, but specimens of some species
may reach an age of 30 years. They live in a wide variety of habitats, taking advantage of a variety
of shelters. They mainly live in trees (usually under bark), in rock crevices and in burrows. In most
cases, a species shows a preference for a very specific habitat.
Four families and about 130 species of scorpions occur in southern Africa. The most
species-rich areas are the semi-arid and arid regions like large parts of Namibia and the Northern
Cape (particularly the Richtersveld and Namaqualand). The families in southern Africa are the
Bothuridae (1 genus), Buthidae (7 genera), Ischnuridae (3 genera) and the Scorpionidae (1 genus).
All species of scorpions belonging to the genera Hadogenes (Rock scorpions),
Opistacanthus (Creeping scorpions) and Opistophthalmus (Burrowing scorpions) are protected by
NEMBA, mainly because the preference that the pet trade has for these less venomous genera,
which make them vulnerable to overexploitation. There is no Red Data book for the scorpions and
none of the species thus has Red Data status.
The moist grasslands like that of the study area are not particularly rich in scorpion species
and few species are expected to occur there. It is expected that between 1 and 4 species of
scorpions occur at the site. Appendix 4 lists the species that potentially occur in the area and the
probability that they will be found at the site.
Coleoptera: Carabidae (Ground & Tiger beetles)
The Ground beetles are small to large (3-60 mm) predaceous beetles that are usually
ground living. It is a large group and the more than 1 400 described species from southern Africa
are placed in more than 30 subfamilies. Many of the species have lost their wings and have fused
elytra and thus have limited vagility. Like in the case of the Tenebrionidae, populations are thus very
sensitive to development. In several studies it has been shown that even roads serve as effective
barriers for gene flow.
It is expected that between 20 and 50 species belonging to the Carabidae will be found in
the study area.
82
No South African Carabidae species have been evaluated for Red Data status. Several
species are rare and sought after by the trade and several species are protected by NEMBA. The
following genera/species that are protected do potentially occur at the site:
Dromica Dejean 1826
All Dromica species are protected by NEMBA. The genus comprise about 150 species that
occur in sub-Saharan Africa. All species are fast running, ground-living and flightless. Several
Dromica species potentially occur at the site.
Manticora Fabricius 1792 (Monster Tiger Beetles)
All species of Manticora are protected by NEMBA. The majority of the species belonging to
the genus occur mainly in the drier parts of southern Africa. It is unlikely that a Mantichora species
will be found in the area.
Megacephala regalis Boheman1848.
The tiger beetle M. regalis is protected by NEMBA. It is known that it is a widespread
species that occurs over the largest part of Africa
Heteroptera (True Bugs)
The Heteroptera (True bugs) is one of the larger groups of insects with an estimated 3 000
species occurring in southern Africa and is par excellence suitable for studying and monitoring the
environment because of its diversity and manageable size. They are involved in most ecological
interactions because they occur in all types of habitats (aquatic, semi-aquatic, terrestrial,
subterranean, etc) and have a wide array feeding strategies (predators, plant feeders, seed feeders,
scavengers, parasites of birds and mammals, and various specialized feeding strategies). Of all the
insect groups only the Coleoptera (beetles), the largest order of insects, can match them in their
ecological diversity.
Several families are associated with water. Families like the Corixidae, Notonectidae,
Naucoridae, Pleidae, Belostomatidae and Nepidae are truly aquatic and only leave the water during
dispersal flights. Several families are semi-aquatic, the Gerridae (pond skaters) are water surfacedwellers, the Veliidae, Hebridae, etc. also occur on the water surface or on the moss or other
vegetation at the edge of the water, the Ochteridae and Galastocoridae are usually found on the
mud or sand next to the water, and the Saldidae and Leptopodidae usually sit on the wet rocks in
fast flowing streams. The majority of the families mentioned above are predators or scavengers but
the Corixidae are mainly phytophagous and feed mostly on algae in the water.
83
Most families of the Heteroptera are terrestrial, but they occupy diverse niches and
habitats. The Cydnidae are fossorial and usually live subterranean where they feed on the roots of
plants. After good rains they sometimes emerge in their millions at dusk for dispersal flights. Many
species belonging to the Lygaeidae occur on the soil surface where they feed on fallen seeds (e.g.
the Rhyparochrominae) or are predators of small invertebrates (e.g. the Geocorinae). Most bugs,
however, can be found on plants and trees where they are sap suckers (e.g. the Miridae, Tingidae,
Pentatomidae, Scutelleridae, etc) or predators (e.g. the Anthocoridae, Reduviidae, etc).
Many of the plant feeding species are host specific, occurring only on a single species or
related group of plant species, while others have a wide host range. Some species or groups have
specialized feeding strategies like the Aradidae that usually occur under the bark on dead branches
where they feed on wood decaying fungi, or the Plokiophilidae that live in the webs of spiders where
they feed on insects trapped in the spiders web as well on the eggs of their hosts.
While most heteropteran species are winged and weak or strong flyers, some are apterous
or brachypterous with a resultant very limited vagility. The latter species often have a limited
distribution and sometimes they occur only, for example, in a single forest.
From the above it is clear that the Heteroptera are very diverse. Some notorious pest
species belong to the Heteroptera, as do some widely used bio-control agents. Several species
and/or groups are suited to serve as indicator species and some are often use as such, for
example, the Corixidae are used to monitor water quality in natural rivers and streams. As a result of
their diversity, there are heteropteran species available to study almost any type of ecological
interactions.
It is not surprising that Duelli & Obrist (1998) found that the Heteroptera give the best
correlate of biodiversity, either on plain species numbers or as diversity indices in cultivated areas.
The Heteroptera should be included as a priority group in any ecological and biodiversity surveys
and studies.
It is expected that between 100 and 200 species of Heteroptera will be recorded in the
Keldoron Colliery area.
4.4
The potential impacts of the mine on the invertebrate fauna and mitigation measures
Direct habitat destruction
Description of impact:
A large open cast mine will result in significant loss of and damage to natural habitats, both
84
in the areas permanently transformed, including the open cast mine itself, as well as offices, stores,
permanent access roads and in the areas used for lay-down of machinery, materials and soil
removed during the construction process. Rehabilitation of some areas would be possible but there
is likely to be long-term damage in large areas.
Most habitat destruction will be caused during the construction phase, but some may also
occur during the operational and decommissioning phases.
Mitigation measures:
(1)
All development activities should be restricted to specific recommended areas. The
Environment Site Officer (ESO) should demarcate and control these areas. Storage of
road-building equipment, fuel and other materials should be limited to demarcated areas.
(2)
The Environment Site Officer (ESO) should advise the construction team in all relevant
matters to ensure minimum destruction and damage to the environment. He should enforce
any measures that he deem necessary. Regular environmental training should be provided
to construction workers to ensure the protection of the habitat, fauna and flora and their
sensitivity to conservation.
(3)
Clearly demarcate the entire development footprint prior to initial site clearance and prevent
construction personnel from leaving the demarcated area.
(4)
Fence off the entire development footprint and institute strict access control to the portions
of the owner-controlled property that are to remain undisturbed as soon as possible after
initial site clearance. The fence should preferably be impermeable (for example a solid wall)
to discourage invertebrates and small animals from entering the site. [Normally solid
perimeter walls are not recommended in order to facilitate the movement of invertebrates,
but in the present case restriction of their movement into the area will be advantageous.]
Light pollution
The negative effect of light pollution on invertebrates (especially insects) cannot be
overstressed. Many species of flying insects (but also some non-flying insects) are attracted to
artificial light, some over distances of a kilometre or more. Insects attracted to fixed external lights
often circle the light until they eventually succumb to exhaustion or are killed by predators like bats,
other insectivorous mammals or ants. Some insects may settle down on vegetation or other
85
perching possibilities like walls near the light but they are often killed early the following morning by
birds that quickly learn to utilize this 'easy' food source. Flying insects attracted to the lights of
vehicles, are killed in large numbers by the moving vehicles. Not all insects are attracted to lights.
Diurnal insects like butterflies, dragon- and damselflies, many beetles, etc., as a rule, are not
attracted to light. Only the odd individual, which by chance has settled for the night in the direct
vicinity of the light, may find his way to the light. In contrast, most crepuscular and nocturnal insects
are attracted to light.
The impact of artificial lighting on insect populations can be very significant, resulting in the
death of thousands of individuals every night and causing a substantial drain effect on the
surrounding populations. This drain effect from the continual depletion of the populations within the
zone around the lights will probably cause a significant decline in the population numbers and
density of the affected species for distance of several kilometres. It may also cause an unnatural
>positive= effect on the populations of predators and scavengers, like insectivorous mammals, ants
and birds, utilising the food source. Given the vital role that insects and other invertebrates play in
ecosystem functioning, virtually every component of the surrounding ecosystem may be affected.
Lighting pollution will probably be severe during the construction phase, especially if strong
lighting is needed for construction at night. During this phase there will also probably be an
increased movement of vehicles during the night.
During the operational phase the impact will continue (throughout the life of the project)
and its impact will depends on the number and placement of external lights and mining activity
during the night.
This impact can in theory be almost entirely avoided by elimination of all external lighting; in
practice some external lighting is probably inevitable, especially during the construction phase, but
the impacts of this can be significantly reduced if recommended light sources and fittings are used.
(1)
Externally visible lighting should be kept to an absolute minimum, and wherever possible
long-wavelength light sources should be used. Insects are chiefly attracted to light with a
short wavelength (towards the ultraviolet side of the spectrum) and much less to longer
wavelengths like yellow or red lights. [Low-pressure sodium vapour lights also require
about a third less energy and when used they could yield substantial savings and also
cause less power-plant emissions.] Less preferable, but still better than mercury vapour or
halogen lamps, would be high-pressure sodium vapour lights. Fluorescent lights, including
compact versions, should not be used outdoors, as a significant amount of UV light is
emitted by them, and this is highly attractive to insects.
86
(2)
If external lighting is essential (e.g. for security reasons), light sources should be directed
inward and downward so as to light up the structure and result in this becoming a large
diffuse light source, rather than having bright point sources directed outward into the
natural environment.
(3)
Internal lighting should as far as possible be shielded by blinds, curtains or by eliminating
outward-facing windows in building designs, to prevent spillage of light into the surrounding
natural environments.
Habitat fragmentation
The construction of buildings, fences and roads will inevitably result in natural movement
patterns being disrupted and, to a varying degree depending on how different species react to these
barriers, will result in the fragmentation of natural populations.
It has been shown that roads
function as effective barriers for many, mostly ground-living, organisms and divides the population in
smaller isolated or partially isolated subpopulations. The long-term genetic effects of such isolation
are still uncertain but smaller populations are more prone to extinction because of inbreeding and
other factors. Because of the large areas with natural vegetation that surround the development
and the fact that the traffic volume will probably not be very high, this impact would probably not be
significant for most organisms. Such impacts would be long-term or permanent, most likely the
latter, depending on the procedure followed during eventual decommissioning.
(1)
Normally it is recommended that permeable fencing like palisade should be used as to not
to hinder the movement of invertebrates, but in this case a solid fence around the mine pit
is proposed. However, any fencing used in the development away from the mine, should
not be solid and should offer as little obstruction as possible to the movement of terrestrial
and flying invertebrates.
(2)
The fragmentation effect of roads can be alleviated by placing underpasses at strategic
points, to allow free and safe crossing of the road.
(3)
As far as possible use of different access routes during construction and for permanent
access during the operational phase should be avoided.
87
Pitfall effect of the open cast mine
The large hole that is formed by the excavation will act like a large pitfall trap for the invertebrates
and other fauna like small mammals, reptiles, frogs, etc. This effect will probably not be limited to
ground-living, non-flying insects but, because of its large size and depth, flying insects may also be
trapped and killed. This impact will be long-term and last for the duration of the operating phase and
afterwards until significant rehabilitation has been attained.
(1)
This impact can be reduced by erecting a solid fence around the excavated area to prevent
invertebrates and small animals from reaching it.
Soil and water pollution
Construction work of the magnitude contemplated for the proposed open-cast mine will
always carry a substantial risk of soil and water pollution, with large construction vehicles
contributing substantially due to oil and fuel spillages. Building waste, batching plants, sewage and
domestic waste are also potential contributors to this problem. If not promptly dealt with, spillages
or accumulation of waste matter can contaminate the soil and surface or ground water, leading to
potential medium/long-term impacts on invertebrates and other fauna and flora. During the
operational phase heavy machinery and vehicles as well as sewage and domestic waste would be
the main contributors to potential pollution problems.
(1)
Any excess or waste material or chemicals should be removed from the site and discarded
in an environmental friendly way. The ESO should enforce this rule rigorously
(2)
All construction vehicles should be inspected for oil and fuel leaks regularly and frequently,
and that any vehicle showing signs of leaking should be serviced immediately.
(3)
Vehicle maintenance yards must not be situated in any close proximity to water courses
and all used oil and other waste products should be disposed of in an accepted way.
Preferably it should be removed from the site and recycled.
(4)
Ensure that refuelling stations on site are constructed so as to prevent spillage of fuel or oil
88
onto the soil, and put in place measures to ensure that any accidental spillages can be
contained and cleaned up promptly.
(5)
Sewage should either be treated in a suitable plant or removed from the site for treatment
elsewhere.
Dust pollution
Excavation and movement of soil, as well as movement of heavy vehicles on dirt roads,
has the potential to cause substantial dust pollution in the area surrounding the construction site
and access roads. Accumulation of dust on plants can reduce their productivity, with knock-on
effects on invertebrate herbivores and their predators as well as directly interfering with invertebrate
species by e.g. physically impeding their movement on plants.
Dust pollution will impact in all the phases but will probably the most severe during the construction
phase. Areas where the vegetation has been removed and soil dumps may also contribute to the
problem during strong winds.
Vehicles travelling at high speed on dirt roads significantly aggravate the problem.
•
Implement standard dust control measures, including periodic spraying (frequency required
will depend on many factors including weather conditions, soil composition and traffic
intensity and must thus be adapted on an ongoing basis) of construction areas and access
roads, and ensure that these are continuously monitored to ensure effective implementation.
•
Soil dumps may be covered if necessary.
•
A speed limit (preferably 60 km/hour) should be enforced on dirt roads.
Road mortality
Large numbers of invertebrates and other fauna are killed daily on roads. They are either
being crushed under the tyres of vehicles in the case of crawling species, or by colliding with the
vehicle itself in the case of flying species. Gepp (1973, as cited by Eisenbeis 2005) estimated that
89
approximately 116 insects were killed by the front of a car in Austria for every km travelled; this
apparently did not take into account individuals crushed under the wheels. The impact is intensified
at night, especially for flying insects, as result of their attraction to the lights of vehicles.
(1)
More invertebrates are normally killed the faster vehicles travel - at lower speeds flying
insects can ovoid or are blown over the vehicles. A speed limit should be enforced
(preferably 60 km/hour). It can be considered to install speed bumps in sections where the
speed limit tends to be disobeyed. (Speed limits will also lessen the probability of road
accidents and their negative consequences).
(2)
Vehicles travelling at night should be avoided or limited as much as possible.
Spread and establishment of alien invasive species
Along with light pollution, this is probably one of the most significant potential impacts from
a terrestrial invertebrate perspective, and also may have very significant knock-on effects that could
impact of virtually every aspect of the surrounding ecosystem. Vehicles often transport many seeds
and some may be of invader species, which may become established along the road, especially
where the area is disturbed. Invasive invertebrate species (e.g. the Argentine ant, Linepithema
humile) are also regularly dispersed by vehicles.
The construction phase almost certainly carries by far the greatest risk of alien invasive
species being imported to the site, and the high levels of habitat disturbance also provide the
greatest opportunities for such species to establish themselves, since most indigenous species are
less tolerant of disturbance. The biggest risk is that colonies of species such as Argentine ants or
the seeds of noxious plants may be carried onto the site along with materials that have been
stockpiled elsewhere at already invaded sites. Continued movement of personnel and vehicles on
and off the site, as well as occasional delivery of materials required for maintenance, will result in a
risk of importation of alien species throughout the life of the project.
(1)
Institute strict control over materials brought onto site, which should be inspected for
potential invasive invertebrate species and steps taken to eradicate these before transport
to the site. Routinely fumigate or spray all materials with appropriate low-residual
insecticides prior to transport to or in a quarantine area on site. The Argentine ant is nearly
90
impossible to eradicate once it has established itself.
(2)
Rehabilitate disturbed areas as quickly as possible to reduce the area where invasive
species would be at a strong advantage and most easily able to establish.
(3)
Institute a monitoring programme to detect alien invasive species early, before they
become established and, in the case of weeds, before the release of seeds.
(4)
Institute an eradication/control programme for early intervention if invasive species are
detected, so that their spread to surrounding natural ecosystems can be prevented.
Negative effect of human activities
An increase in human activity on the site and surrounding area is anticipated. The risk of
snaring, killing and hunting of certain animal species (more applicable to mammals and birds than to
invertebrates) is increased.
Species like baboon spiders and rock scorpions (both probably
common in the area) may be captured for selling to the pet trade. If staff compounds are erected for
construction workers, the risk of pollution because of litter and inadequate sanitation and the
introduction of invasive fauna and flora is increased. Especially the Argentine ant, which is attracted
and distributed by humans in their food supplies and discarded food, is an invasive species, which is
nearly impossible to eradicate.
The presence of a large number of construction workers or regular workers during the operational
phase on site over a protracted period will result in a greatly increased risk of uncontrolled fires
arising from cooking fires, improperly disposed cigarettes etc.
(1)
The minimum staff should be accommodated on the site. If practical, construction workers
should stay in one of the nearby villages and transported daily to the site.
(2)
If any compound must be erected on the site, it should be fenced to prevent movement of
people and animals into the surrounding areas which should be considered as 'no-go'
areas for employees and machinery. Adequate rubbish bins and sanitation facilities should
be provided.
(3)
The ESO should regularly inspect the site, including storage facilities and compounds and
eradicate any invasive or exotic plants and animals.
91
(4)
Maintain proper firebreaks around entire development footprint.
(5)
Educate construction workers regarding risks and correct disposal of cigarettes.
92
5. SURVEY OF HERPETOFAUNA ON THE MINING AREA
(This section written by L. Verburgt)
5.1 Introduction
Enviro-Insight CC was contracted by Borent CC to perform a survey of the reptiles and
amphibians (hereafter collectively referred to as herpetofauna) within the Keldoron properties, close
to Newcastle, KwaZulu Natal (Figure 1.1). The main aim of the herpetofauna survey was to focus
efforts on the proposed open-cast mining pits and to identify sensitive areas/species within the
Keldoron properties in order to provide an appropriate impact assessment so that the anticipated
impacts can be sufficiently mitigated. The specific objectives of the survey were to:
•
Evaluate existing habitat suitability for herpetofauna
•
Map sensitive areas for herpetofauna with special reference to species of conservation
concern
•
From the mining plan, identify potential threats to herpetofauna abundance and diversity and
suggest appropriate mitigation measures
•
Provide a comprehensive list of herpetofauna species expected to occur within the study
area
•
Make recommendations for the conservation of herpetofauna to be included in the EMP
5.2 Methods
Desktop study
Sources used. All available books providing information on distribution ranges and/or conservation
status of South African herpetofauna were utilized to make predictions of occurrence in the area
(see reference list). The South African red data book – Reptiles and amphibians (Branch 1988) is
outdated and therefore the conservation status of the reptiles must be interpreted cautiously. The
Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment (SARCA 2012) is currently taking action to
generate a new Red data book but is still in preparation. Nevertheless, the SARCA website
(http://vmus.adu.org.za/) makes all information available to the public and this was utilized as the
most current distribution authority for snakes and lizards. Reptile species nomenclature follows
SARCA (2012). A complete guide to frogs of southern Africa (Du Preez & Carruthers 2009) was
used as the primary identification guide and species nomenclature follows this reference. Online
information
was
obtained
from
the
Southern
African
Frog
Atlas
Project
(SAFAP;
http://vmus.adu.org.za/). The IUCN website (www.iucnredlist.org) was utilized to provide the most
current account of the global conservation status of reptiles and amphibians while the National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA 2004) was consulted for national
conservation status. No specific provincial conservation documentation exists for KwaZulu Natal. All
reptile and amphibian species accounts recorded will be submitted to SARCA and SAFAP.
93
Table 5.1: Information for the herpetofauna active searching sampling sites (NCA1 –
NCA6).
Sample
site
Coordinates and
altitude
Habitat description
NCA1
S: 27.862595°
E: 29.987065°
Alt: 1194 m
Foothill of rocky ridge sloping down to stream.
Situated amongst heavily grazed grassland. No
termitaria present.
NCA2
S: 27.8668980°
E: 30.0658891°
Alt: 1335 m
Presence of ruins with potential cultural/heritage
value. Sloped hill with many rocks and Acacia
natalensis trees. Surrounding grassland
moderately grazed. Many refugia available for
herpetofauna.
NCA3
S: 27.856353°
E: 30.060478°
Alt: 1335 m
Very similar to NCA2 but was burnt in the recent
past and has many small drainage lines leading
down to valley. Soil very vertic (clay) so no
termitaria present.
NCA4
S: 27.862213°
E: 30.069227°
Alt: 1279 m
Major drainage line in valley bottom. Acacia
siberiana and Acacia natalensis in grazed
grassland. Rocks present on adjacent slopes.
NCA5
S: 27.789124°
E: 30.017738°
Alt: 1185 m
Very disturbed area: train bridge with road and
signs of excavation. Grassland heavily grazed.
Termitaria present but unsuitable for reptile
refugia.
NCA6
S: 27.791027°
E: 30.013664°
Alt: 1193 m
Rock dumps from old quarry situated in heavily
grazed grassland. Suitable termitaria for reptiles
(brown house snake found here).
Photo 1
Photo 2
94
34
32
Temperature (ﾰ C)
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
100
Relative humidity (%)
80
60
40
20
0
16
eb
-F
12
eb
-F
17
2
-1
eb
-F
18
12
e
-F
19
1
b-
2
e
-F
20
1
b-
2
Figure 5.1: Temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) for the duration of the fieldwork during this
survey.
95
Figure 5.2: Northern portion of the study area showing greater detail on the tracks and sampling
points.
96
Figure 5.3: Southern portion of the study area showing greater detail on the tracks and sampling
points
97
Limitations and assumptions. SARCA and SAFAP provide distribution data at the quarter degree
square (QDS) resolution. Expected species lists may therefore represent an overestimation of the
diversity expected as very specific habitat types may be required by a species which may be
present in a QDS but not necessarily on the study site within the QDS. Conversely, many large
areas in South Africa are poorly sampled for herpetofauna and expected species lists may therefore
underestimate the species diversity. For this reason, the expected species list was drawn not only
from the QDS on which the study site resides (2730CC) but also from all of the 8 surrounding QDS’s
(2730CA, 2730CB, 2730CD, 2830AA, 2830AB, 2829BB, 2729DD, 2729DD). This increase the
likelihood of obtaining a species list that suffers less from poor sampling in the area. However, it
also artificially inflates the expected number of species because many different habitats in the
surrounding QDS’s may not be present on the study site. To counteract this, all possible attempts
were made to refine the expected species list based on species-specific habitat requirements and a
deeper understanding of the habitat types and quality of the study site which was obtained during
the summer survey. Species that are unlikely to occur on the study site but that do occur in the
surrounding QDS’s were removed from the expected species list and species with a high probability
of occurrence on the study site were added despite not being present in the study site QDS or the 8
surrounding QDS’s.
Field methods
Funnel traps. An intercept drift fence array with associated funnel and/or pitfall traps is the standard
technique used for the trapping of herpetofauna (e.g. Masterson et. al. 2009). During the rapid
survey (14-19 February 2012) it was decided that the deployment and daily checking of such trap
arrays would require too much time to be an efficient sampling strategy, especially given the poor
weather conditions encountered. Rather, the available time allocated for the survey was spent more
usefully by characterizing the habitat and searching actively for herpetofauna.
Climate monitoring. Because all herpetofauna are ectothermic and their behaviour is heavily
influenced by the presence of rain it is necessary to present reptile survey data in the context of the
prevailing climatic conditions. A DS1923 Hygrochron iButton ® was placed within the study area to
log the temperature and the relative humidity at 30 min intervals. The iButton was placed inside an
inverted ventilated polystyrene cup to protect against the effects of rain and direct solar radiation
and then fixed to a leafy tree in order to provide shade for the device over the whole day.
Active searching during point sampling. Reptiles were searched for on foot within the study area
during the day. Specific habitat types were selected where active sampling was focused intently
(point samples). Active searching for reptiles involved:
•
Photographing active reptiles from a distance with a telephoto lens
•
Lifting up and searching under debris or rocks (rocks where returned to their original
position)
98
•
Excavation of suitable burrows that appeared to be in use
•
scanning for any signs of reptiles such as shed skins, the positive identification of which
were taken as an observation of that species
•
Catching any observed reptile by hand. All captured reptiles were photographed and
released unharmed
Nocturnal reptiles were searched for by driving very slowly on the roads at night. Amphibians
(frogs and toads) are nocturnal and were searched for by torchlight at night along river/pond edges
and in wetland areas. Positive identification of amphibian acoustic signals (males call to attract
females) was also used as a means of identifying amphibians. Where necessary acoustic signals
were recorded with high-precision recording equipment and identification confirmed with existing
recordings (Du Preez & Carruthers 2009).
5.3 Results
Climate monitoring. Unfavourable weather conditions for reptiles were encountered throughout most
of the survey (Fig. 5.1). A cold front moved in over the area and persisted with rainy and cold
conditions until completion of the survey. Climatic conditions were unsuitable for nocturnal reptiles
(too cool and wet) and none were therefore observed. This weather was however favourable for
most amphibian species and a high degree of amphibian activity was encountered.
Site coverage. The study site was covered effectively during the survey as can be seen from the
GPS tracks shown in Figures 5.2. and 5.3. While intense sampling was restricted to the six sampling
points (CLA1-6; Table 5.1), sampling on an ad hoc basis continued while walking on foot or driving
by vehicle.
Active searching & random sampling. Active searching site locations and altitudes are shown in
Table 5.1 and a description of the habitat is provided along with photographic examples of the
habitat. The number of active searching sites was limited to six due to unfavourable weather
conditions, project time constraints and difficulties. Only 7 reptile species were observed during the
survey which is far less than expected in this region (Appendix 5). This poor success can be
ascribed to several factors of which the most prominent were a) the severely degraded habitat due
to overgrazing b) the late seasonal timing of the survey c) the cold and cloudy weather conditions
during the survey d) an insufficient amount of survey time to sample the proposed mining properties
adequately. Photographs of a selection of the observed reptile species are provided in Figure 5.4.
The amphibian species observations during the survey were reasonable because the climatic
conditions were suitable for amphibians. Because a large area had to be surveyed in a relatively
short amount of time, many of the amphibian observations were made through acoustic signal
detection. Nevertheless, photographs of several of the observed amphibian species are provided in
Figure 5.5.
99
A
D
E
B
F
C
Figure 5.4: A selection of the observed and photographed reptile species: A) Boaedon capensis B)
Pachydactylus vansoni C) Agama aculeata distanti D) Varanus niloticus E) Trachylepis varia F)
Afroablepharus walbergii.
100
A
E
B
F
C
G
D
H
Figure 5.5: A selection of the observed and photographed amphibian species: A) Tomopterna
natalensis B) Pyxicephalus adspersus C) Tomopterna cryptotis D) Xenopus laevis E) Amietia
fuscigula F) Amietophrynus gutturalis G) Amietia angolensis H) Hyperolius marmoratus.
101
5.4 Discussion
General.
The total extent of the KwaZulu-Natal Highland Thornveld vegetation type on which the majority of
the Keldoron properties resides is 5169 km2 of which only a mere 1.6% is protected (Mucina &
Rutherford 2006). This vegetation type provides habitat for an expected 36 reptile and 27 amphibian
species (Appendix 5) of which 1 reptile and 2 amphibians are “red data” species. Only a small
portion, approximately 700 Ha, of the proposed mining properties (7000 Ha) are earmarked for
destructive mining activities. This presents an opportunity to conserve a fairly large portion of the
intact vegetation on the Keldoron properties.
The Eastern portion of the property is characterised by a North-South orientated series of
rocky ridges. Rocky ridges represent very sensitive habitat for reptiles because of their affinity for
rocks (rupiculous nature) and the fact that rocks offer shelter/refugia in a grassy landscape that is
generally devoid of appropriate shelter. Many amphibian species will also migrate great distances to
take shelter on rocky ridges. The rocky ridges on the Keldoron properties must therefore be afforded
a high level of protection.
Another very important factor that must be considered is the proximity of the proposed
mining activities to major wetland and river systems. The negative effects of coal mining on surface
water are well known e.g. acid mine drainage (AMD). Rivers and wetlands always represent a
biodiversity hotspot in the landscape and must be treated accordingly by being afforded appropriate
protection in order to preserve the biodiversity that is dependent on these systems.
Current Disturbances
A number of very obvious disturbances were observed during the fieldwork and each is
discussed from a herpetological perspective:
1.
Overgrazing: This is probably the greatest current threat to the herpetofauna biodiversity on the
Keldoron properties. Large numbers of cattle presumably owned by the local inhabitants of the
nearby informal settlements are constantly cropping and trampling the grassland. In the
southern portion of the Keldoron properties overgrazing was particularly evident. Large areas of
intense soil erosion due to overgrazing are evident. Removal of the grass layer through grazing
can have several effects on herpetofauna community, even though no herbivorous
herpetofauna occur in this region:
a.
Increased predation risk from aerial predators due to exposure
b.
Decreases foraging opportunities: no grass results in no rodents to feed on. Also, a lack of
grass will result in few insects and lead to very lizards and therefore almost no snakes.
c.
A lack of rodents due to removal of grass will also lead to fewer rodent burrows which for
many herpetofauna is the only form of shelter in the grassland. Lack of refugia will increase
predation risk and ultimately lead to emigration.
102
2.
Mining activities: Past mining activities on the Keldoron properties have not effectively
rehabilitated the landscape and as a result pollution of the drainage systems is taking place
through rainwater runoff from old coal stockpiles and overburden discard dumps. Herpetofauna
can be negatively affected by this observation as follows:
a.
Rainwater runoff pollution forms part of the acid mine drainage (AMD) which can negatively
affect amphibians that are not tolerant to low pH values and result in their emigration.
b.
Improperly rehabilitated mining areas effectively reduce the habitat area available to
herpetofauna because they are not suitable for foraging, refuge and/or breeding activites.
3.
Fire: Large areas of the landscape are being burnt regularly. While some fires may be of natural
origin it is most likely the deliberate setting of fires for grazing benefits that take place regularly.
Many herpetofauna species are likely to suffer direct mortalities when fires are artificially set.
Furthermore, the regular burning of the veld in conjunction with overgrazing and trampling by
cattle has lead to the massive tracts of erosion observed in the landscape. This results in the
same effects on herpetofauna as for overgrazing mentioned but the magnitude/severity of the
effect are increased.
4.
Agriculture: Few plots of land used for cropping (e.g. maize) were observed but nonetheless
represent a disturbance of the natural grassland. Also, much of the landscape consists of
previously cultivated fields. These disturbances can affect herpetofauna as follows:
a.
Removing the natural vegetation and ploughing/tilling the land exposes many
herpetofauna species to the elements and predation risk.
b.
Direct mortalities from ploughing also occur.
c.
The pioneer grasses that re-establish themselves once a field lies fallow are not very
nutritious and therefore do not attract many herbivorous species that can be preyed upon
by reptiles and amphibians.
Species of conservation concern. No herpetofauna species of global conservation concern (IUCN
2012) were observed on the study site. However, this study site is situated in habitat where the
“near-threatened” yellow-bellied house snake (Lamprophis fuscus) and the “vulnerable” spotted
shovel-nosed frog (Hemisus guttatus) is expected to occur. The latter species is declared as
“vulnerable” because the area in which it occurs is relatively small and its habitat is degraded and
fragmented. The giant bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) was observed on site and is the only
amphibian directly observed which is of conservation concern. NEM:BA (2004) declares the giant
bullfrog as “protected” and Du Preez & Carruthers (2009) list this species as “vulnerable”. Therefore,
any potential negative impact on the property that is likely to directly influence the above-mentioned
species should be mitigated or prevented. This bullfrogs were found in the shallow temporary pans
located on the northern proposed open-cast mining pit. It is important to note that this species has
never before been recorded on this QDS or any of the adjacent QDS’s. Yetman & Ferguson (in
103
preparation) recently modelled the expected geographic distribution of the giant bullfrog based on
several abiotic factors through ecological niche modelling techniques. The proposed mining areas
fall within the expected distribution of the giant bullfrog and the observation of this species has
partly verified their predictive model. Because this has important consequences for the conservation
of this species these findings will shortly be published in an appropriate scientific publication
(Verburgt & Yetman, in preparation).
Herpetofauna sensitivity mapping
The structural aspects of the landscape were mapped together by the vertebrate faunal
specialists. Data used to define each landscape unit originated from:
1. Remote-sensing imagery (Google Corporation)
2. Geo-referenced photography during the site visit
3. 1:50000 topographic maps
4. The botanical specialist’s maps
5. Digital data (shape files) of several landscape characteristics:
a. Contours (20 m)
b. Rivers
c. Drainage lines
d. Surface water
Five landscape types were classified namely:
1. Drainage lines & surface water
2. Grassland
3. Moist grassland with pans
4. Old agricultural fields
5. Rocky ridges
The “Drainage lines & surface water” landscape type was mapped as all drainage lines and surface
water units with a 50 m buffer and all major rivers with a 300 m buffer. The “Rocky ridges”
landscape type was mapped by extracting the 1280 m contour line and converting this to a closed
polygon (Fig. 5.6). Usage of the 1280 m contour was considered to be conservative in that it did
include most of the slopes of the rocky ridges but did not include too much of the foothills.
The evaluation of a structural landscape type sensitivity was based on summation of the number of
species (species richness), the number of endemic species, and the number of species of
conservation concern (red data) that were expected in each landscape type. These final values
were then ranked from low to high for reptiles and amphibians separately, producing five categories
of sensitivity namely:
104
•
Low
•
Low-Medium
•
Medium
•
High
•
Very High
The species richness (number of species), the number of endemic species present and the
number of species present that are of conservation concern were calculated for each landscape
type (Table 5.2). To ensure that each of these three categories had equal weightings they were
ranked where 5 = high and 1 = low. A tie breaker was included which was calculated as the
proportional contribution of the species richness to the total number of expected species. The rank
sums with tie breaker were calculated and were themselves ranked to achieve a final sensitivity
ranking for that taxon. These ranking are presented as maps in Fig. 5.7.
Table 5.2 Example table for reptiles of how sensitivity ranks were calculated for each habitat type.
Reptiles
No.
No. red
No. endemic data
RANKS
species spp.
spp. (1= High, 5 = Low) Tie-breaker
SUM
Rank
Grassland
Moist grassland
with pans
Old agricultural
fields
23
4
0
2
3
2
0.247
7.25
3
13
3
0
4
4
2
0.140 10.14
2
9
0
0
5
5
2
0.097 12.10
1
Rocky ridges
Drainage lines &
surface water
29
7
1
1
1
1
0.312
3.31
5
19
5
0
3
2
2
0.204
7.20
4
Impact identification & mitigation
Direct mortality of herpetofauna: Activities: Earth-moving activities, road collisions, staff/workers
killing reptiles. Mining activities will lead to direct mortality of reptiles either through construction
vehicles or transportation vehicles. Many herpetofauna are killed on roads which are poorly
designed. Roads should be designed with amphibian underpasses and toad fences to allow
migrating herpetofauna to be channelled into the underpasses and cross the road safely underneath
oncoming traffic. Staff/workers should be educated about the need for herpetofauna conservation
and should be discouraged from interacting with herpetofauna. Furthermore, staff should be
educated on how to avoid potentially dangerous snakes and also on the proper first aid treatment of
snake bite.
105
Recommendations for the EMP.
There are three basic recommendations that will allow the herpetofauna communities to cooccur and even thrive with the proposed mining operations:
1. Assign the 1280 m contour and the 300 m river buffer as “no-go” areas (red and orange
areas in Fig. 5.7). This will serve to protect a large portion of the expected herpetofauna and
will have almost no impact on the intended mining operations. Other taxa (notably birds and
mammals) will also be positively affected by this management decision.
2. Restrict the number of cattle on the Keldoron properties and appoint a qualified grazing
manager who will manage grazing rotations and cattle density. As mentioned previously,
probably the greatest threat to the biodiversity of the Keldoron properties is overgrazing and
vegetation trampling by cattle. By appropriately managing this non-mining impact on mine
property the areas not damaged by mining can be restored to near-natural conditions.
3. Maintain the health of the drainage lines. This can be achieved by avoiding developments in
or near (at least 50 m) to drainage lines and if not possible, by appropriately
redirecting/channelling the drainage lines so that pollution of these lines does not occur while
maintain the ecological integrity of the drainage lines.
106
Figure 5.6. Contours (20 m) clearly showing the position of the rocky ridges in relation to the
proposed mining activities. The 1280 m contour provided the most conservative boundary
of the rocky ridges.
107
A
B
Figure 5.7. Sensitivity maps for A) Reptiles and B) Amphibia, based on the ranking system
described in the text. Red areas are the most sensitive.
108
6. SURVEY OF AVIFAUNA ON THE MINING AREA
(This section written by J.W.H. Ferguson)
6.1 Introduction
A survey of birds is important for assessing the biodiversity impacts of almost any mining
development. This is because of three reasons: a) Many mining developments involve total habitat
transformation, destroying the habitat for animals such as birds. b) Because there are many species
of birds that could be found locally on most locations in southern Africa, the probability of affecting
the local population numbers of at least one bird species is significant. c) These large numbers of
bird species, combined with the fact that most birds are easily observed, makes them good proxies
for other taxa such as reptiles and mammals. This approach was also used during the present
study. The aims of this study were:
•
To compile a list of bird species expected to be found on the property.
•
To verify this list by field observations on site.
•
To identify any species of conservation importance.
•
To propose mitigation measures for minimising the effect of the proposed development on
the bird assemblage.
6.2 Methods
Desktop study
The SABAP1 dataset currently comprises the most complete record of bird distributions and bird
abundance in South Africa. Although the SABAP2 project is making good progress and contains
data at finer geographic resolution, it is not complete. Therefore the SABAP1 dataset, in conjunction
with information from Hockey et al. (2005) was used to construct a list of bird species expected to
be found at the Keldoron properties. In addition, a listing of the birds on the SIBIS database for the
two quarter degree units covering the site was obtained and integrated into the above list (Appendix
6). SABAP1 and SIBIS provide distribution data at the quarter degree square (QDS) resolution.
Species lists may overestimate the diversity expected because the Keldoron sites do not contain all
the habitats that may be present in a QDS but outside of the study site. Species that can potentially
be found on-site, but for which appropriate habitat is lacking, were therefore excluded. However,
many areas have low sampling intensity for avifauna, resulting in underestimates of species
diversity.
For finding Red-listed species, the South African list (Barnes 2000) was used for
determining the national status of species and the IUCN Internet site was used for finding their
international status.
109
Field study
Birds numbers were assessed exclusively by means of visual observations that were
performed from about 06h00 until 19h00 over a period of five days (February 15 th - 19th 2012). A
total of 38 observation hours were spent observing birds, ensuring that this time is more or less
equally divided between the major vegetation types (wetlands, grassland, rocky outcrops and
woodlands/bushclumps). Bird vocalisations were used to identify several species that either cryptic
or not easily seen. This method allows for the detection of most of the common species at the
Keldoron site. Many of the species that are rare in the area would not have been detected. For this
reason, the literature study was performed, listing all species expected to be found at the site
(Appendix 6).
6.3 Results
The desktop study showed that a total of 229 bird species are expected to be found on the
Keldoron property. However, several of them are expected to be rare, and not regular visitors.
These are mostly the bird species associated with woodland, including woodpeckers, flycatchers
and bush warblers. During the five observation days, 73 species were observed on site, about a
third of those species expected to be found there (Appendix 6). The water birds were very well
represented among those observed on site (19 species). In addition another 11 species are
associated with wetlands. Therefore, more than a third of the species observed were associated
with wetlands. In addition, many of the larks and gamebirds were not as common as expected. We
expect this to be because of the severe overgrazing observed in many areas of the Keldoron
property.
Red data species. Some 22 red data species are expected to be found on site (Appendix 9).
However, only two red data species were observed, the Blue Korhaan (Eupodotis caerulescens)
and the Bald Ibis (Geronticus calvus). The former is considered as Near-Threatened, while the latter
is classed as Vulnerable. Both of these species are scheduled under NEM:BA and are endemic to
South Africa.
6.4 Discussion
Implications for EMP: The grass-living birds were relatively rare, despite the fact that two grassliving red data species were encountered in this habitat. This indicated the importance of managing
the current severe overgrazing that is found on the Keldoron properties, and the management of the
non-mined grassland to maintain these grassland species. On the other hand, the richness of water
birds also emphase the need for management measures to maintain the aquatic avifauna. If these
issues are addressed, it is not expected that the mining activities will have a significant affect on the
avifauna of the properties, including the species of conservation concern.
110
Figure 6.1 Four bird species photographed at the Keldoron properties: A) Longtailed Widow
(Euplectes progne), B) Rufous-naped Lark (Mirafra africana), C) Longclaw (Macronyx capensis), D)
Spoonbill (Platalea alba).
111
7. SURVEY OF MAMMAL FAUNA ON THE MINING AREA
(This section written by JWH Ferguson)
7.1 Introduction
Mammals are important in biodiversity surveys because they often represent bulk feeders
that can have a strong impact on the environment through feeding or trampling. The mammalian
predators are also at the top end of the food chain and are therefore often indicators of ecosystem
health. Mammals are, however, much more difficult to detect than are birds, and an array of different
methods are necessary in order to perform an efficient survey. The aims of this study were:
•
To compile a list of mammal species expected to be found on the property.
•
To verify this list by field observations on site.
•
To identify any species of conservation importance.
•
To propose mitigation measures for minimising the effect of the proposed development on
the mammal assemblage.
7.2 Methods
7.2.1 Desktop study
In order to obtain a reference list of mammals for the area, several resources were consulted.
However, the SIBIS database does not contain mammal data for Kwazulu-Natal. The coverage of
the Northern Flagship Institution (Transvaal Museum) for the study site is so meagre as to have no
value. The Natal Museum does not have a mammal collection or database, and the Durban Natural
Science Museum has only a small database for the Newcastle area that we utilised. All in all, the
coverage of this area in natural history collection appears to be meagre. The information in Skinner
and Chimimba (2005) was therefore used as a source of reference for creating this list. For finding
Red-listed species, the South African list (Friedman 2004) was used for determining the national
status of species and the IUCN Internet site was used for finding their international status.
7.2.2. Field study
Mammals were surveyed using a number of methods:
1. Visual observations while moving about on the property. These observations were mostly
done from a vehicle.
2. Setting 100 sherman small mammal traps (two traplines of 25 traps in the northern section
(Tuam), one near the stream to the east of the proposed opencast mining area, the other on
old lands in the central part of the proposed mining area) and another two trap lines of 25
traps in the southern proposed opencast mining area on Walmsley (a trapline on the rocky
112
ridge on Walmsley and another along a stream on the southern edge of the proposed
opencast mining area). The trap lines were set for four nights for a total trap effort of 400 trap
nights. Within each trap line, traps were placed 10m apart, resulting in a trap line length of
240m.
3. Two automated infra-red-triggered cameras that were baited with fish to attract predators.
One camera was set in a bushclump on Walmsley, while another was set near the Ngagane
River on Tuam. Cameras were set for four nights each.
4. Observations on the tracks, hair, quills and dropping of mammals.
5. Nightly driving on the property. Both the northern and the southern proposed opencast
mining areas were covered in this way.
7.3 Results
Desktop study revealed that 48 mammal species are expected to occur on the Keldoron
properties. However, the field results were disappointing. Only two multimammate mice Mastomys
natalensis and three striped fieldmice Rhabdomys pumilio were trapped on the northern section
(Tuam), while no small mammals were trapped on the central sections (Walmsley). Nightly driving
resulted in sighting a scrub hare Lepus saxatilis as well as a large-spotted genet Genetta tigrina on
the Walmsley section. The camera on the Tuam section took a photograph of a black-backed jackal
Canis mesomelas. We saw tracks of water mongoose Atilax palludinosus. This strong paucity of
observations cannot be explained by the relatively cool weather experienced during the field survey.
Figure 7.1 Large-spotted genet Genetta tigrina photographed during a night survey and blackbacked jackal Canis mesomelas photographed by an automated camera.
7.4 Discussion
The endemic rough-haired golden mole Chrysospalax villosus can potentially occur on site
(Skinner and Chimimba 2005). This mole prefers the edges of moist and wetland areas in
grassland, and has a Critically Endangered status following NEM:BA. Very little is known of the
113
biology of this species.
The low capture rate indicates a very low diversity as well as a very low density of mammals
on the site. This is attributable to the heavy overgrazing that is evident at the Keldoron properties
and which is especially clear on the southern and central sections (Fig. 3.13). Consequently there is
no shelter for mammals, even for rodents. No insectivores, e.g. shrews were encountered. The
paucity of mammal biodiversity on the site is therefore mainly attributed to the lack of good
management of the properties. In order to obtain an idea of the mammals that would have been
expected to be found on site, had the veld management been adequate, the mammals whose
distribution includes Newcastle and who are not dependent on arid or sandy vegetation are
indicated in Appendix 7. A large diversity of rodents, insectivores (including bats) and small
predators are expected to occur on site. These mammals are expected to be found on a range of
the vegetation units described in the vegetation survey (Section 3 of this report and Appendix 7).
The automated cameras photographed at least one pack of domestic dogs as well as a single
additional dog. Given the brevity of the photographic survey (4 days) this suggests that there is
significant hunting pressure by domestic or feral dogs on the wildlife on the property.
Towards recommendations for the EMP
It is not expected that the planned mining activities will have any significant input of the
mammals on this property. No endangered, protected or rare mammals were encountered.
However, the largest single impact that the activities on the property have had to date was the
overgrazing that is evident over most of the properties. Adequate veld management is a
prerequisite, including the limitation of number of cattle on the property and periodic burning.
Adequate management and the protection of wetland areas will ensure provision for the roughhaired golden mole, should it occur on site.
114
8. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMEDATIONS
8.1 Plant or animal species of special conservation concern
The wet grasslands, streams and the open, rocky woodlands are the most sensitive
ecological components of this area. Development should avoid these as much as possible. The
plant and animal communities on the Keldoron properties are not classified as threatened
ecosystems, following NEM:BA, therefore there are not problems with respect to this issue.
Two plant species (Hypoxis hemerocallidea and Crinum bulbispermum), two bird species
(Bald Ibis Geronticus calva and Blue Korhaan Eupodotis caerulescens) and one frog SPECIES
(Bullfrog Pyxicephalis adspersus) of conservation concern was found on the property. However, the
populations of these five species are not specifically dependent of the characteristics of THE
Keldoron properties except where discussed below. The study area has habitat that is probably
suitable for the critically-endangered rough-haired golden mole Chrysospalax villosus. Proper veld
management around the opencast sites would actually contribute the conservation of these species.
From this point of view, open-cast mining would not have a significant impact on the abundance of
these species locally.
We do not foresee that any of the animals or plants that are scheduled under the KwazuluNatal Nature Conservation Management Amendment Act (No. 5 of 1999) will be harmed or affected
as specified in that act.
8.2 Impact identification
The following impacts of the proposed development will affect the biodiversity on site:
a) Destruction of habitat during the excavation of the opencast pits and the deposition of
discard dumps. These processes will bring about total destruction of the biodiversity at those
sites. The largest part of the opencast activities are planned to take place on old lands. This
is a mitigating factor in this respect. With proper rehabilitation afterwards, the impact on
biodiversity because of these activities will not be large in the long term because the
opencast areas will be situated in areas that have already been disturbed by agriculture (Fig.
8.1). The destructive effect of these developments are dependent on their spatial
characteristics. Excavations or development of the rocky ridge areas and of the wetlands
and moist grassland will have a much larger impact than development on the old agricultural
lands.
b) The proposed location of the infrastructure is likely to have a significant effect on the rocky
hill areas. This effect is likely to be permanent because these developments will take place
on undeveloped, virgin habitat and the rehabilitation of such habitat, if done well, is likely to
take several human lifetimes.
c) Heavy transport by coal truck carrying coal from the opencast areas to the plant and the
115
discard dump(s) have a significant effect on the insects and herpetofauna of the area.
Because these animals cannot move fast, trampling by heavy traffic has a heavy impact on
the local populations.
d) Water runoff from the plant, the opencast areas and other mining operations have historically
has strong impacts on the biodiversity of other similar mines, bot in terms of the plants and
animals in the drainage lines and streams, as well as on the other animals that are
dependent on these drainage lines and streams. Acid mine drainage and the concomitant
release of heavy metals into the environment is the main problem. This effect can be
extremely destructive if not managed well.
e) The opencast pit can act as a trap for insects as well as vertebrate animals.
f)
Light sources attract many insects in summer,causing them to die. This is especially true for
the strong types of lights used at mining operations.
g) The management of the property away from the mining activities also has significant impact.
These can be divided into two parts:
•
Frequent burning. Current evidence indicates that the veld is burned at least every
year. This largely reduces the basal cover of the grass layer, preventing tuft formation
and removing the possibility of shelter for smaller animals. This was evident in the
dearth of specialised grassland birds like larks and pipits in many areas, as well as
the lack of small mammals in the southern areas of Keldoron.
•
Overgrazing. Overgrazing, together with frequent burning, prevent tuft formation and
efficient seeding, thus denuding the soil surface and preventing a healthy grassland
(Fig.3.13). The effect on grassland biodiversity, both plant and animal, is catastrophic.
8.3 Relative sensitivity of the different zones on the Keldoron properties
The Keldoron properties has been mapped with respect to the basic habitat types (Fig. 8.1).
This was performed using both the botanical survey as well as satellite imagery of the area. Five
categories of habitat were defined, indicated in Fig. 8.1
•
Grassland, comprising the grassland on sandy soil, as well as the grassland on vertic soil,
described during the botanical survey.
•
Wet grassland, as described during the botanical survey.
•
The open woodland on rocky ridges, as described during the botanical survey.
•
Drainage lines and open water, comprising the spruit vegetation, the river vegetation and the
dams, described during the botanical survey.
•
Old lands, as described during the botanical survey.
A separate analysis was performed for each of the vertebrate animal groups (reptiles,
116
amphibia, birds, mammals). The expected distribution of each species was specified with respect to
each of the five above basic habitat zones. These designations are shown for birds and mammals in
Appendices 6 and 7. Some species, e.g. some birds of prey, are expected to be found in all the
zones, while others, e.g. the mountain chat, is expected (and observed) to be specific to the rocky
ridges. From these assignments, the total number of species expected to be found in each habitat
zone was obtained.
The second step was the consideration of aspects that increase the conservation status of a
species. These are:
•
Whether the species is endemic to South Africa or not.
•
Whether the species is listed in the IUCN regional Red Data list publications.
•
Whether the species is listed under NEM:BA.
We then counted the number of species found in each of the habitat zones that fall under each of
the above three conservation categories. For instance, we obtained a count of how many bird
species, expected in the grassland, are endemic. How many reptiles expected on the rocky ridges
are listed in Red Data lists? For each animal group (reptiles, amphibia, birds, mammals) we then
calculated the proportion of species expected in each habitat zone that falls in each of the above
conservation categories (Table 8.2). For each animal group and for each conservation category, we
then ranked the different habitat zones. This gave rise to four sets of ranked data for each animal
group:
•
Ranks of habitat zones of total number of species expected there.
•
Ranks of habitat zones for proportion of endemic species expected in that zone.
•
Ranks of habitat zones for proportion of Red Data listed species expected in that zone.
•
Ranks of habitat zones for proportion of NEM:BA-listed species expected in that zone.
For each animal group, and for each habitat zone the four ranks were summed in order to obtain a
combined score for the importance of a particular habitat zone for a particular animal group. For
instance, the rocky ridges had the highest score for reptiles (Table 8.2). These scores were then
used as an indication of the conservation importance of a particular habitat zone of a particular
group of animals. This also allowed the ranking of importance of habitat zones for each animal
group.
The outcome of this evaluation is mapped for each of the four vertebrate animal groups in
Fig. 8.2. The results were not consistent across animal groups. For reptiles, the rocky ridges are by
far the most important zone. For the other groups, the wet grassland and grassland zones were the
most important. In the light of the above, we propose the following:
a) The rocky ridges are of high biodiversity concern, both because they are the most important
zone for the reptiles (Fig. 5.7) and because they were highlighted as important in the
117
botanical survey (Table 3.1).
b) The wet grassland is of high biodiversity concern because:
•
It contains several conservation-important taxa (Appendices 6 and7).
•
It has been highlighted in the botanical survey (Table 3.1)
•
It covers a relatively small area (Fig.8.1)
c) The wetlands are important because the comprise both unique as well as highly varied
habitat, and they are protected by the National Water Act.
8.4 Location of mining infrastructure
The proposed location of the infrastructure on the Schurwerand yields many problems.
Firstly, the leachate and water runoff from the discard dumps are likely to enter the water
catchments both to the east and the west. This strongly complicates the management of water
quality on the property. Secondly, the rocky hills are habitats that would, under normal veld
management conditions, harbour large reptile populations, small mammal populations and bird
populations. The use of rocky hills for infrastructure is therefore problematic from a sustainable
biodiversity management point of view. While recognising that the placement of infrastructure lower
in the grassland may prevent open-cast mining there, we strongly feel that an alternative location
needs to be found for the infrastructure.
8.5 Mitigation: towards the EMP
a) Assign the 1300 m contour and the 300 m river buffer as “no-go” areas (blue areas in Figure
8.1). This will serve to protect a large portion of the expected biodiversity and will have little
impact on the intended mining operations. We propose that the company declares the rocky
ridges (dark brown areas in Fig. 8.1) as conservation areas (not necessarily excluding some
cattle grazing). The establishment of such conservation areas could be considered as a form
of biodiversity offset for the negative effects of the mining operations.
b) Maintain the health of the drainage lines. This can be achieved by avoiding developments in
or near (at least 50 m) to drainage lines and if not possible, by appropriately redirecting/channelling the drainage lines so that pollution of these lines does not occur while
maintain the ecological integrity of the drainage lines. The protection of drainage lines and
wetlands will largely minimise the biodiversity impact of the proposed mining, including any
effects on the critically-endangered rough-haired golden mole. Regular monitoring of the onsite streams (including the use of SASS5) is critical for giving credence to the EMP of the
mining company.
c) Contain all infrastructure developments by erecting a fence around these and by
implementing strict access control.
118
d) Minimise lighting at night in order to reduce mortality of insects that are attracted to these
lights.
e) Restrict the number of cattle on the Keldoron properties and appoint a qualified grazing
manager who will manage grazing rotations and cattle density. Grazing needs to be
managed using acceptable agricultural norms. Overgrazing and vegetation trampling by
cattle is probably the greatest threat to the biodiversity of the Keldoron properties By
appropriately managing this non-mining impact on mine property the areas not damaged by
mining can be restored to near-natural conditions.
f)
Burning of the veld needs to be managed. Burning is essential for the health of grassland,
but too frequent burning is heavily destructive to plant and animal biodiversity. Depending on
ecological conditions, burning should not take place more frequently than every 3 years.
Acceptable veld management practice with respect to burning is essential and will also
improve the health of the drainage lines and streams (see SASS5 report).
g) Plants of conservation concern that are affected by the open-cast development (e.g.
Hypoxis hemerocallidea and Crinum bulbispermum) should be replanted.
h) On routes where there is a large amount of heavy vehicle traffic, such as the access routes
from the open-cast sections to the plants, specific precautions should be taken to minimise
the trampling of insects, reptiles and frogs. This should be performed by utilising appropriate
road underpasses and barriers.
More specific details towards an EMP cannot be given at this stage because we did not have
access to more detailed information about the exact location and scale of development.
119
Figure 8.1: Landscape classification indicating five habitat zones, based on the botanical survey.
120
Reptiles
Amphibia
Birds
Mammals
Figure 8.2 Sensitivity importance of habitat zones for each of the four vertebrate animal groups.
121
Table 8.2 Impact table for the biodiversity impact of the proposed mining activities on the Keldoron Properties
Activity
Impact without
mitigation
Open-cast excavations Destruction of
biodiversity
Spatial extent of
impact
Severity of
impact
Duration of
impact
Significance
Confidence
Effect of
mitigation
Area of opencast
mine (~700 Ha)
Total
Permanent
High
High
Little effect on
impact
Heavy coal transport
by road
Trampling of reptiles Along length of road
and amphibia
Severe
Lifetime of
mine
High
High
Large reduction
of impact
Water runoff and
leachate from dumps
Destruction of
wetland animal and
plant communities
Water courses and
drainage lines
Severe
Near
permanent
High
High
Not enough
information
available to be
able to judge
Management of
property around mine
Heavy overgrazing,
destruction of plant
and animal
biodiversity
Whole property of
mine, excluding
mining operations
Severe
Duration of
mine
ownership
High
High
Near elimination
of impact
Management of
property around mine
Too frequent burning Whole property of
of veld, destruction mine, excluding
of plant and animal mining operations
biodiversity
Severe
Duration of
mine
ownership
High
High
Near elimination
of impact
122
Table 8.2 Sensitivity rankings of habitat zones for each of the vertebrate animal groups.
Habitat and animal group
Reptiles
Grassland
Moist grassland with pans
Old agricultural fields
Rocky ridges
Drainage lines & surface water
Total
No.
No.
No.
no. endemic Red Data NEM:BA
species spp.
spp.
spp.
Final
Rank
2
4
5
1
3
3
4
5
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
5
4
Amphibia
Grassland
Rocky ridges
3
1
4
4
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
1
1
3
Birds
Grassland
Rocky ridges
2
4
5
2
1
2
3
4
1
5
1
2
4
3
4
2
1
3
5
4
5
4
1
3
2
Mammals
Grassland
Rocky ridges
2
1
5
2
4
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
4
2
1
2
2
5
4
5
3
2
1
123
9. REFERENCES
Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South
Africa. 57: 1–146.
Arnold, T.H., Prentice, C.A., Hawker, L.C., Snyman, E.E., Tomalin, M., Crouch, N.R. & PottasBircher, C. 2002. Medicinal and Magical plant of southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia
13:1-203.
Barnes K.N. (ed.) The Eskom Red Data Book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
BirdLife SA, Johannesburg.
Branch, W.R. (ed.) 1988. South African red data book – Reptiles and amphibians. NMB Printers,
Port Elizabeth.
Branch, W.R. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town.
Bredenkamp, G.J. & Brown, L.R. 2001. Vegetation – A reliable ecological basis for environmental
planning. Urban Greenfile Nov-Dec 2001: 38-39.
Coyle F.A. 1983. Aerial dispersal by mygalomorph spiderlings (Araneae, Mygalomorphae). Journal
of Arachnology 11: 283-286.
Dallas HF, 2005: Site characterisation field-manual and field data sheets, River Health Program
(RHP), Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Dallas HF, 2007: South African Scoring System (SASS) Data Interpretation Guidelines, River
Health Programm (RHP). The Freshwater Consulting Group / Freshwater Research Unit,
University of Cape Town. Prepared for: Institute of Natural Resources and Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Waters Affairs & Forestry (DWAF) 2007. Rivers Database.
Dickens CWS & Graham PM, 2002: The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5 Rapid
Bioassessment Method for Rivers, African Journal of Aquatic Science 2002, 27: 1–10.
Dippenaar-Schoeman A.S. 2002. Baboon and Trapdoor Spiders of Southern Africa: An
Identification Manual. Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 13, Plant Protection
Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria. 128pp.
Du Preez, L. & Carruthers, V. 2009. A complete guide to the frogs of southern Africa. Struik, Cape
Town.
Eisenbeis G. 2005. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural
setting in Germany. In: Rich, C. and Longcore, T. eds. Ecological consequences of artificial night
lighting. Washington, Island Press, pp.281-304.
Friedman Y. 2004. Red data book of the mammals of South Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust,
Johannesburg.
Gallon R.C. 2002. Revision of the African genera Pterinochilus and Eucratoscelus (Araneae,
Theraphosidae, Harpactirinae) with description of two new genera. Bulletin of the British
Arachnological Society 12: 201-232.
Gaston K.J. 1992. Regional numbers of insect and plant species. Functional Ecology 6: 243-247.
124
Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment (2009). GDACE Minimum
Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. Directorate Nature Conservation,
Johannesburg
Gerber A & Gabriel MJM. 2002. Aquatic Invertebrates of South African Rivers - Illustrations.
Institute of Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Grobler, C.H., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Brown, L.R. 2006. Primary grassland communities of urban
open spaces in Gauteng, South Africa. South African Journal of Botany 72: 367-377.
Hammond P.M. 1992. Species inventory. In: Groombridge B.(Ed.) Global Biodiversity. Status of the
Earth’s Living Resources. A report compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Chapman & Hall, London, Glasgow,New York, Melbourne, Madras. xviii + 585 pp.
Henderson, L. 2001. Alien weeds and invasive plants. ATC, Pretoria.
Henning S.F. & Henning G.A. 1989. South African Red Data Book Butterflies. South African
National Scientific Programmes Report No. 158. vi + 175 pp.
Hockey P., Ryan P. and R.Dean. 2005 Roberts birds of Southern Africa (3rd Ed.). John Voelcker
Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.
Holm E. & Marais E. 1992. Fruit chafers of southern Africa (Scarabaeidae: Cetoniini). Ekogilde cc,
Hartebeespoort, South Africa. 326 pp.
Hutchings, A., Scott, A.H., Lewis, G. & Cunningham,A. Zulu medicinal plants. 1996. University of
Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.
Kleynhans CJ, Thirion C & Moolman J, 2005. A Level I River Ecoregion classification System for
South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104. Resource Quality
Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Leroy J. & Leroy A. 2000. Spiderwatch in Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd., Cape Town.
96 pp.
Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds) 1996 Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dept
Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.
Masterton, G.P.R., Maritz, B., Mackay, D. and Alexander, G.J. 2009. The impacts of past cultivation
on the reptiles in a South African grassland. African Journal of Herpetology 58(2): 71-84
McGeoch M.A., Sithole H., Samways M.J., Simaika J.P., Pryke J.S., Picker M., et al. 2011.
Conservation and monitoring of invertebrates in terrestrial protected areas. Koedoe 53(2), Art.
#1000, 13 pages. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1000.
Mucina, L, & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.
Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Mucina, L., Bredenkamp, G.J., Hoare, D.B. & McDonald, D.J. 2000. A National vegetation
database for South Africa. South Africa Journal of Science 96:497-498.
Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New
York.
125
Raimondo, D., Von Staden, L., Foden, W., Victor, J.E., Helme, N.A., Turner, R.C. Kamundi, D.A. &
Manyama, P.A. (Eds.). 2009. Red list of South African plants 2009. Strelitzia 25:1-668.
Rowntree KM & Wadeson RA. 2000. Field manual for channel classification and condition
assessment. National Aquatic Ecosystem Biomonitoring Programme Report Series No. 13.
Institute for Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
Samways M.J. 1994. Insect Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall, Glasgow,New York,
Melbourne, Madras. 358 pp.
Samways M.J. 2006. National Red List of South African Odonata. Odonatologica 35(4): 341-368.
Scholtz C.H. & Chown S.L. 1995. Insects in southern Africa: how many species are there? South
African Journal of Science 91: 124-126.
SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. DRAFT for
Comment. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Scholtz C.H. & Holm E. 1985. Insects of Southern Africa. Butterworths, Durban. 502 pp.
Skinner, J.D., Chimimba, C.T. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (3rd Ed).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1-874
Smit, R. 1992. A phytosociological study of the Newcastle-Memel-Chelmsford Dam area. MSc
thesis, University of Pretoria.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1992. Phytosociology of the B Land Type in the
Newcastle-Memel-Chelmsford Dam area. South African Journal of Botany 58(5): 363-373.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1993a. Woodland plant communities of the Fa
Land Type in the Newcastle-Memel-Chelmsford Dam area. South African Journal of Botany 59(1):
14-20.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1993b. Plant communities in the Ad Land Type in
the Newcastle-Memel-Chelmsford Dam area. South African Journal of Botany 59(2): 116-122.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1993c. Phytosociology of the Ac Land Type in the
foothills of the Low Drakensberg in north-western Natal. South African Journal of Botany 59(2):
203-214.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1995a. Grassland vegetation of the low
Drakensberg Escarpment in the north-western Kwa-Zulu and north-eastern Orange Free State
border area. South African Journal of Botany 61(1): 9-17.
Smit, C.M., Bredenkamp, G.J. & Van Rooyen, N. 1995b. The vegetation of the Ea Land Type in
north-western Kwazulu-Natal. South African Journal of Botany 61(1): 18-28.
Tarboton W. & Tarboton S. 2002. A field guide to the Dragonflies of South Africa. PJ's Printing
Services, Johannesburg. 95 pp.
Tarboton W. & Tarboton S. 2005. A field guide to the Damselflies of South Africa. PJ's Printing
Services, Johannesburg. 95 pp.
The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983)
The National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)
126
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Government
Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004.
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Draft List of
Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009.
The Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003).
The National Water Act 1996 (Act 36 of 1996)
Van Wyk, B.E., Van Oudtshoorn, B. & Gericke, N. 1997. Medicinal plants of South Africa. Briza,
Pretoria.
Westhoff, V. & Van der Maarel, E. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker, R.H. (ed.)
Classification of plant communities. W. Junk, The Hague.
Wheeler Q.D. 1990. Insect diversity and cladistic constraints. Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 83: 1031-1047.
127
APPENDIX 1.
a) NC_SASS_WEST - SASS5 data sheet
Taxon
PORIFERA (Sponge)
COELENTERATA (Cnidaria)
TURBELLARIA (Flatworms)
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta (Earthworms)
Hirudinea (Leeches)
CRUSTACEA
Amphipoda (Scuds)
Potamonautidae* (Crabs)
Atyidae (Freshwater Shrimps)
Palaemonidae (Freshwater Prawns)
HYDRACARINA (Mites)
PLECOPTERA (Stoneflies)
Notonemouridae
Perlidae
EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)
Baetidae 1sp
Baetidae 2 sp
Baetidae > 2 sp
Caenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles)
Ephemeridae
Heptageniidae (Flatheaded mayflies)
Leptophlebiidae (Prongills)
Oligoneuridae (Brushlegged mayflies)
Polymitarcyidae (Pale Burrowers)
Prosopistomatidae (Water specs)
Teloganodidae SWC (Spiny Crawlers)
Tricorythidae (Stout Crawlers)
ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies)
Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles)
Chlorocyphidae (Jewels)
Synlestidae (Chlorolestidae)(Sylphs)
Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues)
Lestidae (Emerald Damselflies/Spreadwings)
Platycnemidae (Stream Damselflies)
Protoneuridae (Threadwings)
Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors)
Corduliidae (Cruisers)
Gomphidae (Clubtails)
Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers)
LEPIDOPTERA (Aquatic Caterpillars/Moths)
Crambidae (Pyralidae)
QV
5
1
3
S
1
3
1
13
3
8
10
8
1
Veg
GSM
1
A
1
TOT
A
A
1
14
12
4
6
12
6
15
13
9
15
10
15
12
9
10
10
8
4
8
10
8
8
8
6
4
12
A
A
A
A
1
1
A
1
A
1
A
A
A
A
A
Taxon
QV
HEMIPTERA (Bugs)
Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs)
3
Corixidae* (Water boatmen)
3
Gerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders)
5
Hydrometridae* (Water measurers)
6
Naucoridae* (Creeping water bugs)
7
Nepidae* (Water scorpions)
3
Notonectidae* (Backswimmers)
3
Pleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers)
4
Veliidae/M...veliidae* (Ripple bugs)
5
MEGALOPTERA (Fishflies, Dobsonflies & Alderflies)
Corydalidae (Fishflies & Dobsonflies)
8
Sialidae (Alderflies)
6
TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies)
Dipseudopsidae
10
Ecnomidae
8
Hydropsychidae 1 sp
4
Hydropsychidae 2 sp
6
Hydropsychidae > 2 sp
12
Philopotamidae
10
Polycentropodidae
12
Psychomyiidae/Xiphocentronidae
8
Cased caddis:
Barbarochthonidae SWC
13
Calamoceratidae ST
11
Glossosomatidae SWC
11
Hydroptilidae
6
Hydrosalpingidae SWC
15
Lepidostomatidae
10
Leptoceridae
6
Petrothrincidae SWC
11
Pisuliidae
10
Sericostomatidae SWC
13
COLEOPTERA (Beetles)
Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles)
5
Elmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles)
8
Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles)
5
Haliplidae* (Crawling water beetles)
5
Helodidae (Marsh beetles)
12
Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles)
8
Hydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetles)
5
Limnichidae (Marsh-Loving Beetles)
10
Psephenidae (Water Pennies)
10
S
Veg
GSM
TOT
1
1
A
A
A
A
A
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
A
S
Veg
GSM
1
1
TOT
1
1
A
A
1
B
1
1
A
98
22
4.45
1
A
1
Taxon
QV
DIPTERA (Flies)
Athericidae (Snipe flies)
10
Blepharoceridae (Mountain midges)
15
Ceratopogonidae (Biting midges)
5
Chironomidae (Midges)
2
Culicidae* (Mosquitoes)
1
Dixidae* (Dixid midge)
10
Empididae (Dance flies)
6
Ephydridae (Shore flies)
3
Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies)
1
Psychodidae (Moth flies)
1
Simuliidae (Blackflies)
5
Syrphidae* (Rat tailed maggots)
1
Tabanidae (Horse flies)
5
Tipulidae (Crane flies)
5
GASTROPODA (Snails)
Ancylidae (Limpets)
6
Bulininae*
3
Hydrobiidae*
3
Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails)
3
Physidae* (Pouch snails)
3
Planorbinae* (Orb snails)
3
Thiaridae* (=Melanidae)
3
Viviparidae* ST
5
PELECYPODA (Bivalvles)
Corbiculidae (Clams)
5
Sphaeriidae (Pill clams)
3
Unionidae (Perly mussels)
6
SASS Score
No. of Taxa
ASPT
Other biota:
Veg: grass hanging into waterm some Cyperus
Comments/Observations:
RED: Observation; GREEN: Handpicking
1
128
APPENDIX 1 b) NC_SASS_NORTH - SASS5 data sheet
Taxon
PORIFERA (Sponge)
ANNELIDA
Hirudinea (Leeches)
CRUSTACEA
Amphipoda (Scuds)
HYDRACARINA (Mites)
Notonemouridae
Perlidae
Baetidae 1sp
Baetidae 2 sp
Baetidae > 2 sp
Ephemeridae
QV
5
1
3
S
1
3
Veg
GSM
1
13
3
8
10
8
TOT
1
A
A
A
A
14
12
4
6
12
6
15
13
9
15
10
15
12
9
10
10
8
4
8
10
8
8
8
6
4
12
A
A
A
B
1
1
1
1
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
1
A
1
A
Taxon
QV
HEMIPTERA (Bugs)
3
3
5
6
7
3
3
4
5
8
6
Dipseudopsidae
10
Ecnomidae
8
Hydropsychidae 1 sp
4
Hydropsychidae 2 sp
6
12
Philopotamidae
10
Polycentropodidae
12
8
Cased caddis:
13
Calamoceratidae ST
11
Glossosomatidae SWC
11
Hydroptilidae
6
15
Lepidostomatidae
10
Leptoceridae
6
Petrothrincidae SWC
11
Pisuliidae
10
13
5
8
5
5
12
8
5
10
10
S
Veg
A
1
1
GSM
TOT
A
1
1
1
A
1
1
A
Taxon
QV
S
DIPTERA (Flies)
10
15
5
2
B
1
1
10
6
3
1
1
5
1
5
5
GASTROPODA (Snails)
Ancylidae (Limpets)
6
Bulininae*
3
Hydrobiidae*
3
3
3
3
3
Viviparidae* ST
5
5
3
6
SASS Score
No. of Taxa
ASPT
Other biota:
Veg: Cyperus & grass
Tadpoles, Froge (Ametia spp & Xenopus spp), small fish
Veg
GSM
TOT
1
1
1
B
1
87
17
5.12
129
APPENDIX 1 c) NC_SASS_SOUTH - SASS5 data sheet
Taxon
PORIFERA (Sponge)
ANNELIDA
Hirudinea (Leeches)
CRUSTACEA
Amphipoda (Scuds)
HYDRACARINA (Mites)
Notonemouridae
Perlidae
Baetidae 1sp
Baetidae 2 sp
Baetidae > 2 sp
Ephemeridae
QV
5
1
3
S
1
3
13
3
8
10
8
Veg
GSM
1
A
1
TOT
1
A
1
A
A
14
12
4
6
12
6
15
13
9
15
10
15
12
9
10
10
8
4
8
10
8
8
8
6
4
12
1
A
A
1
1
A
A
A
A
A
A
1
A
A
A
1
A
A
Taxon
QV
HEMIPTERA (Bugs)
3
3
5
6
7
3
3
4
5
8
6
Dipseudopsidae
10
Ecnomidae
8
Hydropsychidae 1 sp
4
Hydropsychidae 2 sp
6
12
Philopotamidae
10
Polycentropodidae
12
8
Cased caddis:
13
Calamoceratidae ST
11
Glossosomatidae SWC
11
Hydroptilidae
6
15
Lepidostomatidae
10
Leptoceridae
6
Petrothrincidae SWC
11
Pisuliidae
10
13
5
8
5
5
12
8
5
10
10
S
Veg
GSM
TOT
A
A
1
A
A
B
A
B
1
1
B
B
A
1
B
1
1
1
1
A
Taxon
DIPTERA (Flies)
GASTROPODA (Snails)
Ancylidae (Limpets)
Bulininae*
Hydrobiidae*
Viviparidae* ST
SASS Score
No. of Taxa
ASPT
Other biota:
Veg: grass & few Cyperus
Tadpoles, Xenopus spp
QV
10
15
5
2
1
10
6
3
1
1
5
1
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
S
Veg
GSM
TOT
1
1
A
A
5
3
6
104
21
4.95
A
Several dead Planorbidae & Sphaeriidae in trays
130
APPENDIX 1 d) NC_SASS_EAST - SASS5 data sheet
Taxon
PORIFERA (Sponge)
ANNELIDA
Hirudinea (Leeches)
CRUSTACEA
Amphipoda (Scuds)
HYDRACARINA (Mites)
Notonemouridae
Perlidae
Baetidae 1sp
Baetidae 2 sp
Baetidae > 2 sp
Ephemeridae
QV
5
1
3
S
1
3
Veg
GSM
1
13
3
8
10
8
TOT
1
A
A
14
12
4
6
12
6
15
13
9
15
10
15
12
9
10
10
8
4
8
10
8
8
8
6
4
12
A
A
1
A
1
A
1
1
1
1
A
1
A
1
A
Taxon
QV
HEMIPTERA (Bugs)
3
3
5
6
7
3
3
4
5
8
6
Dipseudopsidae
10
Ecnomidae
8
Hydropsychidae 1 sp
4
Hydropsychidae 2 sp
6
12
Philopotamidae
10
Polycentropodidae
12
8
Cased caddis:
13
Calamoceratidae ST
11
Glossosomatidae SWC
11
Hydroptilidae
6
15
Lepidostomatidae
10
Leptoceridae
6
Petrothrincidae SWC
11
Pisuliidae
10
13
5
8
5
5
12
8
5
10
10
S
Veg
GSM
TOT
A
1
A
A
A
A
A
1
1
Taxon
DIPTERA (Flies)
GASTROPODA (Snails)
Ancylidae (Limpets)
Bulininae*
Hydrobiidae*
Viviparidae* ST
SASS Score
No. of Taxa
ASPT
Other biota:
Veg: grass, sedges, very few Phragmites
Tadpoles, frogs, fish
QV
10
15
5
2
1
10
6
3
1
1
5
1
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
S
Veg
GSM
TOT
1
A
A
1
1
A
1
1
5
3
6
71
16
4.44
Previous day: observed Gyrinidae & Gerridae
131
Appendix 2. Butterfly species that potentially occur in the study area.
Family & Species
Nymphalidae
Danainae
Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Satyrinae
Aeropetes tulbaghia (Linnaeus, 1764)
Cassionympha cassius (Godart, [1824])
Dingana clarki Van Son, 1955
Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758)
Neita neita (Wallengren, 1875)
Paralethe dendrophilus (Trimen, 1862)
Pseudonympha magoides Van Son,
1955
Pseudonympha narycia Wallengren,
1857
Stygionympha scotina Quickelberge,
1977
Stygionympha wichgrafi williami Henning
& Henning, 1996
Ypthima asterope (Klug, 1832)[
Heliconiinae
Acraea horta (Linnaeus, 1764)
Acraea natalica Boisduval, 1847
Acraea neobule Doubleday, [1847]
Acraea stenobea Wallengren, 1860
Acraea violarum Boisduval, 1847
Hyalites eponina (Cramer, 1780)
Lachnoptera ayresii Trimen, 1879
Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773)
Telchinia alalonga (Henning & Henning,
1996)
Telchinia encedon (Linnaeus, 1758
Telchinia esebria (Hewitson) 1861
Telchinia rahira (Boisduval) 1833
Charaxinae
Charaxes brutus (Cramer, [1779])
Charaxes jasius Linnaeus 1767
Charaxes varanes (Cramer) 1764
Charaxes xiphares (Stoll, [1781])
Cyrestinae
Byblia ilithyia (Drury, 1773)
Nymphalinae
Antanartia schaeneia (Trimen, 1879)
Catacroptera cloanthe (Stoll, 1781)
Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764)
Common name
Plain Tiger or African Monarch
Table Mountain Beauty or Mountain Pride
Rainforest Brown
Clark's Widow
Common Evening Brown
Neita Brown
Bush Beauty or Forest Pride
False Silver-bottom Brown
Spotted-eye Brown or Small Hillside Brown
Eastern Hillside Brown
Wichgraf=s Brown
Common Threering or African Ringlet
Garden Acraea
Natal Acraea
Wandering Donkey Acraea
Suffused Acraea
Speckled Red Acraea
Orange Acraea or Small Orange Acraea
Eastern Blotched Leopard
Common Leopard
Long-winged Orange Acraea
Common Acraea, White-barred Acraea or
Encedon Acraea
Dusky Acraea
Marsh Acraea
White-barred
Emperor
or
White-barred
Charaxes
Two-tailed Pasha or Foxy Emperor
Karkloof Emperor or Pearl Charaxes
Forest King Emperor or Forest King Charaxes
Joker or Spotted Joker
Long Tail Admiral or Long-tailed Admiral
Pirate
Danaid Eggfly, Mimic, or Common Diadem
132
Family & Species
Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1798)
Junonia oenone (Linnaeus, 1758)
Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1758)
Precis octavia (Cramer, 1777)
Vanessa (Cynthia) cardui (Linnaeus,
1758)
Hesperiidae
Coeliadinae
Coeliades forestan (Stoll, [1782])
Pyrginae
Caprona pillaana Wallengren, 1857
Celaenorrhinus mokeezi (Wallengren,
1857)
Eretis umbra (Trimen, 1862)
Gomalia elma Trimen, 1862)
Metisella meninx (Trimen, 1873)
Sarangesa seineri Strand, 1909
Spialia asterodia (Trimen, 1864)
Spialia diomus (Höpffer, 1855)
Spialia dromus (Plötz, 1884)
Spialia mafa (Trimen, 1870)[
Spialia spio (Linnaeus, 1764)
Tagiades flesus (Fabricius, 1781)
Tsitana tsita (Trimen, 1870)[
Hesperiinae
Acleros mackenii (Trimen, 1868)[
Borbo fatuellus (Hopffer, 1855)[
Common name
Yellow Pansy
Blue Pansy
Eyed Pansy
Gaudy Commodore
Painted Lady
Striped Policeman
Ragged Skipper
Large Sprite, Large Flat or Christmas Forester
Small Marbled Elf
Marbled Skipper, Green-Marbled Sandman or
African Mallow Skipper
Marsh Sylph
Dusted Elfin or Dark Elfin
Star Sandman
Common Sandman or Diomus Grizzled Skipper
Forest Sandman, Dromus Grizzled Skipper or
Large Grizzled Skipper
Mafa Grizzled Skipper or Mafa Sandman
Mountain Sandman or Spio Grizzled Skipper
Clouded Flat, Clouded Forester or Clouded
Skipper
Dismal Sylph
Macken's Skipper or Macken's Dart
Long Horned Swift, Long Horned Skipper or
Foolish Swift
Gegenes niso (Linnaeus, 1764)
Common Hottentot Skipper
Gegenes pumilio (Hoffmannsegg, 1804) Pigmy Skipper or Dark Hottentot
Kedestes barberae (Trimen, 1873)
Barber's Ranger
Kedestes lepenula (Wallengren, 1857)
Chequered Ranger or Chequered Skipper
Kedestes macomo (Trimen, 1862)[
Macomo Ranger
Kedestes mohozutza (Wallengren, 1857) Fulvous Ranger or Harlequin Skipper
Kedestes nerva (Fabricius, 1793)[
Scarce Ranger or Scarce Skipper
Kedestes wallengrenii (Trimen, 1883)
Wallengren's Ranger or Wallengren's Skipper
Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798)
Dark Small-branded Swift, Small Branded
Swift, Lesser Millet Skipper or Black Branded
Swift
Pelopidas thrax (Hübner, 1821)
Pale Small-branded Swift, Millet Skipper or
White Branded Swift
Platylesches ayresii (Trimen, 1889)[
Peppered Hopper
Platylesches moritili (Wallengren, 1857) Honey Hopper or Common Hopper
Platylesches neba (Hewitson, 1877)[
Flower-girl Hopper
Lycaenidae
133
Family & Species
Poritiinae
Durbania amakosa natalensis van Son,
1959
Durbania limbata Trimen, 1887
Miletinae
Lachnocnema bibulus (Fabricius, 1793)[
Lachnocnema durbani Trimen, 1887
Thestor basutus (Wallengren, 1857)
Lycaeninae
Actizera lucida (Trimen, 1883)
Aloeides aranda (Wallengren, 1857)
Aloeides henningi Tite & Dickson, 1973
Aloeides molomo (Trimen, 1870)
Aloeides oreas Tite & Dickson, 1968
Aloeides penningtoni Tite & Dickson,
1968
Aloeides swanepoeli Tite & Dickson,
1973
Aloeides taikosama (Wallengren, 1857)
Aloeides trimeni Tite & Dickson, 1973
Anthene amarah (Guérin-Méneville,
1847)[
Anthene butleri (Oberthür, 1880)
Anthene contrastata Ungemach, 1932
Anthene millari (Trimen, 1893)[
Anthene talboti Stempffer, 1936
Axiocerses tjoane (Wallengren, 1857)
Common name
Amakosa Rocksitter
Natal Rocksitter
Common Woolly Legs
D'Urban's Woolly Legs
Basuto Skolly or Basuto Magpie
Rayed Blue
Aranda Copper
Henning's Copper
Molomo Copper
Oreas Copper
Pennington's Copper
Swanepoel's Copper
Dusky Copper
Trimen's Copper
Black-striped Hairtail
Pale Hairtail or Butler's Ciliate Blue
Mashuna Hairtail
Millar's Hairtail
Talbot's Hairtail or Talbot's Ciliate Blue
Eastern Scarlet, Commom Scarlet or Scarlet
Butterfly
Azanus jesous Guérin-Méneville 1847
African Babul Blue or Topaz-spotted Blue
Azanus moriqua (Wallengren, 1857)
Black-Bordered Babul Blue or Thorn-tree Blue
Brephidium metophis (Wallengren, 1860) Tinktinkie Blue
Cacyreus marshalli (Butler, 1897)
Geranium Bronze
Cacyreus tespis (Herbst, 1804)
Water Bronze or Water Blue
Capys alphaeus (Cramer, [1777])
Protea Scarlet or Orange-banded Protea
Capys disjunctus Trimen, 1895
Russet Protea
Chilades trochylus (Freyer 1845)
Grass Jewel
Chloroselas pseudozeritis (Trimen,
Brilliant Gem
1873)
Chrysoritis chrysaor (Trimen, 1864)[
Golden Copper or Burnished Opal
Chrysoritis lycegenes (Trimen, 1874)
Mooi River Opal
Cigaritis ella (Hewitson, [1865])
Ella's Bar
Cigaritis mozambica (Bertolini, 1850)
Mozambique Bar or Mozambique Silverline
Cigaritis natalensis (Westwood, 1851)[
Natal Bar or Natal Barred Blue
Cigaritis phanes (Trimen, 1873)[1
Silvery Bar
Crudaria leroma (Wallengren, 1857)[
Silver-spotted Grey
Cupidopsis cissus (Godart, [1824])
Common Meadow Blue
Cupidopsis jobates (Hopffer, 1855)
Tailed Meadow Blue
134
Family & Species
Deudorix antalus (Hopffer, 1855)[
Deudorix dinochares Grose-Smith, 1887
Eicochrysops messapus (Godart, [1824])
Euchrysops malathana (Boisduval,
1833)[
Harpendyreus noquasa (Trimen &
Bowker, 1887)
Iolaus (Stugeta) bowkeri Trimen, 1864
Common name
Brown Playboy
Apricot Playboy
Cupreous Blue
Common Smoky Blue or Smoky Bean Cupid
Marsh Blue
Bowker's Sapphire, Bowker's Marbled Sapphire
or Bowker's Tailed Blue
Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767)
Peablue, Pea Blue, or Long-tailed Blue
Lepidochrysops asteris (Godart, [1824]) Star Blue or Brilliant Blue
Lepidochrysops ignota (Trimen, 1887)
Zulu Blue
Lepidochrysops patricia (Trimen, 1887) Patrician Blue
Lepidochrysops plebeia (Butler, 1898)
Twin-spot Blue
Lepidochrysops tantalus (Trimen, 1887) King Blue
Lepidochrysops variabilis Cottrell, 1965 Variable Blue
Leptomyrina gorgias (Stoll, [1790])
Common Black-eye
Leptotes babaulti Stempffer, 1935
Babault's Zebra Blue
Leptotes brevidentatus (Tite, 1958)
Short-toothed Blue or Tite's Zebra Blue
Leptotes pirithous (Linnaeus, 1767)
Lang's Short-tailed Blue and Common Zebra
Blue
Lycaena clarki Dickson, 1971
Eastern Sorrel Copper
Orachrysops lacrimosa (Bethune-Baker, Restless Blue
1923)
Orachrysops subravus Henning &
Grizzled Blue
Henning, 1994
Oraidium barberae (Trimen, 1868)
Dwarf Blue
Tarucus sybaris (Hopffer, 1855)
Dotted Blue
Tuxentius melaena (Trimen, 1887)[
Black Pie or Dark Pied Pierrot
Uranothauma nubifer (Trimen, 1895)
Black Heart
Zintha hintza (Trimen, 1864)
Blue-eyed Pierrot, Blue Pied Pierrot or Hintza
Blue
Zizeeria knysna (Trimen 1862)
Dark Grass Blue or African Grass Blue
Zizula hylax (Fabricius, 1775)
Gaika Blue or Tiny Grass Blue
Pieridae
Pierinae
Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793)
Brown-veined White, Pioneer White or African
Caper White
Belenois creona (Cramer, 1776)
African Common White
Belenois gidica (Godart, [1819])
African Veined White or Pointed Caper
Belenois zochalia (Boisduval, 1836)[
Forest White or Forest Caper White
Colotis auxo (Lucas, 1852)
Yellow Orange Tip or Sulphur Orange Tip
Colotis danae (Fabricius, 1775)
Crimson Tip or Scarlet Tip
Colotis eris (Wallengren, 1857)
Banded Gold Tip or Black-barred Gold Tip
Colotis euippe (Linnaeus, 1758)
Round-winged Orange Tip or Smoky Orange
Tip
Colotis ione (Godart, 1819)
Bushveld Purple Tip, Common Purple Tip, or
Violet Tip
135
Family & Species
Eronia cleodora Hübner, [1823]
Pinacopteryx eriphia (Godart, [1819])
Pontia helice (Linnaeus, 1764)
Coliadinae
Catopsilia florella (Fabricius, 1775)
Colias electo (Linnaeus, 1763)
Eurema brigitta (Cramer, 1780)
Common name
Vine-leaf Vagrant
Zebra White
Meadow White
African Migrant, African Emigrant, or Common
Vagrant
African Clouded Yellow or Lucerne Butterfly
Small Grass Yellow or Broad-bordered Grass
Yellow
Angled Grass Yellow
Eurema desjardinsii (Boisduval, 1833)
Papilionidae
Papilioninae
Papilio demodocus (Esper, 1798)
Citrus swallowtail
Papilio nireus Linnaeus, 1758
Green-banded Swallowtail
Papilio ophidicephalus phalusco Suffert, Emperor Swallowtail
1904.
136
Appendix 3. Mygalomorphae (baboon & trapdoor spiders) that potentially occur in the
Keldoron Colliery area.
Species
Red Data Protected
by
Province1
Protected
by
NEM:BA
Remarks
Baboon Spiders
Ceratogyrus darlingi
No
Yes
Yes
Harpactira curator
No
Yes
Yes
Harpactira hamiltoni
No
Yes
Yes
Harpactira tigrina
No
Yes
Yes
Harpactirella species
No
No
No
No species yet
reported from the
area.
Idiothele nigrofulva
No
Yes ?2
Yes ?2
Formerly placed in
Pterinochilus.
Stasiomopus rufidens
No
No
No
Homostola vulpecula
No
No
No
Homostola zebrina
No
No
No
Ancylotrypa breyeri
No
No
No
Ancylotrypa vryheidensis
No
No
No
Ancylotrypa zebra
No
No
No
Ancylotrypa zuluensis
No
No
No
Allothele caffer
No
No
No
Allothele teretis
No
No
No
Ctenolophus cregoei
No
No
No
Ctenolophus oomi
No
No
No
Idiops species
No
No
No
Segregara grandis
No
No
No
Segregara pectinipalpis
No
No
No
Microstigmata longipes
No
No
No
Microstigmata zuluense
No
No
No
Poecilomigas abrahami
No
No
No
Poecilomigas elegans
No
No
No
Trapdoor Spiders
No species yet
reported from KZN.
137
Species
Moggridgea dyeri
Red Data Protected
by
Province1
No
No
Protected
by
NEM:BA
No
Hermacha bicolor
No
No
No
Spiroctenus coeruleus
No
No
No
Spiroctenus curvipes
No
No
No
Spiroctenus lignicolus
No
No
No
Spiroctenus marleyi
No
No
No
Remarks
Spiroctenus punctatus
No
No
No
1
KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Amendment Act, 1999 (Act No. 5 of 1999)
2
Formerly placed in Pterinochilus that is protected by NEM:BA - although Idiothele is not
protected, the former association of the species with Pterinochilus probably protects it by
implication.
138
Appendix 4. Scorpions that potentially occur in the area of the Keldoron Colliery.
Species
Probability Protected Protected
that it occur by Province
by
at the site
NEM:BA
Remarks
Buthidae:
Pseudolychas pegleri
low
No
No
Uroplectes olivaceus
low
No
No
Uroplectes triangulifer
high
No
No
Uroplectes formosus
low
No
No
Cheloctonus jonesii
medium
No
No
Opisthacanthus validus
medium
No
Yes
medium
No
Yes
Liochelidae:
Scorpionidae:
Opistophthalmus
glabrifrons
139
Appendix 5. Expected herpetofauna species list for the Keldoron properties surveyed. Number of individuals found per observed species are
indicated where possible (“o” when not possible). IUCN red list conservation status is provided where “ne”=not evaluated, “lr/nt”=lower risk/ near
threatened, “lc” = least concern and “v” = vulnerable.
Family
Common name
Scientific name
Page 1 of 3
Reptiles
Scincidae
Scincidae
Typhlopidae
Agamidae
Atractaspididae
Viperidae
Colubridae
Viperidae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Elapidae
Gerrhosauridae
Elapidae
Atractaspididae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Leptotyphlopidae
Leptotyphlopidae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Gekkonidae
Pelomedusidae
Thin-tailed Legless Skink
Wahlberg's Snake-eyed Skink
Bibron's Blind Snake
Distant's Ground Agama
Black-headed Centipede-eater
Puff Adder
Brown House Snake
Rhombic Night Adder
Red-lipped Snake
Southern Brown Egg-eater
Rhombic Egg-eater
South African Slug-eater
Sundevall's Garter Snake
Yellow-throated Plated Lizard
Rinkhals
Spotted Harlequin Snake
Aurora House Snake
Yellow-bellied House Snake
Peters' Thread Snake
Eastern Cape Thread Snake
Olive House Snake
Dusky-bellied Water Snake
Brown Water Snake
Cape Wolf Snake
Van Son's Gecko
Marsh Terrapin
Acontias gracilicauda
Afroablepharus walbergii
Afrotyphlops bibronii
Agama aculeata distanti
Aparallactus capensis
Bitis arietans
Boaedon capensis
Causus rhombeatus
Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia
Dasypeltis inornata
Dasypeltis scabra
Duberria lutrix
Elapsoidea sundevallii
Gerrhosaurus flavigularis
Hemachatus haemachatus
Homoroselaps lacteus
Lamprophis aurora
Lamprophis fuscus
Leptotyphlops scutifrons
Leptotyphlops scutifrons
Lycodonomorphus inornatus
Lycodonomorphus laevissimus
Lycodonomorphus rufulus
Lycophidion capense
Pachydactylus vansoni
Pelomedusa subrufa
Active searching sites
(NCA)
Night drive /
Frogging
Gen North South
18/2
Random 1 2 3 4 5 6 15/2 17/2
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
5 2
Status
Red
List
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
lr/nt
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
140
Page 2 of 3
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Colubridae
Scincidae
Scincidae
Scincidae
Varanidae
Amphibians
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Bufonidae
Bufonidae
Brevicepitidae
Brevicepitidae
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Hemisotidae
Hyperoliidae
Hyperoliidae
Hyperoliidae
Phrynobatrachidae
Ptychadenidae
Ptychadenidae
Ptychadenidae
Pyxicephalidae
Bufonidae
Hyperoliidae
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Common name
South Eastern Green Snake
Western Natal Green Snake
Short-snouted Grass Snake
Cross-marked Grass Snake
Spotted Grass Snake
Mole Snake
Cape Skink
Speckled Rock Skink
Variable Skink
Water Monitor
Scientific name
Philothamnus hoplogaster
Philothamnus natalensis
Psammophis brevirostris
Psammophis crucifer
Psammophylax rhombeatus
Pseudaspis cana
Trachylepis capensis
Trachylepis punctatissima
Trachylepis varia
Varanus niloticus
Random
Common river frog
Cape river frog
Guttural toad
Raucous toad
Bushveld rain frog
Mozambique rain frog
Boettger's Caco
Bronze Caco
Spotted shovel-nosed frog
Painted reed frog
Yellow-striped reed frog
Bubbling Kasina
Snoring puddle frog
Plain grass frog
Sharp-nosed grass frog
Striped grass frog
Giant Bullfrog
Red toad
Rattling frog
Striped stream frog
Clicking stream frog
Tremolo sand frog
Knocking sand frog
Amietia angolensis
Amietia fuscigula
Amietophrynus gutturalis
Amietophrynus rangeri
Breviceps adspersus
Breviceps mossambicus
Cacosternum boettgeri
Cacosternum nanum
Hemisus guttatus
Hyperolius marmoratus
Hyperolius semidiscus
Kassina senegalensis
Phrynobatrachus natalensis
Ptychadena anchietae
Ptychadena oxyrhynchus
Ptychadena porosissima
Pyxicephalus adspersus
Schismaderma carens
Semnodactylus wealii
Strongylopus fasciatus
Strongylopus grayii
Tomopterna cryptotis
Tomopterna krugerensis
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 Gen
1
1 2 9
North
South
Status
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
ne
o
o
o
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
v
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
lc
3
3 2
1
1 1
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
141
Page 3 of 3
Pyxicephalidae
Pyxicephalidae
Pipidae
Common name
Natal sand frog
Tandy's sand frog
Common platanna
Scientific name
Tomopterna natalensis
Tomopterna tandyi
Xenopus laevis
Random
1 2 3 4 5 6 Gen
o
1
1
North
o
South
o
Status
lc
lc
lc
142
Appendix 6. Birds expected and observed at the proposed opencast sites and the access road. Numbers on left are new Roberts numbers.
SIBIS = Data from SIBIS database for the QDS (2730CC) in which the proposed opencast areas fall.
NEM:BA = Species listed under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
Locality= Species observed at the proposed northern opencast site (N) or the southern opencast site (S).
Ab=Abundance on a scale 1-5 (least-most abundant). wet=Wetlands; wgrs=wet grassland; grs=grassland; hil=Rocky hills; lnd=old lands
3
5
6
7
14
13
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
33
34
36
39
40
41
42
Page 1 of 7
Coqui Francolin
Grey-wing Francolin
Red-wing Francolin
Shelley's Francolin
Swainson's Spurfowl
Natal Francolin
Common Quail
Harlequin Quail
Blue Quail
Helmeted Guineafowl
Fulvous duck
White-faced Duck
White-backed Duck
Maccoa Duck
Egyptian Goose
South African Shelduck
Spur-winged Goose
Comb Duck
Cape Teal
African Black Duck
Yellow-billed Duck
Cape Shoveller
Red-billed Teal
Hottentot Teal
Southern Pochard
Kurrichane Buttonquail
Black-rumped Buttonquail
SIBIS Endemism
Peliperdix coqui
Scleroptila africanus
Scleroptila levaillantii
Scleroptila shelleyi
Pternistis swainsonii
Pternistis natalensis
Coturnix coturnix
Coturnix delegorguei
Coturnix adansonii
Numida meleagris
Dendrocygna bicolor
Dendrocygna viduata
Thalassornis leuconotus
Oxyura maccoa
Alopochen aegyptiacus
Tadorna cana
Plectropterus gambensis
Sarkidiornis melanotos
Anas capensis
Anas sparsa
Anas undulata
Anas smithii
Anas erythrorhyncha
Anas hottentota
Netta erythrophthalma
Turnix sylvatica
Turnix nanus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
endemic
Conservation status
Red List
NEM:BA
Locality Ab
Habitat
N S
wet wgrs grs hil lnd
x x
x x
N
1
x
x
x x
N
2 x
x
x x x
x
N
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
N
3 x
x
x
N S 3 x
x
x
x
x
N S 5 x
x
S 1 x
x
S 1 x
x x
x x
143
45
67
68
85
86
90
91
98
99
107
111
116
125
131
145
147
149
151
152
153
160
161
165
171
172
173
175
177
179
185
187
188
Page 2 of 7
Greater Honeyguide
Acacia Pied Barbet
Black-collared Barbet
European Roller
Lilac-breasted Roller
Half-collared Kingfisher
Malachite Kingfisher
Giant Kingfisher
Pied Kingfisher
European Bee-eater
Red-faced Mousebird
Red-chested Cuckoo
Diderick Cuckoo
Burchell's Coucal
Alpine Swift
Common Swift
African Black Swift
Little Swift
Horus swift
White-rumped Swift
Barn Owl
African Grass-Owl
Spotted Eagle-Owl
Marsh Owl
Fiery-necked Nightjar
Freckled Nightjar
Square-tailed Nightjar
European Nightjar
Rock Dove
Laughing Dove
Cape Turtle-Dove
Red-eyed Dove
Indicator indicator
Tricholaema leucomelas
Lybius torquatus
Coracias garrulus
Coracias caudata
Alcedo semitorquata
Alcedo cristata
Megaceryle maxima
Ceryle rudis
Merops apiaster
Urocolius indicus
Cuculus solitarius
Chrysococcyx caprius
Centropus burchellii
Tachymarptis melba
Apus apus
Apus barbatus
Apus affinis
Apus horus
Apus caffer
Tyto alba
Tyto capensis
Bubo africanus
Asio capensis
Caprimulgus pectoralis
Caprimulgus tristigma
Caprimulgus fossii
Caprimulgus europaeus
Columba livia
Streptopelia senegalensis
Streptopelia capicola
Streptopelia semitorquata
SIBIS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Conservation status
Nearthreatened
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vulnerable
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs hil
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
N
1 x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
S 1 x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
N
1 x
x
x x
x
x
x x
Vulnerable
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
N
1
x
x x
N
5 x
x x
N
3 x
x x
lnd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
144
192
194
202
203
205
206
216
217
218
224
226
231
232
267
271
272
275
276
283
291
294
297
299
300
302
303
304
305
339
340
348
349
355
Page 3 of 7
Namaqua Dove
Denham's Bustard
Blue Korhaan
White-bellied Korhaan
Grey Crowned Crane
Blue Crane
Corn Crake
Black Crake
Baillon's Crake
Common Moorhen
Red-knobbed Coot
Great Snipe
African Snipe
Greater Painted-snipe
Water Thick-knee
Spotted Thick-knee
Black-winged Stilt
Pied Avocet
Three-banded Plover
Blacksmith Lapwing
African Wattled Lapwing
Crowned Lapwing
Double-banded Courser
Bronze-winged Courser
Burchell's Courser
Temminck's Courser
Collared Pratincole
Black-winged Pratincole
Whiskered Tern
White-winged Black tern
Black-shouldered Kite
Black Kite
White-backed Vulture
Oena capensis
Neotis denhami
Eupodotis caerulescens
Eupodotis senegalensis
Balearica regulorum
Anthropoides paradiseus
Crex crex
Amaurornis flavirostris
Porzana pusilla
Gallinula chloropus
Fulica cristata
Gallinago media
Gallinago nigripennis
Rostratula benghalensis
Burhinus vermiculatus
Burhinus capensis
Himantopus himantopus
Recurvirostra avosetta
Charadrius tricollaris
Vanellus armatus
Vanellus senegallus
Vanellus coronatus
Rhinoptilus africanus
Rhinoptilus chalcopterus
Cursorius rufus
Cursorius temminckii
Glareola pratincola
Glareola nordmanni
Chlidonias hybrida
Chlidonias leucoptera
Elanus caeruleus
Milvus migrans
Gyps africanus
SIBIS
x
x
x
endemic
x
x
x
endemic
Conservation status
Nearthreatened
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
x
x
Nearthreatened
x
x
x
x
x
x
Nearthreatened
x
x
x
x
Vulnerable
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs hil lnd
x x x
x
x
Vulnerable N
3
x
x
x
Endangered
x
Endangered
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N S 5 x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
1
x
x
x
N
1 x
S 3 x
x
N
5
x
x
N
2
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x x
Endangered
x
x
x x x
145
360
366
381
385
397
399
400
405
406
409
410
411
412
414
415
416
424
425
427
432
434
435
438
439
440
441
442
443
446
452
455
456
457
458
Page 4 of 7
Black-breasted Snake Eagle
African Marsh-Harrier
Steppe Buzzard
Jackal Buzzard
Secretarybird
Lesser Kestrel
Rock Kestrel
Red-footed Falcon
Amur Falcon
Eurasian Hobby
African Hobby
Lanner Falcon
Peregrine Falcon
Little Grebe
Great Crested Grebe
Black-necked Grebe
African Darter
Reed Cormorant
White-breasted Cormorant
Little Egret
Yellow-billed Egret
Great White Egret
Grey Heron
Black-headed Heron
Goliath Heron
Purple Heron
Cattle Egret
Squacco Heron
Green-backed Heron
Hamerkop
Glossy Ibis
Hadeda Ibis
Southern Bald Ibis
African Sacred Ibis
SIBIS
Circaetus pectoralis
Circus ranivorus
Buteo vulpinus
Buteo rufofuscus
Sagittarius serpentarius
Falco naumanni
Falco rupicolus
Falco vespertinus
Falco amurensis
Falco subbuteo
Falco cuvierii
Falco biarmicus
Falco peregrinus
Tachybaptus ruficollis
Podiceps cristatus
Podiceps nigricollis
Anhinga rufa
Phalacrocorax africanus
Phalacrocorax lucidus
Egretta garzetta
Egretta intermedia
Egretta alba
Ardea cinerea
Ardea melanocephala
Ardea goliath
Ardea purpurea
Bubulcus ibis
Ardeola ralloides
Butorides striatus
Scopus umbretta
Plegadis falcinellus
Bostrychia hagedash
Geronticus calvus
Threskiornis aethiopicus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Conservation status
Vulnerable
endemic
Nearthreatened
Vulnerable
x
x
Near-hreatened
Nearthreatened
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
endemic
x
Vulnerable
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs
S 1 x
x
x
Protected
x
x
S 1
x
x
S 1
x
x
x
Vulnerable
x
x
N
1
x
x
N S 5
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vulnerable
x
x
x
N S 3 x
x
x
x
N
1 x
x
x
x
x
N
3 x
N
3 x
x
x
x
N
1 x
N
3 x
x
S 2 x
S 1 x
x
N S 4
Vulnerable
S 1
x
x
N
2 x
hil lnd
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
146
459
462
465
466
467
543
552
570
571
572
573
575
576
592
593
594
596
597
599
602
603
604
605
608
609
610
616
643
644
645
646
650
651
655
Page 5 of 7
African Spoonbill
Yellow-billed Stork
Abdim's Stork
Woolly-necked Stork
White Stork
Black-backed Puffback
Bokmakierie
Cape Crow
Pied Crow
White-necked Raven
Red-backed Shrike
Lesser Grey Shrike
Common Fiscal
Sand Martin
Brown-throated Martin
Banded Martin
Grey-rumped Swallow
Barn Swallow
White-throated Swallow
Pearl-breasted Swallow
Greater Striped Swallow
Lesser Striped Swallow
Red-breasted Swallow
South African Cliff-Swallow
Rock Martin
Common House-Martin
Black-eyed Bulbul
Sedge Warbler
European Reed-Warbler
African Marsh-Warbler
Marsh Warbler
Lesser Swamp-Warbler
Olive-tree Warbler
Willow Warbler
Platalea alba
Mycteria ibis
Ciconia abdimii
Ciconia episcopus
Ciconia ciconia
Dryoscopus cubla
Telophorus zeylonus
Corvus capensis
Corvus albus
Corvus albicollis
Lanius collurio
Lanius minor
Lanius collaris
Riparia riparia
Riparia paludicola
Riparia cincta
Pseudhirundo griseopyga
Hirundo rustica
Hirundo albigularis
Hirundo dimidiata
Hirundo cucullata
Hirundo abyssinica
Hirundo semirufa
Hirundo spilodera
Hirundo fuligula
Delichon urbica
Pycnonotus barbatus
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus
Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Acrocephalus baeticatus
Acrocephalus palustris
Acrocephalus gracilirostris
Hippolais olivetorum
Phylloscopus trochilus
SIBIS
x
Conservation status
Nearthreatened
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs hil lnd
N
2 x
x
x x x
x x x
S 1 x
x
x
x
x
x
N S 3 x
x
x x x
N
1 x
x
x x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
N S 3
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
5 x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
N S 5 x
x
x x x
N
4 x
x
x x x
x
x
x x x
N
3 x
x
x x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x x
N S 5 x
x
x x x
N
1 x
x
x x x
x
N
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
147
669
670
674
678
682
683
684
686
687
688
690
691
711
713
715
722
724
725
732
734
736
737
741
766
781
782
783
786
792
797
806
807
809
Page 6 of 7
African Yellow White-eye
Zosterops senegalensis
Cape White-eye
Zosterops capensis
Lazy Cisticola
Cisticola aberrans
Wailing Cisticola
Cisticola lais
Levaillant's Cisticola
Cisticola tinniens
Croaking Cisticola
Cisticola natalensis
Neddicky
Cisticola fulvicapilla
Zitting Cisticola
Cisticola juncidus
Desert Cisticola
Cisticola aridulus
Cloud Cisticola
Cisticola textrix
Wing-snapping Cisticola
Cisticola ayresii
Tawny-flanked Prinia
Prinia subflava
Rufous-naped Lark
Mirafra africana
Clapper Lark
Mirafra fasciolata
Rudd's Lark
Heteromirafra ruddi
Dusky Lark
Pinarocorys nigricans
Spike-heeled Lark
Chersomanes albofasciata
Cape Long-billed Lark
Certhilauda curvirostris
Chestnut-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix leucotis
Red-capped Lark
Calandrella cinerea
Pink-billed Lark
Spizocorys conirostris
Botha's Lark
Spizocorys fringillaris
Cape Rock-Thrush
Monticola rupestris
Cape Robin-Chat
Cossypha caffra
African Stonechat
Saxicola torquata
Buff-streaked Chat
Oenanthe bifasciata
Mountain Wheatear
Oenanthe monticola
Capped Wheatear
Oenanthe pileata
Anteating Chat
Myrmecocichla formicivora
Red-winged Starling
Onychognathus morio
Pied Starling
Spreo bicolor
Wattled Starling
Creatophora cinerea
Common Myna
Acridotheres tristis
SIBIS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Conservation status
endemic
endemic
Critical
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
endemic
endemic
endemic
x
x
endemic
x
exotic
Endangered
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs hil
x
x
x
x
x
N S 5
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N S 4
x
x x
x
x x
N S 4
x
x x
N S
x
x
x
x
N S 4
x
x x
S S 2
x
x
x
x
S 1
x
x x
x x
x x
S 2
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
S 1
x x
x
x
N S 5
x
x x
x
N
3 x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
lnd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
148
845
846
852
853
854
856
857
858
860
861
862
866
867
876
899
900
902
907
913
914
916
917
918
919
921
922
924
927
934
935
938
946
947
Page 7 of 7
Southern Masked-Weaver
Village Weaver
Red-headed Quelea
Red-billed Quelea
Yellow-crowned Bishop
Southern Red Bishop
Yellow Bishop
Fan-tailed Widowbird
White-winged Widowbird
Red-collared Widowbird
Long-tailed Widowbird
African Quailfinch
Red-headed Finch
Common Waxbill
Cuckoo Finch
House Sparrow
Cape Sparrow
Cape Wagtail
Yellow-throated Longclaw
Cape Longclaw
Yellow-breasted Pipit
Striped Pipit
African Rock Pipit
African Pipit
Plain-backed Pipit
Buffy Pipit
Long-billed Pipit
Short-tailed Pipit
Yellow-fronted Canary
Black-throated Canary
Yellow Canary
Lark-like Bunting
Cinnamon-breasted Bunting
Ploceus velatus
Ploceus cucullatus
Quelea erythrops
Quelea quelea
Euplectes afer
Euplectes orix
Euplectes capensis
Euplectes axillaris
Euplectes albonotatus
Euplectes ardens
Euplectes progne
Ortygospiza atricollis
Amadina erythrocephala
Estrilda astrild
Anomalospiza imberbis
Passer domesticus
Passer melanurus
Motacilla capensis
Macronyx croceus
Macronyx capensis
Anthus chloris
Anthus lineiventris
Anthus crenatus
Anthus cinnamomeus
Anthus leucophrys
Anthus vaalensis
Anthus similis
Anthus brachyurus
Crithagra mozambicus
Crithagra atrogularis
Crithagra flaviventris
Emberiza impetuani
Emberiza tahapisi
SIBIS
x
x
Conservation status
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
endemic
Nearthreatened
Vulnerable
endemic
endemic
Locality Ab wet wgrs grs
x
x
N S 5 x
x
x
x
N S 5 x
x
N S 5 x
x
x
x
N S 5 x
x
N S 5 x
x
x
x
N
5 x
x
x
N
4
x
x
S 3 x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N S 3 x
x
N S 4 x
x
x
x
x
N S 5 x
x
N
5
x
x
Vulnerable
N
S
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
hil
x
x
x
x
lnd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
149
Appendix 7. Mammals expected and observed at the proposed opencast sites and the access road.
Endemism = Species endemic to South Africa; NEM:BA = Species listed under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
Locality = Species observed at the proposed northern opencast site (N) or the southern opencast site (S).
Habitat: wet=Wetlands; grs=Grasslands; wgrs = Wet grassland, hil=Rocky hills; lnd=Old agricultural lands
Page 1 of 2
Conservation status
Locality
Habitat
Common Name
Latin Name
Red List
NEM:BA
N S wet wgrs grs
Endemism
Rough-haired golden mole Chrysospalax villosus
Vulnerable
Critically endangered
x
Endemic
Hottentot golden mole
Amblysomus hottentotus
x
Endemic
Eastern rock elephant-shrew Elephantulus myurus
Scrub hare
Lepus saxatilis
x
x
Natal red rock rabbit
Pronolagus crassicaudatus
African mole-rat
Cryptomys hottentotus
x
Cape porcupine
Hystrix africaeaustralis
x
x
x
Greater canerat
Thryonomus swinderianus
x
Four-striped grass mouse
Rhabdomys pumilio
Data deficient
x x
x
x
x
African marsh rat
Dasymys incomtus
Data deficient
x
Pygmy mouse
Mus minutoides
x
x
Natal multimammate mouse Mastomys natalensis
x x
x
x
x
Namaqua rock mouse
Aethomys namaquensis
x
Red veld rat
Aethomys chrysophilus
x
Laminate vlei rat
Otomys laminatus
x
x
Endemic
Angoni vlei rat
Otomys angoniensis
x
x
Vlei rat
Otomys irroratus
x
x
Highveld gerbil
Tatera brantsii
x
White-tailed mouse
Mystromys albicaudatus
Vulnerable
x
Grey climbing mouse
Dendromus melanotis
Chestnut climbing mouse
Dendromus mystacalis
Forest shrew
Myosorex varius
x
x
Swamp musk shrew
Crocidura mariquensis
x
Reddish-grey musk shrew
Crocidura cyanea
x
x
Greater red musk shrew
Crocidura flavescens
Vulnerable
x
x
Lesser red musk shrew
Crocidura hirta
x
x
Mauritian tomb bat
Taphozous mauritianus
x
x
x
Angola free-tailed bat
Mops condylurus
x
x
x
Egyptian free-tailed bat
Tadarida aegyptiaca
x
x
x
hil
lnd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
150
Page 2 of 2
Common Name
Schreibers' long-fingered bat
Temminck's hairy bat
Cape serotine bat
African yellow bat
Egyptian slit-faced bat
Geoffroy's horseshoe bat
Sundevall's roundleaf bat
African wild cat
Serval
Large-spotted genet
Yellow mongoose
Slender mongoose
White-tailed mongoose
Water mongoose
Black-backed jackal
African striped weasel
Common duiker
Steenbok
Latin Name
Miniopterus schreibersii
Myotis tricolor
Eptesicus capensis
Scotophilus dinganii
Nycteris thebaica
Rhinolophus clivosus
Hipposideros caffer
Felis silvestris
Leptailurus serval
Genetta tigrina
Cynictis penicillata
Galerella sanguinea
Ichneumia albicauda
Atilax paludinosus
Canis mesomelas
Poecilogale albinucha
Sylvicapra grimmia
Raphicerus campestris
Endemism
RDL
Nearthreatened
NEM:BA
Protected
Locality
Habitat
N S wet wgrs grs
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
hil
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
lnd
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
151
APPENDIX 8 Mining rights areas associated with the Keldoron proposal
152
APPENDIX 9 Map of areas proposed for development within the mining rights area, indicating
developments, opencast areas and infrastructure installations.
153

Biodiversity report

Transcription

Similar documents

Ron Reid Couchiching Conservancy

Capacity Building in Biodiversity and Impact Assessment on a Local

PowerPoint presentation

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

Marina de Joyuda - staging.files.cms.plus.com

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest

In Kind - Venture for Fund Raising