executive · web viewthe reason is that vertebrate distributions are not very dependent on the...

AN ASSESSMENT OF VERTEBRATE SPECIES RICHNESS FOR THE UNDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE PPC (LIME) MINE,

DANIELSKUIL DISTRICT, NORTHERN CAPE

by

I.L. Rautenbach Ph.D., Pr.Nat.Sci.A.C. Kemp Ph.D., Pr.Nat.Sci.

J.C.P. van Wyk M.Sc., Pr.Nat.Sci.

Vertebrates of the PPC (Lime) Mine September 2014 p 1

ContentsDeclaration of Professional Standing and Independence:..........................................3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................51. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................52. ASSIGNMENT – Protocol.......................................................................................5

2.1 Initial preparations:......................................................................................................52.2 Fauna assessment.........................................................................................................52.3 General.............................................................................................................................6

3. RATIONALE.........................................................................................................64. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY......................................................75. STUDY AREA.........................................................................................................76. METHODS..........................................................................................................12

6.1 FIELD SURVEY.......................................................................................................126.2 DESKTOP SURVEY................................................................................................12

7. RESULTS...........................................................................................................137.1 MAMMALS..............................................................................................................13

7.1.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment...........................................................................14

7.1.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species Richness......................................14

7.1.3 Red Listed Mammal Species............................................................................19

-By the Scientific Community..........................................................................................19

-By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004...........................................................................20

-By the Regulations of the Provincial Authority...............................................................20

-Formally Prohibited Invasive and Prohibited Species...................................................20

7.2 BIRDS.......................................................................................................................207.2.1 Bird Habitat Assessment..................................................................................20

7.2.2 Observed and Expected Bird Species Richness..............................................24

7.2.3 Red Listed Bird Species Identified....................................................................32





7.3 HERPETOFAUNA...................................................................................................367.3.1 Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment...................................................................36

7.3.2 Observed and Expected Herpetofauna Species Richness..............................37

7.3.3 Red Data Listed Herpetofauna identified.........................................................40






8. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS...................................................408.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................418.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS...........................................................................................42

9. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, GAPS IN INFORMATION AND INDEMNITY. 4210. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES................................................4211. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................4212. LITERATURE SOURCES...............................................................................4313. CURRICULA VITAE........................................................................................46

RAUTENBACH, IGNATIUS LOURENS.........................................................................46KEMP, ALAN CHARLES..................................................................................................49VAN WYK, JACOBUS CASPARUS PETRUS (JACO)....................................................53


Declaration of Professional Standing and Independence:

We,

Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach (SACNASP # 400300/05),Alan Charles Kemp (SACNASP # 400059/09), andJacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk (SACNASP # 400062/09)declare that we:

hold higher degrees in the biological sciences, which allowed registration by S.A. Council for National Scientific Professions (SACNASP) as Professional Zoologists that sanction us to function independently as specialist scientific consultants;

declare that as per prerequisites of the Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003 this project was our own work from inception and reflects exclusively our observations and unbiased scientific interpretations, and executed to the best of our abilities;

abide by the Code of Ethics of the SACNASP; are committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognize the need for economic

development. Whereas we appreciate opportunities to learn through constructive criticism and debate, we reserve the right to form and hold our own opinions within the constraints of our training, experience and results and therefore will not submit willingly to the interests of other parties or change our statements to appease them;

are subcontracted as specialist consultants for the project “An Assessment of Vertebrate Species Richness for the Undeveloped Portions of the PPC (Lime) Mine, Danielskuil District, Northern Cape”, as described in this report;

have no financial interest in the proposed development other than remuneration for the work performed;

do not have, and will not have in the future, any vested or conflicting interests in the proposed development;

undertake to disclose to the consultant and its client(s) as well as to the competent authority any material information that may have the potential to influence any decisions by the competent authority, as required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2006;

reserve the right to only transfer our intellectual property contained in this report to the client(s), (party or company that commissioned the work) on full payment of the contract fee. Upon transfer of the intellectual property, we recognise that written consent from the client will be required for any of us to release of any part of this report to third parties.

In addition, remuneration for the services provided is not subjected to or based on approval of the proposed project by the relevant authorities responsible for authorising this proposed project.

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


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Loss of biota in the new mining area (Prospecting Area) will be total and irreversible. Environmental rehabilitation will be impossible. Although a few Red Data plant and vertebrate species are recorded from the Prospecting Area in particular and the entire PPC property in general, their loss within the context of the district is statistically insignificant. Loss of species cannot be blindly condoned, especially for something as unappealing as an opencast mine. However, the new mine will not result in universal species loss or unacceptable damage to ecosystems.

Consideration of an alternative biodiversity conservation site and/or amelioration using the mined 'habitats' should be explored.

No sound scientific objection can be submitted, especially if the national economic benefit is factored in.

1. INTRODUCTION

We were engaged by Shangoni Management Services Pty (Ltd), on behalf of the PPC (Lime) Mine Pty (Ltd), to document vertebrate species richness on the PPC property. For the sake of a better insight, the surrounding properties and habitats from where immigrations may occur were included in the assessment. This report serves two purposes, 1) to contribute to an informed decision-making process and, should mining on the new site only proceed in the long term, 2) to provide a wider perspective in defining an interim Environmental Management Plan. The effect of prospecting and future mining on a ca. 140-ha site to the northwest of the operational mine is interpreted against the species richness and connectivity potential of the larger areas on and adjacent to the mine.

2. ASSIGNMENT – Protocol

This assignment is in accordance with the 2010 Evironmental Impact Assesment Regulations (No. R. 543-546, 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 scholarly report of the vertebrate fauna of the site, with emphasis on Red Data species and critical ecosystems that occur or may occur on the site. In order to compile this, the following had to be done:


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

2.2 Fauna assessment Compile lists of the vertebrates that can be expected in the area. Evaluate the quantitative and qualitative condition of suitable habitat for the

Red Listed vertebrates that may occur in the area. Identify the Red Data species that occur (or may occur). Express an opinion pertaining to the conservation status of Red Data species

habitats.

2.3 General Predict the impact on local and regional species richness should the proposed

development area is irrevocably lost as vertebrate habitat. Identify and describe particular ecologically sensitive areas that warrant

attention in the pre-mining planning stages. Identify problem areas in need of special treatment or management, e.g. bush

encroachment, erosion, water pollution, degraded areas, reclamation areas. Make recommendations on aspects that should be monitored during and after

development.

3. RATIONALE

Environmental conservation is no longer the prerogative of vocal left-wing 1960s-style green activist NGOs. Instead it is now universally appreciated that a rapidly-growing and more demanding human population is continuing to place exponential stress on the earth’s resources with irredeemable costs to ecosystems. It is also recognized that ecosystems are in fact nature’s ‘engine room’ to manufacture fundamental live-support products for plants, animals and humans. Environmental degradation ranges from mega-problems, such as global warming, demand for power, poor land-use practices, to indiscriminate use of household chemicals.

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

In South Africa, a number of acts (viz. the Environmental Conservation Act [Act 73 of 1989], the National Water Act. [Act No 36 of 1998], The National Heritage Resources Act [No. 25 of 1999], The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act [No 108 of


1996], the National Environmental Management Act [NEMA] [Act 107 of 1998 as amended in 2010], The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, [Act 10 of 2004], the National Environmental Management: Waste Act [NEM:WA] [Act 59 of 2008], and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations: GN R. 543-546 of 18 June 2010, as amended (Gazette No 33306 – Regulation 547)) call developers (and by implication consumers), the scientific community and conservation agencies to task to minimise environmental impact. The conduct of natural scientists is directed by The Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003). Nowadays a development prerogative is to precede new constructions by a multidisciplinary environmental investigation to assess the conservation costs. This is to ensure that best conservation practices are applied during the planning, construction and operational phases of new developments.

4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To define and describe vertebrate habitat types identified on the site; To qualitatively and quantitatively assess the significance of vertebrate habitat

components and current general conservation status; To identify and comment on ecological sensitive areas; To comment on connectivity; To provide a list of mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs that occur or might

occur, and to identify species of conservation importance; To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on the vertebrate

species richness of the study site and adjacent areas, and To provide management recommendations to mitigate negative and enhance

positive impacts should the proposed development be approved.

5. STUDY AREA

The PPC (Lime) (Pty) Ltd opencast mine is ca. 50 km east of Postmasburg and ca. 130 km northwest of Kimberley in the Northern Cape, and falls within the jurisdiction of the Kgatelopele Local (previously Danielskuil) and Mgcawu District Municipalities. The mine is south of the R31 and west of the R385 roads. Personnel are housed in the PPC Lime Acres Village, which borders the mine. Another active mine extends ca. 3 km southwest of PPC (Lime) mine.

Existing mining on the 1,572-ha PPC property, the so-called study area, is in an advanced but still productive stage (Figure 1). These PPC (Lime) mining operations are circumscribed by a 4-sided polygon that at its corners is described by coordinates 28° 21’ 23” S, 23° 31’ 57” E; 28° 20’ 32” S, 23° 29’ 55” E; 28° 22’ 47” S,


23° 28’ 47” E and 28° 23’ 19” S, 23° 30’ 48” E (red-sided polygon in Figures 2, 3 and 4). It is planned that mining will/may later expand towards the north-west, into an area of 140 ha (the 8-sided area circumscribed by yellow and described as the Prospecting Area (Figures 3, 4 and 5).

The 140-ha Prospecting Area consists currently mostly of a game camp, where several large herbivore species have been re-introduced (Table 7.1.2.1). Presently, this enclosure is used for recreation, but from a business perspective it represents line function lime reserves. It is claimed that should the Prospecting Area be deployed for mining, the PPC (Lime) Mine will establish a new game camp on some of its adjacent property.

Biodiversity destruction on the mining terrain by mining operations is virtually complete. Quarries are deep and massive and contain potable water used for domestic purposes in the PPC Lime Village (Figure 1). Low-grade lime is discarded on mine dumps; some of the debris is large and dassies have extended their presence to inhabit these boulder debris dumps, even attracting Verreauxs' Eagles as a predator. The whole mine property is fenced with a game fence, including electrical wires that add to the security of the property. Unfortunately, the lower electrical strands hold dire consequences for smaller animals (Figure 2).

Topographically, the active mine and Prospecting Area are located on the western edge of the plains of the Ghaap Plateau. The modest Kuruman Hills section of the Asbestos Mountains lies to the northwest, but is too far away to yield any influence on the presence or absence of terrestrial, but not aerial, animals on site. The Prospecting Area (and previously the mined area) supports a floral assemblage typical of the Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld vegetation unit (SVk 13; Figures 4 & 6), whereas the undeveloped area south-east of the mining operations falls in the Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld vegetation unit (SVk 7 of Mucina and Rutherford, 2006; Figures 4 & 7). Southern Kalahari Salt Pans (AZi 4) extend north and south of the site and just entering the northern tip of the Prospecting Area. These pans are on the southeast edge of a mosaic of pans that extends from the Kalahari to the highveld and Bushmanland, while Kalahari Mountain Bushveld (SVk 10) that occurs just to the west on the Kuruman Hills provides links for mobile species to the woodier patches on site (Figure 4). The sister report to this on vegetation will undoubtedly highlight and document these differences. From vertebrate perspectives, the two main vegetation units are functionally the same habitat unit, i.e. terrestrial with a good stand of unpalatable dry grass growing on compacted sandy soils, and lacking in termitaria. Circa 2-m high scrub clusters are scattered throughout both terrains, and a few large trees are present, especially in the unmined Prospecting Area and further west. The scrub and trees are here regarded as a poorly-developed arboreal habitat. The Southern Kalahari Salt Pan habitats (Figure 4) that occur just north of the site are seasonal, but the water-filled quarries on site and elsewhere in the area, even though probably of lower pH than the salt pans, are expected to form important adjuncts in support of visiting aquatic species.


The game camp has been heavily grazed, which has resulted in a measure of bush encroachment by Acacia mellifera. The undeveloped area southeast of the mining activities is grazed by cattle. Connectivity for larger terrestrial animals is impaired by the game fence along the perimeter of the entire property, particularly around the game camp where even jackals are kept out by electrified wire strands.

The conservation of undeveloped areas is ranked as average and could benefit by an Ecological Management Plan that also addresses carrying capacity.

Figure 1: One of several massive quarries that have yielded high-grade lime. The water in the quarry is potable and is deployed to provide domestic water for households in the PPC Lime Acres Village.


Figure 2: The carcass of a Leopard Tortoise (Stigmochelis pardalis) electrocuted by the lower strands of an electrical addition to the game fence.

Figure 3: Google Earth hydrology map illustrates the extent of current mining activities.


Figure 4: The Mucina & Rutherford (2006) vegetation units superimposed on the Google Earth orthophoto.

Figure 5: The soil classes superimposed on the Google Earth orthophoto.


Figure 6: A northwest view over the scrub and grassy ground cover of the Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld in the Prospecting Area. The Kuruman Hills section of the Asbestos Mountains is discernible in the background.

Figure 7: Towards the southeast of the mine, the typical flora of the Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld predominates.


6. METHODSA site visit was conducted on 16 and 17 September 2014 by a botanist and a mammalogist. Before and after the field excursion, desk-top studies using Google Earth technology were conducted to gain bird’s-eye perspectives of the topography and extent of the study site.

6.1 FIELD SURVEYDuring the site visit, mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs were identified by visual sightings through random transect walks and patrolling with a vehicle. No trapping or mist netting was conducted, as the terms of reference did not require such intensive work. In addition, mammals were also identified by means of spoor, droppings, burrows or roosting sites.

Three criteria were used to gauge the probability of occurrences of vertebrate species on the study site. These include known distribution ranges, habitat preferences and the qualitative and quantitative presences of suitable habitats.

6.2 DESKTOP SURVEYSince many mammals and herpetofauna are either secretive, nocturnal, hibernators and/or seasonal, and whereas some birds are seasonal migrants, distributional ranges and the presence of suitable habitats were used to deduce the presence or absence of such species based on authoritative tomes, scientific literature, field guides, atlases and data bases. This can be done with a high level of confidence irrespective of season.

The probability of occurrences of mammal, birds and herpetofauna species was based on their respective geographical distributional ranges and the suitability of on-site habitats. In other words:

High probability would be applicable to a species with a distributional range overlying the study site as well as the presence of prime habitat occurring on the study site. Another consideration for inclusion in this category is the inclination of a species to be common, i.e. normally occurring at high population densities.

Medium probability pertains to a species with its distributional range peripherally overlapping the study site, or required habitat on the site being sub-optimal. The size of the site as it relates to its likelihood to sustain a viable breeding population, as well as its geographical isolation is also taken into consideration. Species categorized as medium normally do not occur at high population numbers, but cannot be deemed as rare.

Low probability of occurrence will mean that the species’ distributional range is peripheral to the study site and habitat is sub-optimal. Furthermore, some mammals categorized as low are generally deemed to be rare.


7. RESULTS

7.1 MAMMALSAcocks (1988), Mucina and Rutherford (2006), Low & Rebelo (1996), Knobel and Bredenkamp (2006), SANBI & DEAT (2009) discuss the distinguishing plant associations of the study area in broad terms. It should be acknowledged that botanical geographers have made immense strides in defining plant associations (particularly assemblages denoted as vegetation units or veld types), whereas this cannot be said of zoologists. The reason is that vertebrate distributions are not very dependent on the minutiae of plant associations. Rautenbach (1978 & 1982) found that mammal assemblages can at best be correlated with botanically defined biomes, such as those by Low and Rebelo (1996 & 1998), and latterly by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) as well Knobel and Bredenkamp (2006). Hence, although the former’s work has been superseded by the work of the latter two, the definitions of biomes are similar and both remain valid for mammals and are therefore recognized as a reasonable determinant of mammal distribution.

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

7.1.1 Mammal Habitat AssessmentThe undeveloped sectors of the PPC property contain three habitat types, one of which is poorly developed and the third is artificial.

The terrestrial habitat is by far the largest. The plains, in particularly the game camp and the undeveloped area to the south-east of the active mine operations consist of a fairly good stand of dried (presumably unpalatable) grass (Figures 6 and 7). As a consequence, the cover is rated as reasonable. The substrate consists of compacted sandy soil with gravel and in places protruding dolomite; it is rather unforgiving for burrowing animals and lacks termitaria. Whereas the grass cover appears to be lush for an arid region at the end of winter (Figures 6 and 7), its nourishment potential is questionable since animal populations are clearly very low.

The scrub clusters are excellent refuge for terrestrial vertebrates. However, as arboreal habitat this vegetation type is rated as substandard to the extent that discerning arboreal small mammals such as tree rats and savannah dormice are considered absent. The scrub is however used as perches and nesting sites for birds. Trees are scarce. Probably as result of grazing pressure, Acacia mellifera became unduly dense in some areas.

Naturally occurring rupicolous habitat never occurred. However, the accumulations of larger dolomite rocks on the mine dumps attracted dassies, probably from the


Kuruman Hills of the Asbestos Mountains. Colonies are clearly flourishing. It is, however, unlikely that other rupicolous small mammals, such as Namaqua rats and rock elephant shrews, reached this artificial opportunity.

The study site does not have a permanent wetland habitat supporting discerning wetland species. The accumulations of water in the quarries are biologically rather sterile and unlikely to offer habitat for permanent residents. The salt pans are seasonal; hence rank wetland vegetation, capable of supporting terrestrial animals reliant on such habitat, is absent.

7.1.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species RichnessAll charismatic mammals (like elephants, rhinos, lions, leopards, spotted hyenas etc.) have long since been extirpated for sport and later to favour livestock farming. Mammal species reliant on rupicolous and wetland/aquatic habitats have a priori been omitted from the list of potential occurrences in the district, with the exception of dassies (Table 7.1.2.1). On the other hand, game species such as zebras, red hartebeest, springbok, impala, waterbuck and gemsbok have been reintroduced.

The species assemblage is typical of a contemporary western arid region but lacks functional arboreal and rupicolous elements. Although the species richness in the game camp located within the Prospecting Area is manipulated by constraining game species and keeping carnivores such as black-backed jackals out, the species listed in Table 7.1.2.1 mirrors the notional total species loss should mining be commenced. It is, however, foreseen that game introduced in the game camp (zebra, red hartebeest, gemsbok, waterbuck, springbok, impala), and presumably naturally occurring kudu, duiker and steenbok, will be relocated to a new game camp.

The scrub clusters are judged not to accommodate discerning arboreal mammals. Dassies migrated onto the site and use the accumulations of rock debris as shelter. The dassies clearly experience nourishment stress since grass and scrub are a considerable distance from the debris dumps. The dassie colonies furthermore serve as a prey source for a pair of Verreauxs' eagles nesting on an adjoining property. Considering the absence of vegetation on the dump heaps, it is judged that smaller rupicolous small mammals are absent (viz. Namaqua rock rats, rock elephant shrews).

It is concluded that 56 species of mammals are still part of the present-day mammal species assemblage, if not permanently then as vagrants. The occurrences of 21 species were confirmed (Table 7.1.2.2).

Most of the species of the resident diversity (Table 7.1.2.1) are common and widespread (viz. scrub hares, dassies, multimammate mice, pygmy mice, Egyptian free-tailed bats, genets, mongooses and others). The majority of the species listed


in Table 7.1.2.1 are robust (some with strong pioneering capabilities). The reason for their survival success is predominantly seated in their remarkable reproductive potential (viz. multimammate mice species capable of producing ca. 12 pups per litter at intervals of three weeks), and to a lesser extent their reticent and cryptic nature (scrub hares, genets and mongooses). It should, however, be emphasized that the species diversity (species richness, super-imposed on population numbers) is low as a result of the poor conservation index of the ground cover, the end-seasonal nadir and the limiting effect of the unyielding compacted substrates.

Since no signs were encountered, it is uncertain whether aardvarks occur, but connectivity towards the northern and southern undeveloped properties could allow immigrations. The reason for the absence of aardvark is likely the absence of termitaria.

Brown hyenas, caracal and black-backed jackal most likely still occur in the district and can be expected to at least occasionally venture onto the site under the fence or through damaged portions. The small carnivores (mongooses and genets) are exceptionally reticent in habits, apart from having wide habitat tolerances and forgiving diets. As a result they can persist in areas in close association to human occupation, as long as prey densities remain on sustainable levels.

The Egyptian free-tailed bat and the Cape serotine bat showed remarkable adaptability by expanding their distributional ranges and population numbers, and by capitalizing on the roosting opportunities offered by manmade structures; in this instance in the houses in the vicinity. Versper bats are more tolerant towards roost opportunities and it is more than likely that small colonies found roosting opportunities in the roofs of building near the study site. Free-tailed bats are likewise partial to narrow-entrance roosts provided by buildings; in some instances roost occupation could reach epidemic proportions. The study site offers no caves or suitable structures answering to the exacting roosting requirements of cave-dwelling bats (Hipposideridae, Rhinolophidae, Nycteridae), but it is likely that they have roosts elsewhere and at times commute to the site to hawk for invertebrates rising over the water in the quarries during summer sunsets. Dolomite is likely to form sinkholes and these could serve as roosting sites for cave-dwelling bats.

The species richness is low for an area as extensive as the study site and adjoining properties. That is ascribed to the fact that the three habitats under consideration are either overgrazed (terrestrial), weakly developed (arboreal), or unnatural and settled opportunistically. The quality of conservation is largely ranked as average at best, and has resulted in the displacement of Red Data species (viz. leopard, spotted hyena and others).


Table 7.1.2.2: Mammal diversity. The species observed or deduced to occupy the site. (Systematics and taxonomy as proposed by Bronner et.al [2003] and Skinner and Chimimba [2005]).

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME? Macrocelides proboscideus Round-eared elephant shrew

Procavia capensis Rock hyrax√ Lepus capensis Cape hare√ Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare√ Cryptomys hottentotus African mole rat√ Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape porcupine* Pedetes capensis Springhare* Xerus inauris South African ground squirrel* Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped grass mouse* Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse* Mastomys coucha Southern multimammate mouse? Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse? Parotomys brantsii Brants’ whistling rat? Parotomys littledalei Littledale’s whistling rat* Desmodillus auricularis Cape short-tailed gerbil* Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed gerbil

*DD Tatera leucogaster Bushveld gerbil * Malacothrix typica Gerbil mouse* Dendromus melanotis Grey climbing mouse* Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse

*DD Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew?NT Atelerix frontalis Southern African hedgehog

√ Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat√ Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat

?NT Cistugo lesueri Lesueur’s hairy bat* Nycteris thebaica Egyptian slit-faced bat

?NT Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat? Rhinolophus darlingi Darling horseshoe bat

?DD Rhinolophus denti Dent’s horseshoe bat?DD Hipposideros caffer Sundevall’s roundleaf bat?NT Manis temminckii Ground pangolin

? Proteles cristatus Aardwolf?NT Parahyaena brunnea Brown hyena

? Caracal caracal Caracal? Felis silvestris African wild cat

?Vu Felis nigripes Black-footed catFelis silvestris African wild catIctonyx striatus Striped polecat

* Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet√ Suricata suricatta Suricate√ Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose√ Galerella pulverulenta Slender mongoose√ Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox? Vulpes chama Cape fox√ Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal

?NT Mellivora capensis Honey badger* Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat


√ Equus quagga Plains zebra√ Tragelaphus strepsiceros Kudu√ Alcelaphus buselaphus Red hartebeest√ Oryx gazella Gemsbok* Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker√ Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck√ Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok√ Raphicerus campestris Steenbok√ Aepyceros melampus Impala

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

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

Table 7.1.2.2: Mammal species positively confirmed from the study site, observed indicators and habitat.

SCIENTIFIC NAME

ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION INDICATOR

HABITAT

P. capensis Rock hyrax Sight record Rocky debris dumpL. capensis Cape hare Faecal pellets Short grassy areasL. saxatilis Scrub hare Faecal pellets Short grassy areasC. hottentotus African mole rat Tunnel system In all substratesH. africaeaustralis Cape porcupine Root/tuber diggings UniversalP. capensis Springhare Reported present Sandy substrateX. inauris SA ground squirrel Reported present Sandy substrateS. suricatta Suricate Reported present Sandy substrateC. penicillata Yellow mongoose Sight record UniversalG. pulverulenta Slender mongoose Sight record UniversalO. megalotis Bat-eared fox Reported present ScrublandC. mesomelas Black-backed

jackalReported from outside game camp

Universal

E. quagga Plains zebra Re-introduced GrasslandT. strepsiceros Kudu Faecal pellets SavannahA. buselaphus Red hartebeest Re-introduced Sparse savannahO. gazelle Gemsbok Re-introduced Sparse savannahS. grimmia Common duiker Faecal pellets UniversalK. ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck Re-introduced Near wetlandsA. marsupialis Springbok Re-introduced Sparse savannahR. campestris Steenbok Reported present UniversalA. melampus Impala Re-introduced Savannah

The dassie colonies on the site once again illustrate their wide habitat tolerance by settling amongst the larger boulders on the dumps of low-grade lime. They exert


significant grazing pressure on the scant flora near their settlements but serve as an important prey stratum for the Verreauxs' eagles nesting nearby.

The two hare species are sympatric in the Northern Cape and both species undoubtedly occur on the PPC (Lime) property in high population densities as judged by faecal pellets.

The African mole rat and Cape porcupine have universal distributions and have wide ecological tolerances or substrates (moles) and basal cover (porcupines). They undoubtedly occur on the PPC property.

Both the suricate and ground squirrel are common inhabitants of semi-arid and arid regions. They are both highly social and cohorts often have colonies close to each other. Both are present on the study site.

The yellow and slender mongooses are solitary and diurnal. These common species are widespread and display a remarkable ability to co-exist close to human habitation.The bat-eared fox is a common inhabitant of arid regions. Because of their nocturnal lifestyle they are susceptible to be blinded by the lights of oncoming vehicles and be killed.

Black-backed jackals occur in the general area of the study area but are excluded from the game camp by the game fence augmented by electrical wires.

Kudu, duiker and steenbok are common and widespread with a remarkable ability to withstand high hunting pressures. They have been recorded from the open area south-east of the mine. Zebra, red hartebeest, gemsbok, waterbuck, springbok and impala have all been introduced to the game camp and are under the care of a focused game management programme.

7.1.3 Red Listed Mammal Species

-By the Scientific CommunityCrocidura cyanea, Rhinolophus denti and Hipposideros caffer cited as ‘Data Deficient’ (‘DD’) in Table 7.1.2.1 are not necessarily endangered. These small mammals have not been adequately studied to provide quantitative field data to accurately assign a conservation ranking. As a precaution, they are thus considered as ‘Data Deficient’. Shrews and insectivorous bats operate at the apex of the food pyramid, which means that their population numbers are inevitably significantly lower than that of similar-sized herbivorous mammals and especially of their smaller prey species. Because of the diet of these vociferous little insectivores they are furthermore not readily trapped with conventional bait or traps, which may mean that their actual numbers are under-estimated. Good results obtained with drift fences


and pitfalls for terrestrial insectivorous small mammals and bat detectors for echo locating bats support the latter statement.

Hedgehogs are ‘Near Threatened’ as a result of interference by humans and their pets. Under natural conditions, the passive defence mechanisms of these rather docile insectivores are sufficient to maintain breeding populations in a healthy condition. Considering the size of the district and connectivity towards the north and south it is considered possible that a small population of hedgehogs persists. Lesueur’s hairy bat enjoys a ‘Near Threatened’ Red Data ranking, but the cause for this is speculative.

Why the bushveld gerbil is afforded a Red Data ranking is beyond comprehension. This fecund and fairly common burrowing rodent is subject to cyclic population numbers, partly in response to environmental conditions.

Geoffroys’s horseshoe bats congregate in large numbers in deep caves. If disturbed by cavers during winter hibernation, these and other cave-dwelling bats are forced to wake up and in the process burn accumulated body fat. This may leave bats without essential reserves before the advent of summer and availability of prey, which causes them to starve; hence their “Near Threatened” conservation ranking.

Ground pangolins and brown hyenas both became ‘Near Threatened’ as result of prosecution, in the first case by stockists for the traditional medicine market and in the latter case by livestock farmers. It is not clear why honey badgers are deemed ‘Near Threatened’.

Black-footed cats are considered as ‘Vulnerable’, but it is submitted that this ranking is more a guestimate than a considered opinion.

No other Red Data or sensitive species are deemed present on the site, since the site is too disturbed, falls outside the distributional ranges of some species or does not offer suitable habitat(s).

-By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004 Nil (Van Schalkwyk, 2007).

-By the Regulations of the Provincial AuthorityThe Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Schedule 1: Specially Protected Species lists the following species that are considered present or at least vagrants to the PPC land: Black-footed cat, African wild cat, honey badger, striped polecat, bat-eared fox, Cape fox, brown hyena, aardwolf and hedgehog. Schedule 2: Protected Species lists all the other occupants of the PPC property (Table 7.1.2.1). Schedule 4 recognizes the black-back jackal as a Damage Causing Species.


-Formally Prohibited Invasive and Prohibited SpeciesNo Invasive or Prohibited mammals listed in the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004 or in the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Schedule 6, were recorded. Domestic dogs and cats are listed as undesirable in Schedule 5, and house rats (Rattus rattus) and House mice (Mus musculus) are listed as invasive species is Schedule 6. The former two should be eradicate as they are likely to disturbed the ecological balance (as it is) whereas the latter two are, however, unlikely to exist in the veld since they are entirely commensal with man.

7.2 BIRDS

7.2.1 Bird Habitat Assessment

Details of the vegetation communities and flora on site are the subject of a separate specialist report.

The habitats at the site as identified for bird community distributions occur within the Grassy Karoo biome (Allan et al. in Harrison et al. 1997) and more specifically the sparsely wooded and grassy vegetation units of the Olifantshoek Plains Thornveld vegetation unit (SVk 13; Figures 4 & 6) and, to a lesser extent to the east, the Ghaap Plateau Vaalbosveld vegetation unit (SVk 7 of Mucina and Rutherford, 2006; Figures 4 & 7). The Southern Kalahari Salt Pans (AZi 4) that just enter the north of the site were dry at the time of the visit. Much of the study site and immediate surrounding area has been developed for residential and mining activities, but further afield most of the habitat remains in its natural state and is used for livestock and game farming (Figures 8 and 9).

The aerial mobility of birds also demands attention to the principal habitats surrounding the study site and their conservation status, not just those along the immediate borders but also more distant habitats that might provide sources for species visiting the site and sinks for those breeding on site. For water birds, various open areas formed by the seasonal salt pans extend to the north and east of the, while the Harts-Vaal, Vaal-Riet and Vaal-Gariep River confluences are about 60 km to the southeast. For savanna birds, the Kuruman Hills to the northwest and the riparian habitat along the large river systems to the southeast are most relevant, the latter also embracing the Mokala National Park (Figure 10).


Figure 8: Satellite image of the whole site and its immediate surroundings, showing the active mining area (yellow polygon), the overlapping undeveloped Prospecting Area (orange polygon), the adjacent mine to the southwest, mine offices and villages, the water-filled quarries, and the bare drainage lines linking the saltpans to the north and east.

Figure 9: Close up Satellite image of the Prospecting Area (orange polygon), showing the sparsely wooded areas of larger trees and smaller bushes, and the saltpan just entering the northern end of the site.


Figure 10: Satellite image showing the position of the Prospecting Area (orange polygon) in relation to the main surrounding features influencing bird distribution, the immediately adjacent mine quarries, the hills and mountains with their bushveld savanna to the west on reddish Kalahari sands, the more exposed underlying pale calcretes of the Ghaap Plateau to the east, and the converging riparian systems of several large rivers to the southeast.

The broader habitats adjacent to the study sites are mainly extensions of those present on site, or mentioned specifically in the habitat types described below. Generally, we did not assign aerial-feeding species, such as swifts, martins and swallows, to a specific habitat on site, except for those habitats that offered potential nesting habitats, since they feed wherever aerial wind-borne plankton is available. Three principal habitat types distinguished on and/or adjacent to the site, and considered most relevant to bird ecology and community structure, were distinguished.

1) Grassy karrooid savanna (Figures 6 and 7).

This is the original and still the predominant habitat around the site, but on-site mainly in the proposed Prospecting Area and largely eradicated elsewhere. The good tufted grass cover and sandy/pebbly ground cover provides habitat for grassland and ground-living avifauna, while the woody cover, ranging from bushes to small trees at varying densities, will attract bushveld and scrubland avifauna. Changes in grazing pressures and occasional fires are expected to be the most likely natural disturbances to such habitat, leading to reduced ground cover and/or shrub encroachment, but recovery and rehabilitation after removal is likely to be difficult, slow and only partly successful.

2) Transformed mining areas (Figures 1 and 3).


These areas include not only the mine itself, where most of the topsoil has been removed and/or disturbed, and where mining has created deep quarries and rocky dumps, but also the buildings and the adjacent township, where abnormal availability of various structures and water provide for perch/nest sites and evergreen, wooded gardens to develop. The mine itself will be attractive to such species as favour rock faces and piles, unusual in this generally flat area, even attracting unexpected species such as Verreauxs' Eagle to prey on hyrax that have colonised the site.

3) Water bodies, permanent and temporary (Figure 1).

Any open water in such an arid area is always an attractant to birds from the surrounding areas, as drinking sites for local species (e.g. doves, sandgrouse, finches) or as stopover points within a regional mosaic of natural aquatic habitats for nomadic and migrant species (e.g. waders, piscivores). While the water-filled quarries may appear sterile, they do ensure a permanent source of drinkable water and safe resting surfaces, while the temporary saltpans that stretch away to the north and east will be seasonally attractive as resting, feeding and sometimes even breeding sites for saline-adapted species. These habitats are expected to attract a high number of vagrant species, especially when the aquatic microfauna and flora have enough time to flourish, but these are not listed among the regional avifauna as the general expectation of their presence is unlikely.

Table 7.2.1.2: Rating of recognised on-site avian habitats (site + 500 m buffer) on and around the PPC (Lime) mine and Protected Area.

Avian Habitats

Conservation Priority Sensitivity

High Medium-high Medium Medium-

low Low High Low

1. Karrooid savanna X X2. Mining developments X X3. Water bodies X X

7.2.2 Observed and Expected Bird Species Richness

The site falls within QDGC (28231AD LIME ACRES) and within pentad (2820_2325). Out of the maximum of 168 species expected for the site during 1987-1991 (SABAP 1), and including the 171 species so far reported since 2009 for the pentad within which the site fell (SABAP2), we assessed that 221 bird species have a high, medium or low probability to occur on site, based on the habitats available. Of these, 14 species were confirmed and/or reported by others during the site visit (Table 2.2.2.1). The number would surely have been higher if we had spent more days/seasons in search of species, if the surveys had started earlier and extended later in the day/night, and if we had covered every sector in more detail. We


assessed 116 species (52%) as having a high probability of occurrence, 74 species (33%) a medium probability and 32 species (14%) a low probability. The total number of species expected would be much larger if other unlikely species that are only recorded as rare vagrants to the area were not excluded from this analysis due to inadequate sustained availability of their preferred habitat(s).

The three different habitat types that I distinguished either support or are expected to support somewhat different species of birds (Table 2.2.2.1). Only 15 generalist species (7%) are expected to use all three habitat-types, excluding the 12 species (5%) classed as aerial feeders and expected to range across all habitats when feeding. For the 209 non-aerial species, while only 15 species (7%) preferred three habitats, 48 (22%) preferred two, and 146 (66%), the majority, only a single habitat type. Based on a total of 331 assessments of predicted habitat preference, karrooid savannas are potentially the richest and most distinctive habitat, predicted to be used by 147 (44%) of the expected species' choices. Water bodies are preferred by an estimated 97 species (29%), with 87 species (26%) expected around the mining and associated developments. The 12 aerial-feeding species are included within the above analysis, not only for all the habitats they range across when feeding, but also if there are terrestrial habitats that some might use for breeding. Overall, savanna supported the highest diversity, with water bodies and the mine as less but almost similar preferences.

Table 7.2.2.1: Bird species diversity observed and expected on and around the PPC (Lime) mine and Protected Area, near Danielskuil, Northern Cape (2823AD). Based on the national list and annotations of Birdlife South Africa (2014), sorted in the order of ‘Roberts VII’ (Hockey et al. 2005), with probability of occurrence and habitat preferences assessed after a site visit on 16-17 September 2014 and comparison with lists from SABAP 1 & 2 (Harrison et al., 1997; www.sabap2.org). Species in bold font were detected on the site visit.

Common English Name Scientific Name

Status Codes

(see below)

Probability of occurrence

(see 5.4 above)

Preferred Habitats

(see 6.2 above)

RD S EHigh

Medium Low

Common Ostrich Struthio camelus L 1

Orange River francolin Scleroptila levaillantoides L 1

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix NBM M 1

Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris H 1,2

White-faced Duck Dendrocygna viduata M 3

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca H 3


http://www.sabap2.org/

South African Shelduck Tadorna cana H 3

Cape Teal Anas capensis H 3

Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulate H 3

Cape Shoveller Anas smithii M 3

Red-billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha M 3

Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma L 3

Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa M 3

Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator L 1

Lesser Honeyguide Indicator minor L 1

Golden-tailed Woodpecker Campethera abingoni L 2

Cardinal Woodpecker Dendropicos fuscescens H 1,2

Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas H 1

Black-collared Barbet Lybius torquatus M 1,2

Crested Barbet Trachyphonus vaillantii H 1,2

Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill Tockus leucomelas M 1

African Grey Hornbill Tockus nasutus M 1,2

African Hoopoe Upupa africana H 1,2

Green Wood-hoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus M 1,2

Lilac-breasted Roller Coracias caudatus M 1

Purple Roller Coracias naevius M 1

Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis M 3

White-fronted Bee-eater Merops bullockoides M 1,2

Swallow-tailed Bee-eater Merops hirundineus H 1

European Bee-eater Merops apiaster B/NBM M 1,2,3

White-backed Mousebird Colius colius H 1,2

Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus H 1,2

Diderick Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius BM H 1,2,3


Burchell’s Coucal Centropus burchellii L 3

African Palm-Swift Cypsiurus parvus M Aerial,2

Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba BM H Aerial

Common Swift Apus apus NBM M Aerial

Bradfield’s Swift Apus bradfieldi H Aerial

Little Swift Apus affinis H Aerial,2

White-rumped Swift Apus caffer BM H Aerial,2

Barn Owl Tyto alba H 1,2

Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus H 1,2

Pearl-spotted Owlet Glaucidium perlatum M 1

Rufous-cheeked Nightjar Caprimulgus rufigena BM H 1,2,3

European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus M 1,2

Rock Dove Columba livia M 2

Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea M 2

Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis H 1,2,3

Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola H 1,2,3

Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata M 1,2,3

Namaqua Dove Oena capensis H 1,2

Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori NT,NT M 1

Red-crested Korhaan Lophotis ruficrista H 1

Northern Black Korhaan Afrotis afraoides H 1

Blue Crane Anthropoides paradiseus NT,VU L 1,3

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus M 3

Red-knobbed coot Fulica cristata M 3

Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua H 1,3

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis NBM H 3

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia NBM H 3


Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola NBM H 3

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos NBM H 3

Little Stint Calidris minuta NB M 3

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea NBM L 3

Ruff Philomachus pugnax NBM M 3

Greater Painted-snipe Rostratula benghalensis VU,NT L 3

Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis H 1,2

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus H 3

Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta H 3

Kittlitz’s Plover Charadrius pecuarius H 3

Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris H 3

Chestnut-banded Plover Charadrius pallidus NT,NT M 3

Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus H 2,3

Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus H 1

Double-banded Courser Rhinoptilus africanus NT,LC H 1

Burchell's Courser Cursorius rufus VU,LC H 1

Grey-headed Gull Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus L 3

Whiskered Tern Chlidonius hybrida L 3

White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus NBM M 3

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus H 1,2,3

Black Kite Milvus migrans NBM M 1,2

African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer L 3

White-backed Vulture Gyps africanus EN,EN L 1

Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis H 1

Black Harrier Circus maurus EN,VU M 1

Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus H 1

Gabar Goshawk Melierax gabar H 1


Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo NBM H 1,3

Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax EN,LC M 1,3

Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii VU,LC M 1,2

Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus NBM L 1,3

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus EN,VU L 1,3

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU,VU H 1,3

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni NBM H 1

Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus M 1,2

Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides H 1

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus VU,LC H 1,2,3

Great-crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus L 3

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis H 3

Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis M 3

African Darter Anhinga rufa M 3

Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus M 3

White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax lucidus L 3

Great Egret Egretta alba M 3

Little Egret Egretta garzetta H 3

Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia M 3

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea H 3

Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala H 1,3

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis H 1

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax L 3

Hamerkop Scopus umbretta M 2,3

Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus NT,LC L 3

Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor NT,NT L 3

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus L 3

Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash H 2,3


African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus M 3

African Spoonbill Platalea alba H 3

Black Stork Ciconia nigra VU,LC L 3

White Stork Ciconia ciconia L 1,3

Brubru Nilaus afer H 1

Brown-crowned Tchagra Tchagra australis M 1

Crimson-breasted Shrike Laniarius atrococcineus H 1

Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus H 1

Pririt Batis Batis pririt H 1

Cape Crow Corvus capensis H 1

Pied crow Corvus albus H 1

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio NBM H 1

Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor NBM M 1

Common Fiscal Lanius collaris H 1,2

Cape Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus H 1

Ashy Tit Parus cinerascens (*) M 1

Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola M Aerial,3

Banded Martin Riparia cincta L Aerial,1

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica NBM H Aerial

White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis BM H Aerial,2

Greater Striped Swallow Cecropis cucullata BM H Aerial,2

Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula H Aerial,2

African Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans H 1,2

Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita (*) M 1

Long-billed crombec Sylvietta rufescens H 1

Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis H 1

Little Rush-Warbler Bradypterus baboecala L 3

African Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus BM L 3


Lesser Swamp-Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris L 3

Icterine Warbler Hippolais icterina NBM M 2

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus NBM M 2

Layard’s Tit-Babbler Sylvia layardi (*) H 1

Chestnut-vented Tit-Babbler Sylvia subcaerulea H 1

Garden Warbler Sylvia borin NBM M 2

Cape White-eye Zosterops capensis (*) H 1,2

Orange River White-eye Zosterops pallidus M 2,3

Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla M 1

Levaillant’s Cisticola Cisticola tinniens L 3

Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla H 1

Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis H 1,3

Desert Cisticola Cisticola aridulus H 1

Black-chested Prinia Prinia flavicans H 1,3

Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis H 1

Rufous-naped Lark Mirafra africana H 1

Eastern Clapper Lark Mirafra fasciolatus H 1

Sabota Lark Calendulauda sabota H 1

Fawn-coloured Lark Calendulauda africanoides M 1

Spike-heeled Lark Chersomanes albofasciata H 1

Karoo Long-billed Lark Certhilauda subcoronata M 2

Grey-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix verticalis H 1,2

Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea H 1

Sclater’s Lark Spizocorys sclateri NT,NT (*) L 1

Short-toed Rock-Thrush Monticola brevipes L 2

Groundscraper Thrush Psophocichla litsitsirupa M 2

Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi (*) M 2


Chat Flycatcher Bradornis infuscatus H 1

Marico flycatcher Bradornis mariquensis H 1

Fiscal Flycatcher Sigelus silens (*) M 1,2

Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata NBM H 1,2

Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra M 2

Kalahari Scrub-Robin Erythropygia paena H 1

Karoo Scrub-Robin Erythropygia coryphoeus M 1

African StoneChat Saxicola torquatus M 3

Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola M 2

Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata H 1

Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris H 1,2

Ant-eating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora M 1

Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup M 1,2

Cape Glossy Starling Lamprotornis nitens H 1,2,3

Pied Starling Lamprotornis bicolor (*) M 2

Wattled Starling Creatophora cinerea H 1,2,3

Common Myna Acridotheres tristis I M 2

White-bellied Sunbird Cinnyris talatala H 1,2

Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus H 1

Marico Sunbird Cinnyris mariquensis H 1,2

Scaly-feathered Finch Sporopipes squamifrons H 1

White-browed Sparrow-Weaver Plocepasser mahali H 1,2

Sociable Weaver Philetairus socius M 1

Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus H 1,2,3

Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea M 1

Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix M 3

African Quailfinch Ortygospiza fuscocrissa H 1


Red-headed Finch Amadina erythrocephala H 1

Black-faced Waxbill Estrilda erythronotos M 1

Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild M 3

Violet-eared Waxbill Uraeginthus granatinus H 1

Red-billed Firefinch Lagonosticta senegala H 1

Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura H 1,2,3

Shaft-tailed Whydah Vidua regia M 1

House Sparrow Passer domesticus I H 2

Great Sparrow Passer motitensis M 1

Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus H 1,2

Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus H 1,2

Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis H 1,2,3

African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus H 1,2,3

Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys L 1

Buffy Pipit Anthus vaalensis M 1,2

Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis M 1,2,3

Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris H 1,2,3

White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis H 1

Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani H 1

Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis M 2

Cinnamon-breasted Bunting Emberiza tahapisi H 1,2

Golden-breasted Bunting Emberiza flaviventris M 1

Red Status Status in south Africa (S) Endemism in South Africa (E)

NA = Not Assessed BM = breeding migrantEndemism in South Africa (E) (not southern Africa as in field guides)

LC = Least Concern NBM = non-breeding migrant

NT = Near-Threatened V = vagrant* = endemic

VU = Vulnerable I = introduced


EN = Endangered R = rare (*) = near endemic (i.e. ~70% or more of population in RSA)

CR = Critically Endangered PRB = probable rare breeder B* = breeding endemic

EX = Extinct Regionally RB = rare breeder B(*) = breeding near endemic

NR = Not Recognised RV = rare visitor W* = winter endemic

Red Status is from The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Taylor (2014).

7.2.3 Red Listed Bird Species Identified

-By the Scientific CommunityBased on the most recent assessment of the threatened status of South Africa's avifauna (Taylor 2014), a total of 17 Red Data avifaunal species are expected possibly to use the site and its surroundings given the habitats available (Table 7.2.2.2). However, only eight of these species have already been reported for the 2820_2325 pentad within which the site falls during the period of the ongoing Southern African bird atlas project started in 2009 (SABAP2).

Most of these threatened species fall into a few obvious categories by habitat preference (Table 7.2.3.1) and their likelihood of occurrence on site (Table 7.2.3.2); especially once one appreciates what habitats are useful and available to them on site (Table 7.2.3.3).

Table 7.2.3.1: List of threatened species that will possibly make use of the habitats on and around the PPC (Lime) mine and Protected Area. Note one species may have more than one habitat preference. * indicates species recorded for the site's pentad since 2009 (sabap2.org.za).

Threatened Status Species

Preferred Habitat Type(s)

SavannaMining

developments

Water bodies

Near Threatened Kori Bustard XBlue Crane X XChestnut-banded Plover XDouble-banded Courser X XGreater Flamingo* XLesser Flamingo* XSclater's Lark X

Vulnerable Secretarybird* XGreater Painted-Snipe* XBurchell's Courser XVerreauxs' Eagle* XLanner Falcon* X X X


Black Stork XEndangered White-backed Vulture X

Black Harrier XTawny Eagle* XMartial Eagle X X

TOTALS 17 10 3 8

Table 7.2.3.2: The expected frequency of occurrence of threatened bird species on and around the PPC (Lime) mine and Protected Area based on the quantity and quality of habitats available. * indicates species recorded for the site pentad since 2009 (sabap2.org.za).

Threatened Status SpeciesExpected frequency of occurrence on site

Regular resident

Frequent visitor

Erratic visitor

Infrequent vagrant

Near Threatened Kori Bustard XBlue Crane XChestnut-banded Plover XDouble-banded Courser XGreater Flamingo* XLesser Flamingo* XSclater's Lark X

Vulnerable Secretarybird* XGreater Painted-Snipe* XBurchell's Courser XVerreauxs' Eagle* XLanner Falcon* XBlack Stork X

Endangered White-backed Vulture XBlack Harrier XTawny Eagle* XMartial Eagle X

TOTALS 17 1 2 6 8

Table 7.2.3.3: Estimated suitability of favoured habitats to support the basic requirements of threatened bird species on and around the PPC (Lime) mine and Protected Area based on the quantity and quality of habitats available and assessed as Good (G), Mediocre (M), Poor (P), Absent (A) or Not Applicable (NA). * indicates species recorded for the site pentad since 2009 (sabap2.org.za).

Threatened Status Species Potential support for:

Movement Feeding Roosting BreedingNear Threatened Kori Bustard G M M P

Blue Crane P P G PChestnut-banded Plover G G G GDouble-banded Courser M M M MGreater Flamingo* G P G ALesser Flamingo* G P G ASclater's Lark M P M P

Vulnerable Secretarybird* G G G GGreater Painted-Snipe* M M G M


Burchell's Courser M M M MVerreauxs' Eagle* G G A ALanner Falcon* G G M PBlack Stork P P P A

Endangered White-backed Vulture G M M PBlack Harrier G M M NATawny Eagle* G M M PMartial Eagle M M M P

TOTALS G10;M5;P2 G4;M8;P5

G6;M9;P1;A1 G2;M3;P7;A4;NA1

These analyses indicate that by far the most important habitats to conserve for nationally threatened bird species are the karrooid savanna and the water bodies (Table 7.2.3.1). The various forms of savanna on site could provide habitat for various threatened species, although the failure to record so many species during SABAP2, even for previously regular species under SABAP1 with ≥5% frequency (Blue Crane, Double-banded Courser, Burchell's Courser, Black Stork, White-backed Vulture), suggests that they have declined regionally. The principal water bodies from a conservation perspective are the salt pans, which when they are full and productive can provide food and breeding opportunities for some species (Chestnut-banded Plover, Greater Painted-Snipe), but the perennial 'lakes' within the mining quarries can add stopover sites and temporary support for any other aquatic species (Blue Crane, Greater Flamingo, Lesser Flamingo, Black Stork).

Only the Secretarybird, recorded during the site visit, is expected to be a regular breeding resident, but two other predatory species are expected as frequent visitors (Verreauxs' Eagle to feed on the hyrax that have colonised the site, and Lanner Falcon attracted to birds concentrated at the water) and probably breed in the wider area (Table 7.2.3.2). The remainder are expected as erratic visitors (6), at such times as the habitats on site most resemble their preferred conditions, or as infrequent vagrants (8 species) since although patches of their preferred habitat occur in the general area, they are not necessarily on site, and they may just move in transit through the site. All 17 are species resident in southern Africa.

While the habitats on site are generally suitable for these threatened species to pass through, their generally mediocre to poor quality on site for supplying sustained food and roost sites, especially on the saltpans, makes them of mediocre productivity and reduced structure, and therefore of mediocre to poor support value over the longer term (Table 7.2.3.3). This also means that the probability of any of these species nesting on site is even more unlikely, with only Secretarybird, Double-banded and Burchell's Coursers and Greater Painted-Snipe out of 15 potential breeding species assessed as possibly nesting somewhere and sometime on site.

Under the previous listings (Barnes 2000), 11 threatened Red Data species were reported for the 2430CC grid cell under SABAP 1, with six additional species recently reported for the pentad under SABAP 2. In addition to the species already


listed as possible to occur on site above, Lesser Kestrel has been omitted because they are no longer classified nationally as threatened.

-By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004Two expected species are classified as Endangered (Blue Cane, White-backed Vulture) and five as Vulnerable (Kori Bustard, Black Stork, Tawny Eagle, Martial Eagle, Lesser Kestrel; Van Schalkwyk, 2007). Several of these species listed as threatened, and others unlisted, now differ in their status versus the recently revised national Red Data book for birds (Taylor 2014).

-By the Regulations of the Provincial AuthorityThe Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Schedule 1: Specially Protected Species lists the following species that are expected on the PPC property: Chestnut-banded Plover, Greater Painted-Snipe, Black Stork, Lesser Flamingo, Greater Flamingo, Booted Eagle, Tawny Eagle, Verreauxs' Eagle, Steppe Buzzard, Black-chested Snake-Eagle, Black Harrier, Black-shouldered Kite, Lanner Falcon, Lesser Kestrel, Greater Kestrel, Rock Kestrel, White-backed Vulture, African Fish-Eagle, Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk, Gabar Goshawk, Black Kite, Martial Eagle, Secretarybird, Sclater's Lark, Spotted Eagle-Owl, Pearl-spotted Owl and Rufous-cheeked Nightjar. Schedule 2: Protected Species lists all the other indigenous species expected on the PPC property (Table 7.2.2.1), with the exception of the few listed as common or invasive.

-Formally Prohibited Invasive and Prohibited SpeciesSchedule 5: Invasive Species recognizes the Common Myna as an invasive species, and they are expected if not already there.

7.3 HERPETOFAUNA

7.3.1 Herpetofauna Habitat AssessmentThe local occurrences of reptiles and amphibians are, like their warm-blooded mammal cousins, closely dependent on broadly defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupicolous (rock-dwelling) and wetland-associated vegetation cover. Irrespective of season and the fact that herpetofauna are poikilothermic, it is thus possible to deduce the presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global distribution ranges.

The topography of the site and of surrounding areas consists mostly of monotonous plains. From a herpetological perspective the site and adjoining properties offer mainly a terrestrial habitat and elements of an arboreal habitat type. There are fundamentals of man-made rupicolous habitat in the form of rock accumulations on the mine dumps. Other than accumulations of discarded rocks on the mine dumps, rupicolous habitat in the form of randjies, mountain ridges and rock protrusions are


absent. However, it should be pointed out that the mine dumps attracted immigrants in the form of dassies.

Natural wetlands are absent. Only steep-sided quarries with deep water accumulations in the bottom occur; these do not provide good breeding conditions for most frog species.

During the spring site visit, grass cover was dry, high and relatively dense, as such providing abundant refuge for terrestrial herpetofauna. Moribund termitaria, that provide ideal retreats for small reptiles and amphibians, are absent. In some places scattered rocks were found in the veld that potentially provides excellent shelter for herpetofauna. The terrestrial habitat is relatively disturbed.

Scrub clusters comprised of wild camphor bush (Tarchonanthus camphorates), buffalo-thorn (Ziziphus mucronata), blue guarri (Euclea crispa), black thorn (Acacia mellifera), wild olive (Olea europaea) and others occur on the study site (Figures 6 and 7) and these scrub associations provide arboreal habitat. A few dead logs that provide habitat for smaller reptiles also occur on the study site.

Electrical fencing makes it difficult for large herpetofauna to migrate in and out of the study site (Figure 2).

The conservation ranking of the site is defined as “average”, and connectivity for smaller reptiles are considered as “fair” but, as a result of the electrical fence, as “poor” for larger reptiles (Figure 2).

7.3.2 Observed and Expected Herpetofauna Species RichnessOf the 47 reptile species that are concluded to occur on the study site (Table 7.3.2.1), five were confirmed during the site visit (Table 7.3.2.2) and of the possible 19 amphibian species that can be expected on the study site (Table 7.3.2.1); three were confirmed during the site visit (Table 7.3.2.2).

Sixty-six herpetofauna species are thus recorded as potential occupants of the study site. Most of these are robust generalists with the ability to capitalise on disturbed environments. It should be pointed out that potential occurrences are interpreted as being possible over a period of time, as a result of expansions and contractions of population densities and ranges that stimulate migrations.

The species assemblage is typical of what can be expected in extensive natural areas with sufficient habitat to sustain populations. Most of the species of the resident diversity (Table 7.3.2.1) are fairly common and widespread (viz. brown house snake, mole snake, common egg eater, rinkhals, eastern striped skink, common platanna, common river frog, Boettger’s caco, bubbling kassina, guttural toad and raucous toad). The relatively high species richness is due to the fair size of the study site and the three different habitat types occurring on the study site.


Table 7.3.2.1: Reptile and Amphibian diversity. The species observed or deduced to occupy the site. Systematic arrangement and nomenclature according to Branch (1998), Alexander and Marais (2007), Minter, et.al (2004) & Du Preez and Carruthers (2009).

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAMECLASS: REPTILIA REPTILESOrder: TESTUDINES TORTOISES & TERRAPINSFamily Testudinae Land tortoises

√ Stigmochelis pardalis Leopard tortoise√ Psammobates oculifer Serrated or Kalahari Tented Tortoise

Family: Pelomedusidae Side-necked Terrapins* Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh or Helmeted Terrapin

Order: SQUAMATA SCALE-BEARING REPTILES

Suborder:LACERTILIA LIZARDSFamily: Gekkonidae Geckos

* Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Thick-toed or Transvaal Gecko? Pachydactylus capensis Cape Thick-toed or Cape Gecko√ Pachydactylus vansoni Van Son’s Thick-toed Gecko

Family: Agamidae Agamas√ Agama aculeata Ground Agama? Agama atra Southern Rock Agama

Family: Scincidae Skinks√ Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink√ Trachylepis striata Eastern Striped Skink√ Trachylepis varia Variable Skink? Panaspis wahlbergii Wahlberg’s Snake-eyed Skink? Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Leggless Skink

Family:Lacertidae Old World Lizards or Lacertids√ Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard* Nucras lalandii Delalande’s Sandveld Lizard

Family: Gerrhosauridae Plated Lizards* Gerhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard

Family: Cordyidae? Chamaesaura aenea Coppery Grass Lizard* Cordylus vittifer Transvaal Girdled Lizard

Family: Varanidae Monitors* Varanus albigularis Rock Monitor√ Varanus niloticus Water Monitor

Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKESFamily: Typhlopidae Blind Snakes

? Typhlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind SnakeFamily: Leptotyphlopidae Thread Snakes

* Leptotyphlops conjunctus Cape Thread or Worm Snake* Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peter’s Thread or Worm Snake

Family: Atractaspididae African burrowing Snakes* Aparallactus capensis Cape or Black-headed Centipede Eater? Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin SnakeNT? Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake? Amblyodipsas concolor Natal Purple-glossed Snake


Family: Colubridae Typical Snakes√ Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Brown Water Snake√ Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake* Lamprophis inornatus Olive House Snake? Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House or Rock Snake? Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake? Lycophidion capense Cape or Common Wolf Snake? Duberria lutrix Common Slug Eater√ Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake? Amplorhinus mutimaculatus Many-spotted Snake√ Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Skaapsteker? Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass or Sand Snake√ Psammophis crucifer Crossed Whip Snake? Philothamnus natalensis Eastern Green Snake? Philothamnus hoplogaster Green Water Snake√ Dasypeltis scabra Common or Rhombic Egg Eater* Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald Snake

Family: Elapidae Cobras, Mambas and Others? Elapsoidea sunderwallii Sundevall’s Garter Snake√ Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals

Family: Viperidae Adders√ Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder√ Brits arietans Puff Adder

CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANSOrder: ANURA FROGSFamily: Pipidae Clawed Frogs

√ Xenopus laevis Common PlatannaFamily: Bufonidae Toads

√ Amietaophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad√ Amietaophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad

Family: Hyperoliidae Reed Frogs? Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog√ Kassina senegalesis Bubbling Kassina√ Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog

Family Breviceptidae Rain Frogs? Breviceps mossambicus Mozambique Rain Frog

Family Phrynobatrachidae Puddle Frog* Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog

Family Ptychadenidae Grass Frogs* Ptychadena porosissima Striped Grass Frog

Family: Pyxicephalidae√ Amietia angolensis Common River Frog* Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog√ Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog* Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog√ Cocosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco or Common Caco* Cocosternum nanum Bronze CacoNT? Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog* Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog√ Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog? Tomopterna tandy Tandy’s Sand Frog


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

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

Table 7.3.2.2: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site, observed indicators and habitat.SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION

INDICATORHABITAT

S. pardalis Leopard tortoise Sight record SavannaP. oculifer Serrated or Kalahari

Tented TortoiseSight record Savanna

P. lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard Sight record In short grassveldT. striata Eastern Striped

SkinkSight record Individuals on man-

made rupicolous habitat.

P. affinis Transvaal Gecko Sight record A few individuals underneath rocks in natural rupicolous habitat.

X. laevis Common Platanna Sight record of a juvenile

Aquatic habitat. A juvenile in a rainwater pool.

A. angolensis Common River Frog Sight record Edge of permanent water pools

S. fasciatusi Striped Stream Frog Vocalisation Permanent water bodies

All eight species in Table 7.3.2.2 should be abundant on the study site and elsewhere in their ranges.

7.3.3 Red Data Listed Herpetofauna identified

-By the Scientific CommunityThe striped harlequin snake has not been recorded in the quarter degree square grids overlying the site. The site furthermore does not contain moribund termitaria, where this species is most likely to be found. It is very difficult to confirm whether this cryptic snake is present on any study site, but a small possibility exists that the striped harlequin snake occurs on this particular study site. It is important to note that in the latest literature (Measey (ed.) 2011 and Carruthers & Du Preez, 2011); the


giant bullfrog’s status has changed officially from Near Threatened (Minter et al, 2004) to Least Concern in South Africa.

-By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004The Giant bullfrog is listed by Van Schalkwyk (2004) as a ‘Protected species’.

-By the Regulations of the Provincial AuthorityThe Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Schedule 1: Specially Protected Species lists the African bullfrog, which is deemed a probable inhabitant, as a Specially Protected species. Schedule 2: Protected Species lists all the other occupants of the PPC property (Table 7.3.2.1).

-Formally Prohibited Invasive and Prohibited SpeciesNo Invasive or Prohibited reptile or amphibian listed in the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004 or in the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act, 2009 (Act No. 9 of 2009) Schedule 6, were recorded.

8. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe 140 ha of the Prospecting Area is spatially insignificant within the magnitude of the district.Species richness: Because of the nature of opencast mining, the vertebrate species richness from the new mining area will be reduced to zero or near-zero. However, that will be no more than a localized and insignificant event for the populations of the species concerned, while some of the changes created (open water, rocky substrates) will, if colonised by mobile species, alter the biodiversity and possibly compensate for some of the losses. Endangered species : Remaining Red Data species restricted to the terrestrial and to the quasi-arboreal habitat will be displaced by the intended development. However, mobile Red Data species may use the newly altered habitats (rocky, lake-like) or the species attracted to them for their benefit.Sensitive areas: None are identified. The salt pans are seasonal and generally of no importance to terrestrial vertebrates, but may be of considerable intermittent importance to some mobile species, especially saline-tolerant water birds. Habitat(s) quality and extent: The terrestrial habitat is spatially the largest but concomitantly the most disturbed by over-grazing. However, this is not sufficient motivation for targeting the area as a non-development zone, pace rich lime deposits. Impact on species richness and conservation: It is contended that the proposed development will not significantly negatively impact on the species assemblages and conservation of the general area, even the creation of permanent water and outcrops altering the fauna, especially of mobile species, with mixed effects.


Connectivity: The game fence impairs connectivity for larger animals such as game, and can in some instances be lethal to smaller terrestrial species. However, the game fence will play a positive role by keeping larger animals away from potentially lethal mining operations. If stocking with game was not seen as an imperative, then a normal fence would eliminate negative electrocution and overgrazing effects, besides supporting an overall richer biodiversity.Management recommendation: See Section10: ‘Proposed Mitigation Measures’. The intention of the mining authorities to offset ecological loss by a new conservation area, complete with fencing and Ecological Management Plan, is laudable, especially if electrocution and overgrazing effects can be ameliorated. General: Nil.

8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Significance of impact Reversability of impact Irreversability of impact

Mitigation possibility

Measured on a local scale, the proposed mining will be devastating. However, on a regional scale the ecological impact of the mining will be limited.

The impact of opencast mining to the depth done at PPC (Lime) cannot be reversed due to the immense volume for lime excavated and removed, with insufficient topsoil for rehabilitation.

The loss of biota will not cause irreplaceable loss at a universal scale.

Nil to benefit exiting fauna. Amelioration using alternative habitats created is feasible to offset biodiversity loss.

9. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, GAPS IN INFORMATION AND INDEMNITY

The vertebrate team has sufficient experience and ample access to information sources to compile confidently lists of biota such as presented herein, and to support conclusions and suggested mitigation measures based on site visits. In instances where doubt exists, a species is assumed to be a possible occupant (viz. Suncus species, pythons and bull frogs) - this approach renders the conclusions robust. In instances where the possible occurrence has significant ecological implications, an intensive survey is recommended. In view of the latter, it is highly unlikely that an intensive survey to augment this site visit will add significantly to the data base, and the additional costs are unlikely to warrant the effort. However, a third investigation phase is recommended, namely a ‘walk-through’ of the finalized preferred site and finalized power-line routes.

10. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The possibility to offset environmental damage by investing and managing a

conservation area of viable size is encouraged.


Managing dust, if indeed attempted. It would be necessary to step up dust control, both for the health of employees and the environment.

Amelioration of biodiversity loss using alternative habitats created is feasible, e.g. creating rocky islands in a quarry lake(s) using overburden, and patches of marginal wetland vegetation using limited topsoil, and/or using lake water to augment and extend the 'life' of saltpans during their temporary immundation.

11. CONCLUSIONSLoss of biota in the new mining area (Prospecting Area) will be total and irreversible. Environmental rehabilitation will be impossible. Although a few Red Data plant and vertebrate species are recorded from the Prospecting Area in particular and the entire PPC property in general, their loss within the context of the district is statistically insignificant. Loss of species cannot be blindly condoned, especially for something as unappealing as an opencast mine. However, the new mine will not result in universal species loss or unacceptable damage to ecosystems.

Consideration of an alternative biodiversity conservation site and/or amelioration using the mined 'habitats' should be explored.

No sound scientific objection can be submitted, especially if the national economic benefit is factored in.

12. LITERATURE SOURCESApps, P. 2012. Smithers Mammals of Southern Africa. A Field Guide. Struik Nature, Cape

Town. Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa. 57: 1–146.

Alexander, G. & Marais J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town 408pp.

Barnes, K.N. (ed.). 1998. The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa.

Barnes, K.N. (ed.). 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Birdlife South Africa. 2014. Checklist of birds in South Africa 2014. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Branch, W.R. 1998. Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa. 3rd edition. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 399 pp., maps, 112 plates.

Branch, W.R. 2002. ‘The Conservation Status of South Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89 – 103. In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), The State of Southern Africa’s Species, Proceedings of a conference held at the Rosebank Hotel, 4 – 7 September 2001. World Wildlife Fund.


Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Mathee, C.A. & Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates 28:56-103.

Carruthers V. & Du Preez L. 2011. Frogs & Frogging in South Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. 108p.

Coombes, P. 2004. Anglo American – Best Practice Environmental Guideline Series. 01: Guidelines for preparing Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP). Internal Report.

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDACE. 2008. GDACE Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng Provincial Government.

De Moor I.J. & Bruton M.N. 1988. Atlas of Alien and Translocated Indigenous Aquatic Animals in Southern Africa. S.A.National Scientific Programmes, Report No. 144, 310pp.

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDACE. 2008 and revised on February 2009. GDACE Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng Provincial Government Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Du Preez L. & Carruthers V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 488 pp.

Du Preez L.H. & Cook C.L. 2004. Giant Bullfrog Pp 300-303 in Minter, L.R., M. Burger, J.A. Harrison, H.H. Braack, P.J. Bishop, and D. Kloepfer, eds. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Friedman, Y. and Daly, B. (editors). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Asessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa.

Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment (2009). GDACE Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. Directorate Nature Conservation, Johannesburg.

Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. & Brown, C.J. (eds.). 1997. The Atlas of Southern African Birds. Vol. 1 & 2. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

Hockey, P. A. R., Dean, W. R. J. & Ryan, P. G. (eds) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.

Kemp, A. C. 1995. Aspects of the breeding biology and behaviour of the Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius near Pretoria, South Africa. Ostrich 66: 61-68.

Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. 1996. Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Low, A.E. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds). 1998. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. A companion to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.


Marais, E. & Peacock, F. 2008. The Chamberlain Guide to Birding Gauteng. Mirafra Publishing, Centurion.

Measey, G.J. (ed.) 2011. Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs: a strategy for conservation research. SANBI Biodiversity Series 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 84pp

Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. & Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of Southern African Mammals. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, RSA.

Mills, G. & Hes, L. 1997. The complete book of Southern African Mammals. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, RSA.

Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. eds. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Molewa, Hon. Minister B.E.E. 2014. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004); Alien and Invasive Species Lists. Government Gazette 590.

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

Percy, W., & Pitman C.R.S., 1963 Further notes on the African Finfoot, Podica senegalensis (Viellot). Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club 83:127-132.

Picker M. & Griffiths C. 2011. Alien & Invasive Animals. A South African Perspective. Struik Nature, Cape Town. P240.

Rautenbach, I.L. 1978. A numerical re-appraisal of the southern African biotic zones. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 6:175-187.

Rautenbach, I.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal. Ecoplan Monograph No. 1. Pretoria, RSA.

SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.

Sinclair, I., Hockey, P., Tarboton W & Ryan P. 2011. Sasol Birds of Southern Africa. 4th edition, Struik, Cape Town.

Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, T.C. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 2nd edition. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Smithers,R.H.N. 1983. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Tarboton, W.R., Kemp, M. I. & Kemp, A. C. 1987. Birds of the Transvaal. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.


Tarboton, W., 2001. A Guide to the Nests and Eggs of Southern African Birds. Struik, Cape Town.

Taylor, M (ed.) 2014. The Eskom Red Data book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. In press.

Taylor, P.J. 1998. The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of Southern Africa. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg.

Van Schalkwyk, Hon. Minister M. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004); Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices.

Van Wyk, J.C.P., Kok, D.J. & Du Preez L.H. 1992. Growth and behaviour of tadpoles and juveniles of the African Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus Tschudi 1838. J Herp. Assoc. Afr. 40:56.


13. CURRICULA VITAE

RÉSUMÉRAUTENBACH, IGNATIUS LOURENSPh.D., Prof. Nat. Sci., Independent Environmental Consultant –

MAMMALOGY.

Identity Number 421201 5012 00 5

Gender Male

Date of Birth 1 December 1942

Nationality South African

Home Languages Bilingual (English & Afrikaans)

Postal Address 45 Helgaard Street, Kilner Park, Pretoria, RSA 0186. Tel no +27 12 3334112, Cell +27 082 3351288. E-mail [email protected]

Former Position Retired Director: Planning, Northern Flagship Institute

Present Position Consultant – Specialist, Environmental Impact Assessments (Applied research), Photographing microstock for four agencies

Qualifications B.Sc. (UP), T.H.E.D (Pta TTC), M.Sc. (UP), Ph.D. (Un. Natal)

Professional Honours 1. Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural Scientific Professions, Registration # 400300/05

2. Fellow of the Photographic Society of South Africa

3. Master photographer at club level

4. Honorary life member of the S.A. Wildlife Management Association.

Notable Research Contribution In-depth survey of the Mammals of the Transvaal. 1982. 211pp. Ecoplan Monograph 1.

Notable Literary Contribution Rautenbach, Naas & Annalene Rautenbach. 2008. Photography for Focused Beginners. 302pp with 250 images. Green Door Studio, Pretoria.

Formal Courses Attended Computer Literacy, Project Management, Contract Design, Senior Management

Employment history


May 2001 - Present Self-employed, collaborator with Eco-Agent CC Ecological Consultants as well as Galago Environmental [environmental impact assessments], technical writing, and photography

April 1999 - August 2001 Director: Planning, Northern Flagship Institution

Jan 1991 - April 1999 Executive Director, Transvaal Museum

July 1967 - Dec 1990 Curator (in charge) of the Division of Mammalogy, Transvaal Museum. Promoted to Principal Scientist rank as of June 1985

March - June 1967 Research student at the Mammal Research Institute of the Zoology Department, University of Pretoria

July 1966, Nov l966 - Feb 1967 Member of the Smithsonian Institution's field teams collectively partaking in the 'African Mammal Project'

1966: Part-time research assistant to Prof. J. Meester, University of Pretoria

1962 - 1965 Temporary assistant during University holidays in the Nematology laboratories, Agricultural Technical Services

1991 - 2002 Founder member and non-executive director of the Board of Trustees of

1993 - 2001 Founder member and Trustee of the privatised Museums Pension Fund

1997 - 2001 Non-executive director of the Tswaing Section 21 Company

Professional Achievements

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

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

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

Public Recognition:

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

Hobbies


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

Personal Evaluation

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


KEMP, ALAN CHARLES

Abridged Curriculum Vitae:

Born: 7 May 1944 in Gweru, ZimbabweCitizenship: South African, BritishMarital status: Married, 1 daughter, 1 son

Present work addressNaturalists & Nomads, 8 Boekenhout Street, Navors, Pretoria, 0184, South Africa.Tel: (27)(12)804-7637 Fax: (27)(12)804-7637E-Mail: [email protected] Suite #38, Private Bag X19, Menlo Park, 0102, South Africa.

Qualifications:1965 B.Sc. Rhodes University, Zoology and Entomology as majors.1966 B.Sc. Hons. Rhodes University, Zoology.1973 Ph.D. Rhodes University, Zoology of Pretoria.Thesis: (Ph.D.) on ecology, behaviour and systematics of hornbills in Kruger National

Park.

Professional titles: Pr.Sci.Nat. South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (Zoological &

Ecological Sciences). Registration Number 400059/09

Professional career:Field Research Assistant to Prof. Tom J. Cade, Section of Ecology and Systematics,

Cornell University, in Kruger National Park, South Africa, Nov 1966 - Apr 1969.Department of Birds, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, June 1969 – August 1999, Head of

Department from 1971, rising to Senior Scientist and then Head Curator by 1974.

Elected Manager, Transvaal Museum, September 1999 – July 2001, until voluntary early retirement.

Edward Grey Institute of Ornithology, Oxford, December 2001 – April 2002, drafting specialist bird texts for Gale Publishing, USA and Andromeda Press, Oxford, UK.

Berg ‘n Dal & Pretoria, April 2002 - February 2003, presenting paper and later editorial assistant for book from the Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, The Kruger Experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity.

Bangkok, March – June 2003, drafting research papers for colleague at Mahidol University; touring Laos.


Pretoria, August-December 2003, editorial assistant for book from the Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, a revision of The Mammals of Southern Africa.

Hala-Bala Wildlife Reserve, January – December 2004, a one-year rainforest study of hornbills, raptors and owls in southern Thailand for their National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC).

Pretoria, January 2005 – July 2007, organizing 4th International Hornbill Conference at Mabula Game Lodge and editing and publishing CD-ROM proceedings, and consulting on ground hornbills to Mabula, University of Cape Town and Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Bangkok, India, Singapore, Sarawak, September 2006 – April 2008. Assisted colleagues at Mahidol University, Bankok, with compilation of research paper on molecular systematics of hornbills, and travelled to see other Asian habitats and meet with other colleagues.

Bangkok, December 2011 – April 2012. Assisted colleagues at Mahidol University, Bangkok, with compilation of research papers and co-editing/writing three hornbill books together with colleagues in Singapore.

Academic career:• Students:

- Completed post graduate students: M.Sc. 14; Ph.D. 5.• Author of:

- 53 scientific papers or notes in refereed journals- 48 papers at national and international congresses- 6 scientific (unpublished) reports on environment and natural resources - 74 popular scientific papers.- 18 contributions in/as books

• Editorial Roles- Ostrich, African Journal of Ornithology (editor 1973-75).- Bird Conservation (International (editorial committee 1995-present)

• FRD evaluation category: C2 (Avian Biology and Systematics)● Associate positions:

- University of the Witwatersrand, Honourary lecturer, Department of Zoology (1988-2001)

-Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, research associate (2001 – 2010).

- Transvaal Museum, Honourary curator (2004-present)- Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, wildlife conservation associate

(1996-present).

Membership:American Ornithologist's Union, Corresponding Fellow (1986- present)


Birdlife South Africa (previously South African Ornithological Society), Ordinary Member (1969-present), President (1975-1993) of Northern Transvaal (Pretoria) Branch, Honourary Life Member of Pretoria Bird Club (2000 – present).

Special committees:International Ornithological Committee of 100, elected member (1989-present).Raptor Research Foundation, Grants assessor, Leslie Brown Memorial Fund (1985-

present).

Merit awards and research grants:1969-86. Annual research grants from South African Council for Scientific and

Industrial Research (CSIR).1974. Chapman Fund Award, American Museum of Natural History, for field research

in Borneo and India.1986-98. Annual research award from South African Foundation for Research

Development (FRD) as "C"-graded national scientist.1989-95. Team member of FRD Special Programme in Conservation Biology.1989-95. Team member of FRD Special Programme in Molecular Systematics.1991-95. Various private sector sponsorships.1992, 1994. FRD merit award to museum scientists.2000. Special NRF Science Liaison award to attend 10th Pan-African Ornithological

Congress, Kampala, Uganda.2001. Special NRF Science Liaison award to attend 3rd International Hornbill

Workshop, Phuket, Thailand.2004. One year’s support from Thailand’s National Center for Genetic Engineering

and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) for rainforest survey research.2007-2008. Six month’s funding to enable specialist assistance at Department of

Microbiology, Mahidol University, Thailand.

Consultant: Sept-Oct 1994 – Kruger National Park, specialist consultant on ground hornbills to BBC

Natural History Unit for filming of Wildife on One programme, 6 weeks.Oct-Nov 1996. Kruger National Park, specialist consultant on various birds to David

Attenborough for BBC series Life of Birds, 3 weeks.Sep-Oct 1998. Kruger National Park, specialist hornbill consultant to National

Geographic magazine team, 4 weeks.October 2001 – Mala Mala, specialist consulting on ground hornbills for National

Geographic film unit, 1 week.2004-present - >15 specialist birding and nature tours as a National South African

Tourist Guide, registration number GP0770.


2005-present – >65 Biodiversity assessments for a Ramsar wetland proposal, Important Bird Area proposal, and general scoping, G20 and specialist avifaunal EIAs.


VAN WYK, JACOBUS CASPARUS PETRUS (JACO)

ABRIDGED CURRICULUM VITAE

Identity number 680804 5041 08 4Gender MaleDate of birth 4 August 1968Nationality South AfricanHome languages Afrikaans, fluent in EnglishPostal address P.O. Box 25085, Monument Park, Pretoria, 0105.

Tel no +27 12 347 6502, Cell +27 82 410 8871E-mail [email protected]

Present position Co-Department Head, Environmental Education & Life Sciences, Hoërskool Waterkloof

Consultant Specialist Environmental Assessments, EIAs, writing, photo-recordingQualifications B.Sc. (U.F.S.) B.Sc. (Hon.) (U.F.S.), H.E.D (U.F.S.), M.Sc. (U.F.S.)Honours Foundation of Research Development bursary holder

Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural Scientific Professions, Registration # 400062/09

Notable Research Contribution In-depth field study of the giant bullfrog

Formal Courses Attended Outcomes Based Education, University of the South Africa (2002)Introductory Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand (2008)OBE, GET & FET training, 2002-2008, Education Department

Employment history2000 – Present Co-Department Head for Environmental Education & Life Sciences, Hoërskool Waterkloof, Pretoria. 1995 - 1999 Teaching Biology (Grades 8 – 12) and Physics / Chemistry (Grades 8 – 9) at the Wilgerivier High School, Free State. Duties included teaching, mid-level management and administration.July 1994 – Dec 1994 Teaching Botany practical tutorials to 1st year students at the Botany & Zoology Department of the Qwa-Qwa campus of the University of Free State, plant collecting, amphibian research 1993 - 1994 Mammal Research Institute (University of Pretoria) research associate on the Prince Edward Islands: topics field biology and population dynamics of invasive alien rodents, three indigenous seals, invertebrate assemblages, censussing king penguin chicks and lesser sheathbills, and marine pollution 1991 - 1993 Laboratory demonstrator for Zoological and Entomological practical tutorials, and caring for live research material, University of the Free State1986 - 1990 Wildlife management and eco-guiding, Mt. Everest Game Farm, HarrismithProfessional Achievement Research: Author and co-author of 52 scientific publications in

peer-reviewed and popular subject journals, and >150 contractual EIA research reports. Extensive field work and laboratory experience in AfricaPublic Recognition: Public speaking inter alia radio talks, TV appearances

Hobbies: Popular writing, travel, marathon running, climbing (viz Kilimanjaro), photography, biological observations, public speaking.


executive · web viewthe reason is that vertebrate distributions are not very dependent on the...

Documents