Table of Contents - SRK Consulting

AcknowledgmentsIn addition to the Environmental Assessment Practioners, the following are gratefullyacknowledged for information contained in this report and assistance duringfieldwork:Denis Tweddle, South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity, GrahamstownBertie Botha, Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd, SecundaIan Jones, Earth Science Solutions, MpumalangaMarica Erasmus, Resource Quality Studies, RoodeplaatGert Venter, Onderstepoort Veterinary InstitutePeter and Suzette from Mapipi Lodgeiii

The Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba Woodland is prominent and widespread onthe Farms Tambootievley, Kameelbult, Kleinberg, Hans and Japie. Both Combretumimberbe (Leadwood) and Acacia erioloba (Camel Thorn) are protected trees. Due tothe presence of these protected tree species, this area is considered to have a HighSensitivity.Sclerocarya birrea Woodland patches are restricted to a small area in the southwesterncorner of the Farm Vlakfontein and on the Farm Kameelbult, while patchesof the Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps occur on the Farms Ringbult, Kameelbultand Gannavlakte. The Sclerocarya birrea Woodland and the Spirostachys africanaBush Clumps are important plant communities, with the protected trees Sclerocaryabirrea (Marula) and Spirostachys africana (Tamboti) being the dominant treesrespectively. These plant communities therefore have a High Sensitivity.The faunal desktop review conducted by NSS for this study revealed that 38mammals of conservation importance could potentially occur within the LWM Studyarea (including the Limpopo River) of which 8 have been confirmed to occur and anadditional 20 species are highly likely to occur within the study area.The conservation important birds are listed according to Barnes (2000), SABAP 2(ADU, 2010), NEMBA (2007) and LEDET (2003a). The migrant birds have beenincluded to ensure that the equator principles are adhered to in terms of cross borderimpacts, even though they may not have a conservation status. The desktop reviewreveals that:20 of all potentially occurring birds for the LWM Study area have aconservation status;7 of the confirmed species within the LWM Study area have a conservationstatus;5 confirmed species are threatened species, classified as Vulnerable (VU)according to Barnes (2000);The NEMBA Threatened and Protected Species lists (2007), list Seven protectedinvertebrate species that have the potential to occur within the study area. Three ofthe seven have been confirmed for LWM study area. Although all frogs are goodenvironmental indicators, there are 3 conservation important amphibian species thathave the potential to occur within the LWM study area (including the Limpopo River).Areas of faunal conservation priority and sensitivity are largely based on habitatcondition and suitability. Suitability will mean different things for different animals andwill relate strongly to the soil type, vegetation type and water and food availability. Interms of the current LWM study area, the following habitats were designated withvarying levels of sensitivity:Wetlands: Very High sensitivityTall Canopy Woodlands: High sensitivitySoft Namib Sands: High to Medium sensitivityv

Remaining Natural Vegetation: Medium-Low sensitivityDisturbed Areas: Low sensitivity.All wetlands are considered to be sensitive in South Africa (National Water Act, 1998(Act 36 of 1998) particularly in arid areas such as the Limpopo Province. All wetlandsand associated plant communities discussed in this report have thus been classifiedwith having at least a High Sensitivity. This includes the 50 meter buffer associatedwith the catchment of each wetland, with the exception of National FreshwaterEcosystem Priority Areas (the 1km buffer on the edge of the riparian fringe for theLimpopo River and one of the pans on the southern boundary of the FarmGannavlakte 299 LQ).Wetlands are the most sensitive sites within the arid landscape, although a limiteddiversity of long-lived plant species within the wetlands limits their ecologicalsensitivity. Some wetlands within LWM Study area have a higher sensitivity thanothers, with the Limpopo River and associated floodplain being of particularimportance, considered to have a Very High Sensitivity.The largest aquatic ecosystem within the proposed Mine is Groenfontein Pan (6 ha),on the Farm Matopi, which is unlikely to hold water for longer than a few weeks.Aquatic biodiversity within the proposed Mine is Low. The closest significant aquaticecosystem to the proposed mine area is the Limpopo River, located 7 km north of theproposed mine lease boundary at its nearest point.Using all information provided by the biodiversity specialist team, a final Areas ofSensitivity map was compiled. The Limpopo River and its associated floodplain wasidentified as Critically Sensitive and is considered “No-Go” and worthy of protection.The impacts classified as having a VERY HIGH or HIGH significance have beensummarized below:Aspect Impact SignificancePre-MitigationRemoval of natural Loss of vegetation types with a Very Highvegetation and High sensitivitytopsoilLoss of vegetation types with a High HighsensitivityThe destruction of available natural Highhabitat for faunal species, includingfossorial species, and the resultant lossof species that will not disperseLoss or disturbanceof wetland habitatCreation of artificialhabitats (e.g.pitlakes)SignificancePost-MitigationHighHighHighLoss or disturbance of an irreplaceableresourceVery High Very HighLoss or injury to fauna High Moderate-Highvi

HabitatfragmentationDisruption in faunal speciesnatural/dispersal/distribution patternsVery High(Phase 3)Very High(Phase 3)The general management measures recommended for LWM study area are listedbelow:The establishment of biodiversity offsets, both within the greater Lephalelearea (in consultation with government authorities, adjacent mines, NGO’s etc)and within the LWM Study area itself. This management measure is ofparticular importance for the Mine study area where there are no mitigationmeasures for a number of the impacts. Biodiversity offsets can be used tocompensate for the residual impact to biodiversity that cannot be mitigatedonsite and therefore balance the impact of the project;Establishment of a Biodiversity Action Plan;Implementation of an Alien and Invasives Control Programme;Implementation of a Rehabilitation/Landscaping Plan; Establishment of a nursery prior to Phase 3; Implementing a Training and Awareness Programme for contractors, staff andthe surrounding communities (including the school going children withinsurrounding towns).In terms of monitoring the following is proposed:Water Monitoring Programme, including:Persistent Organic Pollutants (water, sediments and fish)Sediment metal concentrationsBioaccumulation of heavy metals (selected species only)Benthic diatom species composition and abundanceComposition and abundance of alien macrophytesAbundance of freshwater shrimpMalaria Monitoring ProgrammeAlien and Invasives Monitoring ProgrammeThe main mitigation measures specific to each of the proposed LWM study area aresummarised below, more detail on these measures is given in the report togetherwith numerous other mitigation measures: Ensure that all measures are taken to prevent Acid Mine Drainage fromreaching the Limpopo River, i.e ensure that pit lakes continue to act as sinksduring the operation and post-closure phases and never become through flowsystems; Fence off the open pit areas, residue deposits, surface water storage facilities(during all mine phases and especially during post-closure); Continuous rehabilitation during mining of the open pits and the dumping ofthe residue deposits; Ensure that there is no discharge of dirty water to the receiving environment;andStay within designated footprints areas.vii

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... IIIEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. IVTABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... VIIILIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... IXLIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... XILIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... XIII1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................12. TERMS OF REFERENCE ..............................................................................................22.1. General ....................................................................................................................... 22.2. Floral Assessment ...................................................................................................... 32.3. Faunal Assessment .................................................................................................... 42.4. Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................. 42.5. Aquatic Assessment ................................................................................................... 53. PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................................64. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................84.1. International Level ...................................................................................................... 84.2. Regional Level ............................................................................................................ 84.3. National Level ............................................................................................................. 84.4. Provincial and Municipal Level ................................................................................... 94.5. International and National Policy and Guidelines ..................................................... 114.6. Mining Specific Guidelines ....................................................................................... 154.7. Wetland Protection and Sensitivity ........................................................................... 165. STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 215.1. Site Location and Description ................................................................................... 215.2. Biophysical Environment .......................................................................................... 245.3. Conservation Status ................................................................................................. 346. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 426.1. Floral Assessment .................................................................................................... 426.2. Faunal Assessment .................................................................................................. 446.3. Wetland Assessment ................................................................................................ 506.4. Aquatic Assessment ................................................................................................. 576.5. Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 667. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 697.1. Floral Assessment .................................................................................................... 697.2. Faunal Assessment .................................................................................................. 877.3. Wetland Assessment .............................................................................................. 1027.4. Aquatic Assessment ............................................................................................... 1198. AREAS OF SENSITIVTY ........................................................................................... 1368.1. Areas of Floral Sensitivity ....................................................................................... 1378.2. Areas of Faunal Sensitivity ..................................................................................... 1378.3. Areas of Wetland Sensitivity ................................................................................... 1398.4. Areas of Aquatic Priority and Sensitivity ................................................................. 1418.5. Overall Sensitivity ................................................................................................... 1419. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 1439.1. Impacts ................................................................................................................... 14310. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................................... 15210.1. Biodiversity Offsets or Migration Corridors ............................................................. 15210.2. Monitoring and Reporting ....................................................................................... 15711. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 16412. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 17612.1. Floral Appendices ................................................................................................... 17612.2. Faunal Appendices ................................................................................................. 18312.3. Aquatic Appendices ................................................................................................ 197viii

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentList of FiguresFigure 5-1 Regional locality indicating the Limpopo West Mine Study area ......... 22Figure 5-2 Farms making up the Limpopo West Mine Study area ....................... 23Figure 5-3 Climate diagram for Lephalale, located 31 km east of the Limpopo WestMine study area ................................................................................. 24Figure 5-4 Soils in the Limpopo West Mine Study area ....................................... 27Figure 5-5 Flow volumes within the Limpopo River (2008-2011) at Gauge A5H006........................................................................................................... 28Figure 5-6 Quaternary catchments and associated river systems within the GreaterLimpopo West Mine Study area ......................................................... 30Figure 5-7 Eco- regions within the Greater Limpopo West Mine Study area ........ 31Figure 5-8 Examples of landscapes from the Study area .................................... 32Figure 5-9 Regional vegetation types within the Greater Limpopo West Mine Studyarea.................................................................................................... 33Figure 5-10 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Terrestrial EcosystemStatus (Driver et al., 2005) .............................................................. 37Figure 5-11 Significant protected areas in the greater vicinity of the Limpopo WestMine Study area ............................................................................. 40Figure 5-12 Wetland NFEPAs in the greater vicinity of the Limpopo West Studyarea ................................................................................................ 41Figure 6-1 Schematic layout of an array trap, including pitfall traps, plastic driftfences and plastic mesh funnel traps. ................................................ 46Figure 6-2 Examples of drift fence arrays at the faunal trap sites MN1 and 3. ..... 47Figure 6-3 Components of a faunal trapping site ................................................. 47Figure 6-4 Locations of faunal trap sites in the Limpopo West Mine study area .. 48Figure 6-5 Examples of some heat-sensitive camera trap placements in the studyarea.................................................................................................... 49Figure 6-6 Locations of wetland sites sampled within farms of the Limpopo WestMine Study area ................................................................................. 56Figure 6-7 Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State Categories ofaquatic invertebrates, based on SASS5 biomonitoring results. Thedelineation was based on a scatter plot of SASS scores against theAverage Score per Taxon (ASPT) from the Limpopo Plains Ecoregion(Dallas 2007). ..................................................................................... 61Figure 6-8 Location of the aquatic sampling points .............................................. 65Figure 7-1 A vegetation map for the Limpopo West Mine Study area .................. 71Figure 7-2 A wetland in the Mine Area ................................................................ 73Figure 7-3 Mixed Acacia Bush in the Mine Area .................................................. 75Figure 7-4 The Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland ............................ 76Figure 7-5 The Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericea Woodland ................ 77Figure 7-6 Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps ................................................... 79Figure 7-7 The Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba Woodland ......................... 81Figure 7-8 Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora Bushveld ............................................... 82Figure 7-9 Examples of Protected Tree species found on site ............................. 83ix

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-10 Examples of naturally occurring mammals identified in the LWMStudy area ...................................................................................... 89Figure 7-11 Examples of birds identified in the LWM ......................................... 90Figure 7-12 Percentage of birds observed per category for SABAP1 and 2records and during the three NSS field investigations. .................... 91Figure 7-13 Examples of reptiles identified in the Limpopo West Mine Study area....................................................................................................... 93Figure 7-14 Examples of frogs identified in the LWM Study area ....................... 94Figure 7-15 Examples of invertebrates identified in the Study area .................... 96Figure 7-16 IUCN Red Data List Categories (Friedmann and Daly, 2004) ......... 96Figure 7-17 Examples of wetland vegetation indicators - Limpopo West Studyarea ...............................................................................................103Figure 7-18 Location of the aquatic sampling points along the Limpopo River ..120Figure 7-19 Naturalised monthly flows in the Limpopo River at A41E, simulatedbetween 1920 and 2004 (Data extracted from Middleton and Bailey 2009). ...........121Figure 7-20 Daily average flows in the Limpopo River at Sterkloop (A5H006),between October 2008 and February 2011. Arrows indicate sampling times for thisstudy. .............................................................................................122Figure 7-21 Aquatic systems identified and assessed for the Limpopo West MineStudy area .....................................................................................132Figure 8-1 Areas of floral sensitivity within the Mine Study area .........................138Figure 8-2 Areas of faunal sensitivity within the Mine Study area .......................140Figure 8-3 Overall areas of sensitivity within the Limpopo West Study area .......142Figure 9-1 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Terrestrial Ecosystem Status(Driver et al., 2005) ...........................................................................147Figure 10-1 The Mitigation Hierarchy (http://bbop.forest-trends.org).................152x

List of TablesLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 3-1 Project team ......................................................................................... 6Table 4-1 List of activities (and applicable legislation) that may requireauthorization ...................................................................................... 17Table 5-1 Farms within the Limpopo West Mine Study area............................... 21Table 5-2 Eco-Region 1 – Limpopo Plain ........................................................... 29Table 5-3 Plant species characteristic of the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld ............. 34Table 6-1 Plant species richness categories ...................................................... 43Table 6-2 Motion Camera Localities ................................................................... 49Table 6-3 Characteristic wetland hydro-geomorphic types supporting inlandwetlands in South Africa ..................................................................... 51Table 6-4 Generic ecological categories for eco-status components .................. 53Table 6-5 Ecosystem services included in, and assessed by, the WET-EcoServices model (Kotze et al. 2008) ............................................... 54Table 6-6 Details of aquatic sampling sites within the Limpopo West Mine Studyarea.................................................................................................... 57Table 6-7 Classification of instream and riparian Habitat Quality, based on a rapidvisual assessment protocol developed by the USA EnvironmentalProtection Agency (Barbour et al. 1999) ............................................. 59Table 6-8 Classification of instream and riparian Habitat Integrity, based on thetotal observed Habitat Quality rating, expressed as a percentage of theexpected (natural) rating. ................................................................... 60Table 6-9 Classification of Present Ecological State of benthic diatoms, based onthe Specific Pollution Index (SPI) (Prygiel and Coste 2000). .............. 60Table 6-10 Classification of Present Ecological State of fish, based on the totalobserved intolerance ratings expressed as a percentage of the totalexpected intolerance ratings (Kleynhans 2003). ................................. 63Table 6-11 Descriptors used in ascribing impact significance............................... 66Table 6-12 Significance Assessment Matrix ......................................................... 67Table 6-13 Mitigation Ratings............................................................................... 67Table 7-1 Plant communities within the proposed Limpopo West Mine study area69Table 7-2 Summary description of Plant Community 1 ....................................... 72Table 7-3 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 1 ........................................ 72Table 7-4 Summary description of Plant Community 2 ....................................... 73Table 7-5 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 2 ........................................ 74Table 7-6 Summary description of Plant Community 3 ....................................... 74Table 7-7 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 3 ........................................ 74Table 7-8 Summary description of Plant Community 4 ....................................... 75Table 7-9 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 4 ........................................ 76Table 7-10 Summary description of Plant Community 5 ....................................... 77Table 7-11 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 5 ........................................ 77Table 7-12 Summary information for Plant Community 7 ..................................... 78Table 7-13 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 7 ....................................... 78Table 7-14 Summary information for Plant Community 8 ..................................... 79Table 7-15 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 8 ....................................... 79xi

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 7-16 Summary Information for Plant Community 9 ..................................... 80Table 7-17 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 9 ....................................... 80Table 7-18 Summary information for Plant Community 10 ................................... 81Table 7-19 Vegetation Structure for Plant community 10 ..................................... 81Table 7-20 Protected plant species identified on site ............................................... 83Table 7-21 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 1: Wetland .. 85Table 7-22 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 2: Acacianigrescens Bush clumps .................................................................... 85Table 7-23 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 3: MixedAcacia Bush ................................................................................... 86Table 7-24 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 4: Terminaliasericea – Burkea africana Woodland .................................................. 86Table 7-25 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 5:Combretum apiculatum – Terminalia sericea Woodland ................. 86Table 7-26 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 7: Sclerocaryabirrea Woodland ................................................................................. 86Table 7-27 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 8:Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps ............................................... 86Table 7-28 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 9:Combretum imberbe – Acacia erioloba Woodland .......................... 87Table 7-29 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 10: Boscia –Grewia – Commiphora Bushveld ........................................................ 87Table 7-30 Numbers of faunal species identified .................................................. 87Table 7-31 Numbers of faunal species identified during current and previousstudies ............................................................................................... 88Table 7-32 Newman’s (2002) modified bird categories ..................................... 90Table 7-33 Reptile diversity in the study area ................................................... 92Table 7-34 Frog diversity in the study area .............................................................. 94Table 7-35 Potentially occurring mammal species of conservation importance .... 98Table 7-36 Potentially occurring bird species of conservation importance ...........100Table 7-37 Conservation important herpetofauna potentially occurring in the LWMStudy area.........................................................................................101Table 7-38 Potentially occurring invertebrate species of conservation importance102Table 7-39 Summary of results of the wetlands in the Mine area ........................104Table 7-40 Specific Pollution sensitivity Index (SPI) score classification ofdiatoms recorded at three sites in the Limpopo River in November2010 and March 2011. ...................................................................124Table 7-41 Generic diatom based ecological classification of diatoms recorded atthree sites in the Limpopo River in November 2010 and March 2011(according to van Dam et al. 1994). ..................................................124Table 7-42 Dominant diatom species recorded at three sites in the LimpopoRiver in November 2010 and March 2011, expressed as apercentage of the total sample. ......................................................125Table 9-1 Biodiversity Impacts associated with the Mine ...................................149Table 9-2 Cumulative biodiversity impacts ........................................................151Table 10-1 Biodiversity impacts associated with the Mine post-mitigation ...........159xii

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentLIST OF ACRONYMSACRONYM DESCRIPTIONAGIS Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information SystemAMD Acid Mine DrainageASPT Average Score Per TaxonBAP Biodiversity Action PlanCARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No 43 of 1983)CE Critically EndangeredCIS Conservation Important SpeciesCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFloraCP Conservation PriorityC-Plan Conservation PlanCR Critically RareCSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial ResearchDDecliningDAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesDD Data DeficientDEA Department of Environmental AffairsDEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and TourismDMR Department of Mineral ResourcesDWA Department of Water AffairsDWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (old name, now referred to as DWA)EAP Environmental Assessment PractionerECA Environmental Conservation ActEHS Environmental Health and SafetyEMP Environmental Management PlanEN EndangeredEP Equator PrinciplesEPFI Equator Principles Financial InstitutionsESS Earth Science SolutionsFAII Fish Assemblage Integrity IndexFEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority AreaGDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentHGM HydrogeomorphicIAImpact AssessmentICMM International Council on Mining and MetalsIFC International Finance CorporationIUCN International Union for Conservation NetworksLEDET Limpopo Department of Education, Development, Environment & TourismLoO Likelihood of OccurrenceLWM Limpopo West Minem.a.m.s.l Metres above mean sea levelMAP Mean Annual PrecipitationMCWAP Mokolo and Crocodile Water Augmentation ProjectMTPA Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks AgencyNAEMP National Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring ProgrammeNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNDA National Department of AgricultureNEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areasxiii

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentACRONYMNPNRFNSBANSSNTNWAPESPrSciNatPWAQDGSQDSRSABAPSABCASAIABSAMBFSANBIDESCRIPTIONNationally ProtectedNational Research FoundationNational Spatial Biodiversity AssessmentNatural Scientific Services ccNear ThreatenedNational Water ActPresent Ecological StateNational registration as a professional scientist in the field of natural sciencesProtected Wild AnimalsQuarter Degree Grid SquaresQuarter Degree SquareRareSouth African Bird Atlas ProjectSouth African Butterfly Conservation AtlasSouth African Institute for Aquatic BiodiversitySouth African Mining and Biodiversity ForumSouth African National Biodiversity InstituteSANParks South African National ParksSASS5 South African Scoring System Version 5SDFSPISPWATOPSToRUPVEGRAISpatial Development FrameworkSpecific Pollution IndexSpecially Protected Wild AnimalsThreatened or Protected SpeciesTerms of ReferenceUniversity of PretoriaVegetation Response Assessment IndexVU VulnerableWGS 84 World Geodetic System 1984WITS University of the WitwatersrandWRCWWFWater Research CommissionWorld Wildlife Fundxiv

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment1. INTRODUCTIONThe Sasol Limpopo West Mine (LWM) is a proposed opencast coal mine situatedwithin the Waterberg Coalfields, approximately 31 km north-west of the town ofLephalele. The mine is proposed to be operated in 3 phases, from 2015-2117inclusive. The first phase of the project (2015-2018/9) will be a small scale operation(0.4Mtpa) and will take place on the Farms Welgelegen 228 LQ and Groenfontein250 LQ. The development of Phase 2 and 3 of the project, which is still in the prefeasibilitystage, will be dependant on the availability of a bulk water supply to thearea and the upgrade of rail infrastructure. Phase 2 and 3 of the project will be muchlarger operations, 16.4Mtpa to a 90Mtpa mine respectively. Phase 2 of the operationwill take place on the Farms Groenfontein 250 LQ and Tambootivlei 281 LQ, withPhase 3 occurring on all Farms: Welgelen 228 LQ, Groenfontein 250 LQ,Tambootivlei 281 LQ Grootwater 218 LQ, Geelbeken 226 LQ Tambootivlei,Vlakfontein 264 LQ, Duikerfontein 263 LQ, Gannakvlakte 299 LQ and Ringbult 303LQ. In addition to those farms for which Sasol has prospecting rights, the FarmKameelbult 301 LQ is being investigated for placement of surface infrastructureduring Phase 3 of the mine. The LWM will sell the middlings to the local powerstations and the expory-quality grade product will either be used at Secunda orexported.SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd have been appointed by Sasol, as the independentEnvironmental Assessment prationer (EAP), to undertake the required environmentalauthoristaion processes in order to secure the Sasol mining rights for the area.Natural Scientific Services CC (NSS), Eco-Agent, and Nepid Consulting have beenappointed by SRK to undertake the Biodiversity Assessment for the proposed LWM.Extensive biodiversity work was undertaken for the study site and surrounding areasover the period 2008-2012. A baseline investigation was undertaken in 2008 for theLWM, however, access to the Farms Gannavlakte 299LQ and Ringbult 303LQ wasrestricted and could not be quantitatively surveyed. A scan on the above-mentioned 2farms was undertaken in 2010/2011 to verify the habitat types identified at a desktoplevel during the baseline assessment. After the 2010/2011 study the project wasplaced on hold for 2 years. Due to the time delay in the project, a follow up ecologicalscan was undertaken for select areas within the LWM study area in November 2012.This report serves as a compilation of the data collected from the various studiesundertaken and includes a detailed Impact Assessment (IA) and associatedmitigation measures. The cumulative impacts on biodiversity have also beenassessed.1

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment2. TERMS OF REFERENCEThe Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Biodiversity Assessment was based on theToR received from the client and those specified in the Biodiversity Proposals.2.1. GeneralThe general ToR, set by the client, for all the specialists working on the project, aredetailed below: Characterise the existing state of the environment highlighting in the processkey vulnerabilities (or sensitivities), opportunities or other importantinformation; Ensure that the relevance of the information is described;Specify the size of the area (study domain) that needs to be assessed as afunction of your specialist field and/or the anticipated area where an impactmay manifest;List all the variables that are needed to characterise the baseline. Define anexisting state (or baseline) for each of these variables quantitatively whereverthis is possible and qualitatively where it is not;Highlight information that is not available, and define the importance of thatmissing information in respect of representativeness and what you have doneto address that missing information; Identify and quantify the environmental aspects 1 of the mining activitiesassociated with the different project phases; andAssess the degree to which the previously identified aspects will affect theexisting state of the environment from the LWM;Wherever possible link the aspects to the individual variables defined in termsof the baseline. Define, where applicable, a maximum acceptable level ofimpact for each of the variables identified (i.e. standards, limits, thresholds);Assess the impacts that may accrue and the significance of those impacts.Very importantly you will need to provide a robust argument for each of yourchosen qualifiers in the significance rating e.g. substantiate why extent isregional and not local, why duration is long term and so forth.Cumulative impacts to be assessed as per the mine related impacts, by reflecting thepotential intensity, extent duration etc.Wherever an impact can be reduced or prevented (or enhanced if it is a positiveimpact), regardless of impact significance, the manner of doing so must be detailed.Specific requirements are:1 Aspects are defined as elements of an organisation’s activities, products or services that may interactwith the environment. In broad terms aspects include resource use (electricity, water, raw materials),pollution (in the broadest sense of the word – waste water discharge, solid and liquid wastes, noise,light, heat etc.) and spending and job creation.2

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDetail whether the mitigation will reduce (or enhance) the intensity of theimpact or the probability of the impact and revise the impact significanceaccordingly;Ensure that mitigation when prescriptive is clear, site specific and practical. Ifthe practicality is less important than preventing the impact then say so;Define associated monitoring requirements viz. that will provide a clearindication of whether the mitigation is effective or not.The ToR, set by the client, specific to the Biodiversity Assessment include: Define the project footprints;Characterise the biodiversity within the footprint area in terms of conservationstatus and importance;Highlight biodiversity systems that exist in the area and that might be affecteddirectly by the loss of the land area;Ascertain for the region, areas of sensitive or conservation worthy biodiversitythat might be affected indirectly by the project;Ensure that the information required to assess indirect impacts is sourced asappropriate from the other specialists;Assess potential toxicological impacts on biodiversity.2.2. Floral AssessmentThe ToR as laid out in the Biodiversity Proposals for flora included the following.Detailed floral investigations will be undertaken within identified habitats and willinclude the following methodologies:Desktop review of available information; Desktop review of applicable legislation; Identification of areas with uniform vegetation structure (utilising 1: 50 000topographical maps and Google Earth TM images); Establishment of sampling plots within each habitat (excluding cultivatedland); The vegetation within each sampling plot investigated in detail. A descriptionof vegetation communities including structure, dominant plant compositionand condition was to be described. In addition the possible occurrence ofendemic, Red Data/threatened species, species with medicinal/cultural valueand alien/invasive species to be recorded; Random transect walks will be undertaken within the area to ensure samplingof less abundant or localised species; Habitats identified on the most recent Google Earth TM Images were to bemapped utilising ArcGis V. 9.3 and in the projection required by Sasol; Identification of Areas of Concern through ranking of each habitat based onconservation importance (in terms of national and provincial biodiversitypriorities) and ecological sensitivity; and Identification of areas, within the region, of sensitive or conservation-worthybiodiversity that might be affected indirectly by the project.3

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment2.3. Faunal AssessmentDetailed faunal investigations to be undertaken within identified habitats. Themethodology includes:Desktop review of available information;Desktop review of applicable legislation;Establishment of sampling plots within the various habitat type. Recordingfaunal species within these sampling plots to include:o Trapping: Trap sites will be laid using array traps, pitfall traps andmammal (Sherman) traps;o Visual observations. This is performed by walking the area and notinghabitat types and the visual presence of animals or evidence of animals inthe form of faeces, pellets, spoor, nests, burrows, feathers etc;o Sweep netting with hand nets, for sampling invertebrates, throughout thestudy area;o Night investigations to record nocturnal animals such as frogs, bats,snakes, nocturnal birds and mammals etc.Identification of Areas of Concern based on species found that are ofconservation importance (in terms of national and provincial biodiversitypriorities) and that are ecologically sensitive; andIdentification, for the region, areas of sensitive or conservation worthybiodiversity that might be affected indirectly by the project.2.4. Wetland AssessmentWetland delineations and functional assessments were to be undertaken foridentified wetlands within the footprints of the proposed LWM. The methodologyincludes:Desktop review of available information; Desktop review of applicable legislation; Identification of wetlands prior to any field work (utilising 1: 50 000topographical maps and Google Earth TM images); Assessment of wetlands in terms of their ecosystem service (WET-EcoServices, Kotze et al., 2009). Should any floodplain or channeled valleybottom wetlands be present, the Wetland Index for determining habitatintegrity will also be used;The riparian vegetation associated with any wetlands identified to bedescribed in terms of structure, dominant plant composition and condition;Delineation of the riparian/wetland zone according to “DWAF, 2005a: Apractical field procedure for the identification and delineation of Wetland andRiparian areas”;On Site Pegging of the wetland and buffer have been excluded from thisproject; andWetlands identified to be mapped utilising the most recent Google Earth TMimagery and ArcGis v. 9.3 and in the projection required by the client.4

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentIn addition to the above, the Wetland Assessment utilized the Vegetation ResponseAssessment Index (VEGRAI) (Kleynhans, et al. 2007) model to calculate the PresentEcological State (PES) of each wetland.2.5. Aquatic AssessmentBiomonitoring at 2 sites in the Limpopo River (high and low flow) and the assessmentof invertebrate biodiversity within the pans and wetlands identified within the LWM.The following ecosystem components were to be assessed (where appropriate):Instream and riparian habitat integrity (rapid assessment);Benthic diatoms (Specific Pollution Index);Aquatic invertebrates (SASS5); andFish.It must be noted that the assessment was only undertaken for the receiving aquaticenvironment and not for any proposed donor river system.5

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment3. PROJECT TEAMThe Baseline Biodiversity Assessments (2008, 2010/2011) were undertaken jointlyby 3 independent companies, with NSS as the “custodian” of the biodiversity team.The subsequent 2013 Ecological Scan and Impact Assessment revision wascompleted by NSS. The various specialist components were undertaken by thefollowing companies:Terrestrial FaunaTerrestrial FloraAquatic systemsWetlandsNSS CC (assisted by the University of the Witwatersrand - WITS)NSS CC with a follow up assessment by Eco-Agent CCNepid Consultants CCNSS CC (assisted by BioRiver Solutions CC)Details on the specialists, including the expertise of the individuals who undertook thework, are included in Table 3-1.Table 3-1ASPECTINVESTIGATEDProject teamCOMPANY SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONSFauna NSS KateMacEwanWetlands & Fauna NSS AndrewCauldwellBSc Honours – Zoology (WITS)DWA Accredited – SASS Macroinvertebrate monitoringPr.Sci.Nat. Registered – Zoology &Env. ScienceMSc – Wildlife Management (Pretoria)Pr.Sci.Nat. Registered – EcologyFauna & Flora NSS LD van Essen PhD – Wildlife Management (UP)Pr.Sci.Nat. Registered – Env. ScienceFauna NSS Tyron Clark Bsc ZoologyFauna WITS Dr GrahamAlexandraPhD – Zoology and PhysiologyPr.Sci.Nat. Registered – ZoologicalScienceFauna WITS Brian Maritz MSc – Zoology - Herpetology (WITS)WetlandsBioRiverSolutionsJamesMacKenzieField Assistant NSS MeganBaumgartnerAquatic Ecology Nepid Rob PalmerConsultantsAquaticNepidConsultantsShaelKoekemoerFlora Eco-Agent Prof GeorgeBredenkampFlora Eco-Agent MarianneStrohbachBSc Hons – Riparian Ecology (WITS)BSocSci – Geography HonoursPhD (Zoology);Pr.Sci.Nat. Registered – BiologicalScienceDWA Accredited – SASS Macroinvertebrate monitoringMSc (Ecological Remediation)Pr.Sci.Nat. Registered – EcologicalSciencePr.Sci.Nat. Registered – Ecological &Botanical Science6

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentASPECTINVESTIGATEDProjectManagement and IACOMPANY SPECIALIST QUALIFICATIONSNSS Kathy Taggart MSc – Resource Conservation BiologyDWA Accredited – WetlanddelineationsPr.Sci.Nat. Registered – Ecology &Env. Science7

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment4. LEGAL FRAMEWORKThe legislation, policies and guidelines listed below are applicable to the currentproject in terms of biodiversity. The list below, although extensive is not complete andother legislation, policies and guidelines may apply in addition to these.4.1. International Level Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) The Ramsar Convention (1971)United Nations Convention to combat desertificationThe Bonn ConventionThe World Heritage ConventionThe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora (CITES) The IUCN (World Conservation Union) Earth Summit (1992) World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002)The United Nations: Agenda 21, Rio +5 and the Johannesburg Summit onSustainable Development, 20024.2. Regional LevelThe Action Plan of the Environmental Initiative of NEPAD (the NewPartnership for Africa’s Development), 2003. This initiative encouragessustainable development and associated conservation and wise use ofbiodiversity in Africa..SADC Protocol on Shared Waters. The objectives of this protocol are toencourage closer co-operation between SADC states for judicious,sustainable and coordinated management, protection and utilization of sharedwatercourses.Limpopo Watercourse Commission. The Limpopo Watercourse Commissionwas signed by representatives from Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe andMozambique in 2003. The objectives of the Commission are to advise theContracting Parties and provide recommendations on the uses of surface andgroundwaters of the Limpopo, its tributaries for purpose of protection,preservation and management of the Limpopo. The Commission iscommitted to the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management.4.3. National Level Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004)National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004: Threatened andProtected Species Regulations8

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004: ThreatenedEcosystems (recent); National Environmental Management Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act 39 of 2004);National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998); National Forests Act, 1998 (Act 84 of 1998), specifically with reference toProtected Tree species National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) National Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (ECA), (Act no. 73 of 1989)The Convention on Biological Diversity is the first global, comprehensive agreementto address all aspects of biological diversity (genetic resources, species, andecosystems) and recognises that the conservation of biological diversity is "acommon concern of humankind" and an integral part of the development process.South Africa signed in 1998, showing further commitment to the conservation ofbiodiversity. Further to this and discussed in more detail below, South Africa's policyand legislative framework for biodiversity is now well developed, providing a strongbasis for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.According to South Africa’s Constitution, South African citizens have the right to havethe environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. Theestablishment of acts such as the National Environmental Management Act, 1998(Act 107 of 1998) or NEMA was to make provisions for cooperative environmentalgovernance by establishing principles for decision making on matters affecting theenvironment, i.e. taking environmental aspects into consideration before activitieswere carried out. From this South Africa needed an Act that would provide for themanagement and conservation of biodiversity within the framework of NEMA. SouthAfrica is now one of the few countries in the world to have a Biodiversity Act and aNational Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). The National Environmental Management:Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) has been assented by the South AfricanPresident and was published in the Government Gazette in June 2004 (Vol. 467; No.26426).4.4. Provincial and Municipal LevelIn addition to national legislation, some of South Africa's nine provinces have theirown provincial biodiversity legislation, as nature conservation is a concurrent functionof national and provincial government in terms of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996).4.4.1. Limpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 7 of 2003).This Act repealed the former Lebowa, Gazankulu, Venda and Northern Province Actsand the Nature Conservation Ordinance (ordinance 12 of 1983). It provides the listsfor protected and specially protected species under Schedule 2, 3 and 12 as well asthe stipulation for permit applications to remove these species. In addition it gives9

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentprotection measures for the terrestrial and aquatic biota and systems. Schedule 9lists aquatic plant species that are prohibited in the province.4.4.2. Limpopo State of Environment Overview, 2003This report provides a high-level overview of the State of the Environment inLimpopo.4.4.3. Waterberg Environmental Management PlanThe Waterberg EMP provides for the protection of the environment and describeshow activities that have, or could have, an adverse impact on the environment,should be mitigated, controlled, and monitored.The Waterberg EMP is a coarse-scale planning tool that outlines strategic objectives.New development in the Waterberg District Municipality should be aligned with theseobjectives.4.4.4. Waterberg Spatial Development FrameworkThe Waterberg Spatial Development Framework delineated areas of ecologicalsensitivity within the district, based on the occurrence of threatened species; centresof endemism; existing protected areas; occurrence of rivers and streams; vegetationtypes of conservation importance; and areas with high aesthetic value (Environomics,2010). The LWM area is not located in any area that has been identified asecologically sensitive, or that is protected. However, the study identified wateravailability and deteriorating water quality as two of the most important environmentalissues in the district (Environomics, 2010).4.4.5. Lephalale Spatial Development FrameworkThe Lephalale Municipality compiled a Spatial Development Framework (SDF) withthe purpose of guiding the form and location of future physical development within aMunicipal area in order to address the imbalances of the past. This SDF identifiesenvironmentally sensitive areas (e.g. mountain ridges, riverine environments) andmakes recommendations regarding proposed developments in these areas.4.4.6. Lephalale Integrated Development PlanThe role of an IDP is to facilitate local governments’ planning and municipalmanagement. The IDP defines environmental sensitive areas in terms of:protected areas in terms of national legislation (e.g. National Parks); andsensitive natural features (e.g. the Mokolo River).In addition, the IDP discusses an Integrated Environmental Management Programmewhich is aimed at sustainable development, i.e. ensuring that economic initiativeshave a minimal impact on the local environment. Accordingly, any new developmentin the area must be aligned with the IDP.10

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment4.5. International and National Policy and Guidelines4.5.1. Equator Principles and associated Standards and GuidelinesThe Equator Principles (EPs) are a set of guidelines that ensure the management ofsocial and environmental risks encountered in project financing. They provideEquator Principles Financial Institutions (EPFIs) with a means of selectively financingonly those projects that present a minimal risk as a result of responsibly managedenvironmental and social aspects. These guidelines are used primarily in conjunctionwith two other systems; the International Finance Corporation (IFC) performancestandards and the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) guidelines. As a memberof the World Bank, IFC performance standards define the responsible managementstrategies that require implementation in order to receive and retain IFC support.EHS guidelines describe General and Industry specific recommendations used tomitigate environmental risks in accordance with ‘Good International IndustryPractice’, essentially tailoring site-specific guidelines and including any additionalprecautions to suit a particular project.The EPs categorize projects based on the magnitude of their potential risks andimpacts, before implementing any management strategies. The magnitude of theserisks and impacts is predominately determined by the suitability of the site. Thosesites with significantly high levels of biodiversity, endemic, endangered, criticallyendangered and restricted-range species or of high habitat priority are regarded ashigher risk projects. In this case an action plan is proposed that outlines andprioritises the actions required to avoid or mitigate any significant ecological losses.The principles also ensure compliance of the project to the pertinent regulationsimposed by the host country as well the continuation of project management andreport feedback throughout the duration of the loan.The IFC performance standards emphasize the importance of the dynamicmaintenance of environmental performance throughout the project. Theyacknowledge the correlation between increased industrialisation and subsequentlevels of pollution and habitat degradation, as well as the integration of internationallydisseminated technologies and practices to mitigate these effects. The IFCperformance standards recognise that the protection and conservation of biodiversityis an essential factor for sustainable development. In addition to their generalguidelines, the site-specific Industrial EHS guidelines include regulations aboutincorporating mitigating technology into the project to minimise adverse impacts onwater quality and health, habitat and biodiversity. When taking into consideration theproposal of a coal mine and petroleum manufacturing plant, the sustainable use ofnatural resources and the responsible removal of said resources needs to becarefully planned in terms of location and degree of habitat alteration. Any activitiesthat have the potential to adversely affect the surrounding biodiversity and naturalhabitats must be prioritised and avoided where possible or mitigated where not.The following Operational Policies, Performance Standards and Environmental,Health and Safety guidelines may apply to the biodiversity aspects associated withthe proposed Limpopo West Mine Project:11

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentOperational PoliciesOP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment (IFC, January 1999). The Bank classifieseach proposed project into one of four categories, depending on the type, location,sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potentialenvironmental impacts. The Limpopo West Mine Project is classified as “Category A”,because the project has the potential for “significant adverse environmental impactsthat are sensitive, diverse, or unprecedented”. The Bank requires environmentalassessment of projects proposed for Bank financing. The assment must take intoaccount the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety;social aspects and transboundary and global environmental aspects.OP 4.04 – Natural Habitats (IFC, June 2001). The Bank supports the conservationof biodiversity, as well as the numerous environmental services and products whichnatural habitats provide to human society. The bank distinguishes the followingtypes of habitats:Modified Habitat. In areas of modified habitat, the client will exercise care tominimize any conversion or degradation of such habitat, and will identifyopportunities to enhance habitat and protect and conserve biodiversity as partof their operations.Natural Habitat. The Bank does not support projects involving the significantconversion of Natural Habitats, unless there are no feasible alternatives forthe project and its siting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates thatoverall benefits from the project substantially outweigh the environmentalcosts. Natural habitats are defined as land and water areas where (i) theecosystems' biological communities are formed largely by native plant andanimal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially modified the area'sprimary ecological functions. Critical Natural Habitat. The Bank does not support projects that would lead tothe significant loss or degradation of any includes those natural habitatswhich are either legally protected, officially proposed for protection, orunprotected but of known high conservation value. Critical Natural Habitatincludes habitat needed for the survival of critically endangered orendangered species; areas having special significance for endemic orrestricted-range species; or sites that are critical for the survival of migratoryspecies, inter alia.OP 4.09 – Pest Management (IFC, November 1998). The Bank supports safe,effective, and environmentally sound pest management, so pesticides used in anydevelopment financed by the Bank must ensure that the products used have minimaleffect on non-target species and the natural environment. The methods, timing, andfrequency of pesticide application are aimed to minimize damage to natural enemies.Pesticides used in projects that have public health program components must bedemonstrated to be safe for inhabitants and domestic animals in the treated areas,as well as for personnel applying them. Furthermore, their use must take into accountthe need to prevent the development of resistance in pests.OP 7.50 – International Waterways (IFC, June 2001). The Bank recognizes thatthe cooperation and goodwill of riparian states is essential for the efficient use andprotection of the waterway. The Bank therefore requires that the borrower formally12

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentnotifies the other riparian states of the proposed project and its project details at theearliest possible opportunity, and develop appropriate agreements, if necessary.Performance StandardsPerformance Standard 1: Social and Environmental Assessment andManagement Systems (IFC, updated January 2012). This standard highlights theimportance of managing social and environmental performance throughout the life ofa project. The client is required to establish and manage a program of mitigation andperformance improvement measures and actions that address the identified socialand environmental risks and impacts (the management program).Performance Standard 3: Pollution Prevention and Abatement (IFC, updatedJanuary 2012). This standard recognizes that increased industrial activity andurbanization often generate increased levels of pollution to air, water, and land thatmay threaten people and the environment at the local, regional, or global level. Theobjective of this standard is to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on human healthand the environment.Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable NaturalResource Management (IFC, updated January 2012). This standard recognises theimportance of biodiversity conservation to sustainable development. The objectivesof this standard are aligned to those already discussed under Operational Policy4.04.Environmental, Health, and Safety GuidelinesGeneral Guidelines – Environmental, Health and Safety (IFC April 2007). Thegeneral EHS Guidelines relevant to aquatic ecosystems cover a range of issues,including stormwater management, wastewater management, effluent standards andmonitoring.Waste Management Facilities (IFC December 2007). These guidelines providevarious regarding the management of Municipal Solid Waste and IndustrialHazardous and non-Hazardous Waste. The guidelines detail considerations for sitingof handling and storage facilities, including proximity to groundwater, fault lines,floodlines and airports.Contaminated Land (IFC, 2007). This section provides a summary of managementapproaches for land contamination due to anthropogenic releases of hazardousmaterials, wastes, or oil, including naturally occurring substances. Contaminated landis a concern because of the potential risks to human health and ecology.Mining (IFC December 2007). These guidelines summarise common environmentalissues associated with open-pit and underground mining which may occur during theexploration, development and construction, operation, closure and decommissioning,and post-closure phases, along with recommendations for their management.Coal Processing (IFC April 2007). These guidelines summarise commonenvironmental issues associated with coal processing. .Wastewater and Ambient Water Quality (IFC April 2007). These guidelines applyto direct or indirect discharge of process wastewater, wastewater from utilityoperations or stormwater to the environment. These guidelines provide information13

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmenton common techniques for wastewater management, water conservation, and reusethat can be applied to a wide range of industry sectors. A key consideration is tounderstand the quality, quantity, frequency and sources of liquid effluents, includingthe locations, routes and integrity of internal drainage.Water Conservation (IFC April 2007). These guidelines are intended to minimisewater consumption and achieve savings in water pumping, treatment and disposalcosts. A key requirement of a water management programme includes settingperformance targets and regular monitoring of inflows and outflows in relation toperformance targets.Water and Sanitation (IFC December 2007). These guidelines provide informationrelevant to the operation and maintenance of (i) potable water treatment anddistribution systems, and (ii) collection of sewage in centralized systems ordecentralized systems and treatment of collected sewage at centralized facilities.Wastewater discharge and use options include discharge to natural or artificialwatercourses or water bodies; discharge to treatment ponds or wetlands; and directuse in agriculture (e.g., crop irrigation). In all cases, the receiving water body useneeds to be considered, together with its assimilative capacity to establish a sitespecificdischarge quality that is consistent with the most sensitive use.4.5.2. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) – part of the NBSAPprocessThe National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) was completed in 2004 and itsmain focus was on mainstreaming biodiversity priorities throughout the economy, andmaking links between biodiversity and socio – economic development. It is the firstever comprehensive spatial assessment of biodiversity throughout the country andhas four components, dealing with the terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marineenvironments.There are several possible approaches to biodiversity planning. The approach usedmost often in South Africa, including in the NSBA, is systematic biodiversity planning.It is based on three key principles:The need to conserve a representative sample of biodiversity pattern, such asspecies and habitats (the principle of representation).The need to conserve the ecological and evolutionary processes that allowbiodiversity to persist over time (the principle of persistence).The need to set quantitative biodiversity targets that tell us how much of eachbiodiversity feature should be conserved in order to maintain functioninglandscapes and seascapes.4.5.3. South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)According to the Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism in 2005, the NBSAP isbased on the recognition that South Africa is extremely rich in terms of biodiversity,but is also a developing country where the majority of the population resides inpoverty. The NBSAP recognises that Biodiversity should be managed in the contextof ensuring equitable benefits to people – both current and future generations. TheNBSAP highlights five strategic objectives with a number of outcomes linked to fiveyeartargets, indicators, and activities to achieve the outcomes.14

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThrough the NSBA, it is recognized that biodiversity cannot be conserved throughprotected area networks only. All stakeholders, from private landowners andcommunities to business and industry must get involved in biodiversity management.NBSAP further identified mining as one of the activities that causes habitattransformation and degradation, and seriously threatens aquatic and terrestrialbiodiversity. The strategy therefore promotes the inclusion of biodiversityconsiderations in mining regulations, guidelines and best practice codes to mitigatenegative impacts and encourage sustainable mining practices through partnerships.4.5.4. National Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (NAEMP)The NAEMP is a multi-institutional monitoring programme whose overall goal is todeliver the ecological information for rivers and the broader aquatic ecosystemsrequired to support the rational management of these systems.4.5.5. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA’s) (Recent)This partnership is led by the CSIR with SANBI, the DWA and the WRC and receivesformal input from SANparks and SAIAB. It aims to identify a national network offreshwater conservation areas and to explore institutional mechanisms for theirimplementation in South Africa.4.6. Mining Specific Guidelines4.6.1. The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM)Although not policy or legislative, the International Council on Mining and Metals(ICMM) have published a set of guidelines on good practice guidance on mining andbiodiversity (Johnson & Starke, 2006).4.6.2. The Mining and Biodiversity Forum of South Africa (October 2012)The South African Mining and Biodiversity Forum (SAMBF) was established in 2005to provide a platform for cross-sectoral interaction and co-operation in order toimprove biodiversity conservation and management in the mining sector. A review ofthe status of biodiversity management in the mining industry in South Africa wasrecently published (Kuntonen-van’t Riet 2007). A need for the establishment ofbiodiversity guidelines was identified.The good practice guidance on mining and biodiversity, published by the ICMM inconsultation with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), wasprepared for an international audience, and was therefore generic in nature. A prepublicationdocument in the South African context was released in 2012 calledMainstreamtng Biodiversity into Mining: A Guideline for Practitioners and DecisionMakers in the Mining Sector. This guideline document was compiled to incorporatelocal biodiversity information and best practice guidelines, specific to South Africa.The Guideline aims specifically to integrate “relevant biodiversity information intodecision making about mining options and how best to avoid, minimise or remedybiodiversity impacts caused by mining, and in so doing support ecologically,economically and socially sustainable development”15

4.7. Wetland Protection and SensitivityLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment4.7.1. Wetland ProtectionAs highlighted in the sections above under International, Regional and Nationallegislation and Guidelines, South Africa has various pieces of legislation governingactivities in and around wetlands. The National Water Act, 1998, (Act 36 of 1998)(NWA) is the principle legal instrument relating to water resource management inSouth Africa. All wetlands are protected under the NWA. The NWA acknowledges“the National Government's overall responsibility for andauthority over the nation's water resources and their use,including the equitable allocation of water for beneficial use, theredistribution of water, and international water matters”In accordance with the NWA water resources include: a watercourse, surface water,estuary, or aquifer.In turn a watercourse is defined as:a) a river or spring;b) a natural channel in which water flows regularly orintermittently;c) a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, waterflows, andd) any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice inthe Gazette, declare to be a watercourse,a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed andbanksAs per Chapter 3 of the NWA: Protection of Water Resources:The protection of water resources is fundamentally related totheir use, development, conservation, management and control.Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this Chapter lay down a series of measureswhich are together intended to ensure the comprehensiveprotection of all water resources.4.7.2. Wetland SensitivityWetlands are sensitive and vital systems in our environment, and yet they aredecreasing and degrading at an alarming rate (DA, 2007). In terms of provincialguidelines, those provinces that have issued Biodiversity Guidelines have stipulatedthat all wetlands, regardless of the disturbance status, are to be designated assensitive. For example:The Final Draft Guidelines for Biodiversity Impact Assessments in KZN, July 2010,Draft 4 have stated:“Areas to be designated as sensitive:The wetland and its buffer.”The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Requirements forBiodiversity Assessment, Version 2, 2012 have stated:16

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment”The wetland and a protective buffer zone, beginning from the outeredge of the wetland temporary zone, must be designated as sensitive.The catchment of all pan wetlands must be designated as sensitive.”The Limpopo Province have not issued biodiversity guidelines, therefore theguidelines of other provinces have been utilized for the Limpopo West Project.4.7.3. Activities in Wetland Systems that Require AuthorisationProposed activities within wetlands or river systems (including beds and banks)require authorisation from a number of different government departments. Theapplicable legislation and government department will depend on the nature of theactivity.Table 4-1 lists the potential activities that could require authorisation, the applicablelegislation and government department (Adapted from Phragmites EMC, 2006).Table 4-1authorizationACTIVITYList of activities (and applicable legislation) that may require1. Dumping, infilling and excavation in a wetland(including building rubble, construction activities,open space development, sports fields, etc.).2. Creation of new, hardened surfaces (includingbuildings and asphalt) around a wetland thatmay impact flows into or from the wetland.3. Roads affecting the dynamics of a wetlandsystem, including but not limited to: Roads through or around wetlands firebreaks through or around wetlands stormwater from roads, pedestrian crossings through or over wetlandsystems, 4x4 tracks in and around wetlands motorcycle and quad tracks through andaround wetland systems bridges over wetland systems road construction upstream of wetlandsystems affecting water flow to the wetland.4. Railway crossing in or/and through a wetland.5. Pipeline crossing in and/or through a wetland(including stormwater discharge systems intowetlands).6. Construction of overhead or subterraneanlines, e.g. powerlines, telecommunicationinfrastructure, in/through a wetland.7. Construction or upgrading of dams, levees,weirs in or near wetlands.APPLICABLELEGISLATION Section 21i of theNational Water Act,1998 Section 21 of theEnvironmentConservation Act,1989. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws.DEPARTMENT DWA LimpopoDepartment ofEducation,Development,Environment &Tourism(LEDET) LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment17

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentACTIVITY8. Water abstraction points in a wetland,including surface and subsurface waterabstraction.9. Waste water discharges, treatment, minedecanting and spillages into a wetland.10. Establishment of artificial wetlands for watertreatment, stormwater attenuation, off-sitemitigation or urban greening.11. Disposal of waste in a wetland.12. Mining activities in or around a wetland(sand, peat, gold, coal, etc.)13. Establishment or extension of agriculturalactivities in and around wetlands, includinggrazing, cultivation or any soil disturbances.14. Rehabilitation, Stabilisation and reconstructionof wetlandsAPPLICABLELEGISLATION Section 21i of theNational Water Act,1998 Section 21 of theEnvironmentConservation Act,1989. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws. Section 5 of theMineral andPetroleum ResourcesDevelopment Act, Act10 of 2002 Section 21i of theNational Water Act,1998 Section 21 of theEnvironmentDEPARTMENT DWA LEDET LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment Department ofMineralsResources(DMR) DWA LEDET18

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentACTIVITYAPPLICABLELEGISLATION15. Draining of wetlands. Conservation Act,1989. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws. Regulation 7 of GNR1048 of 1984 underCARA, 1983DEPARTMENT LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment NationalDepartment ofAgriculture(NDA)16. Harvesting or removal of plants and naturalresources in and around wetlands, includingmowing of grass, harvesting of vegetation andmedicinal plants, etc. Section 21 of theEnvironmentConservation Act,1989. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws. Regulation 7 of GNR1048 of 1984 underCARA, 1983 LEDET LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment NationalDepartment ofAgriculture(NDA)19

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentACTIVITY17. Introduction of extra-limital species intowetlands, including invertebrates, vegetation,fish, etc.18.Using wetlands for recreation whilst alteringthe vegetation or dynamics of the system, suchas: creation of open spaces for golf coursesand/or driving ranges creation of parks and eco-reserves creation of eco-tracks or trails, includinghiking, horse and mountain bike trails, etc construction of boardwalks and bird hides.APPLICABLELEGISLATION Section 21 of theEnvironmentConservation Act,1989 Section 24, 29, 40,42, 44, 48, 55, 56, 91,98 of Gauteng NatureConservationOrdinance 0f 31March 1995. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws. Section 21i and k ofthe National WaterAct, 1998 Section 21 of theEnvironmentConservation Act,1989. Section 5 of theNationalEnvironmentalManagement Act, Act108 of 1998 Local GovernmentProvincialConservation Bylaws.DEPARTMENT LEDET LEDET LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment DWA LEDET LEDET ApplicableLocalGovernmentDepartment20

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment5. STUDY AREA5.1. Site Location and DescriptionThe proposed LWM is located in the Lephalale Local Municipality, Waterberg District,Limpopo Province, South Africa. The study area is located 31 km north-west of thetown of Lephalale at its nearest point, and to the north-east of the Steenbokpandevelopment node (Figure 5-1). The area investigated for the study is approximately12 000 ha in extent and is covered by the 2327 AC topographical map. The areaincludes those farms for which Sasol has prospecting rights and Kameelbult 301LQwhich was investigated for the potential placement of surface instraucture duringPhase 3 of the mine.Table 5-1Farms within the Limpopo West Mine Study areaFARMAREA (Ha)Welgelegen 228 LQ 1124.83Geelbekpan 226 LQ 522.65Matopi 705 LQ * 729.93Hans 713 LQ * 541.13Japie 714 LQ * 547.67Groenfontein 250 LQ Rem 428.85Groenfontein 250 LQ Ptn 2 330.46Tambootievley 261 LQ 1303.36Vlakfontein 264 LQ Rem 657.64Vlakfontein 264 LQ Ptn 2 448.43Duikerfontein 688 LQ 751.44Gannavlakte 299 LQ 1117.47Ringbult 303 LQ Ptn 4 700.03Ringbult 303 LQ Ptn 5 454.33Grootwater 218 LQ 1199.86Kameelbult 301 LQ 1166.7521

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-1Regional locality indicating the Limpopo West Mine Study area22

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-2Farms making up the Limpopo West Mine Study area23

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment5.2. Biophysical EnvironmentWithin this section, a broad description is presented on the biophysicalcharacteristics of the region that are relevant to the context of a biodiversity study.This includes climate (specifically rainfall and temperature), topography, geology, soilstructure, hydrology (i.e. catchment information), vegetation and current land uses.5.2.1. ClimateThe Study area is located in a summer rainfall area with very dry winters extendingfrom May to September. Mean annual rainfall for the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld isstated by Mucina & Rutherford (2006) to range from 350 mm to 500 mm. Lephalalereceives an average of 400 mm of rainfall per year with the lowest rainfall occruingbetween May and July and the highest in January (up to 81 mm) (Figure 5-3)(www.saexplorer.co.za).Winter frosts are infrequent, and the mean maximum and minimum temperatures forLephalale are 38.2 ºC and 2.1 ºC for December and June respectively (Mucina &Rutherford, 2006). The dry and wet bulb extreme temperatures extremes ascalculated by the South African Weather Service are 41.6/0.2 ˚C and 37.1/ 0.1 ˚Crespectively (Figure 5-3).Figure 5-3 Climate diagram for Lephalale, located 31 km east of the LimpopoWest Mine study area24

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment5.2.2. TopographyTopography often works in conjunction with other factors, especially climaticconditions and the susceptibility of the soil to erosion. Climatic conditions such astemperature and moisture vary with a changing altitude. The effect of these changingclimatic conditions will influence the soil structure, the vegetation and the habitatsavailable at different altitudes.The topography of the Limpopo West study area is classified as extremely flat andgently undulating (Naidoo, 2009). The average gradient is gentle with the elevationranging between 840 and 910 mamsl.5.2.3. GeologyThe underlying geology consists primarily of sedimentary deposits such as arenite,shale, mudstone and coal of the Matlabas Subgroup (Karoo Supergroup). However,the study area also comprises of localised quaternary deposits of sand and calcrete(Jones, 2009).5.2.4. SoilsThe soils data below is from Jones (2011). The study area is characterised by avariety of soil textures, structures, depths and chemical composition, varying frommoderately shallow to shallow and highly sensitive soils that directly overlie anevaporate layer of varying thickness and density (calcrete), to deep sandy soils thatare of aeolian origin, are low in clay (

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentsensitivities and vulnerabilities.management measures.These will require a unique set of site specificThe physical parameters include:Topsoil clay percentages range from as low as 1% on the aeolian derivedsandy Namib forms, to more than 18% depending on the host/parent geologyfrom which the soils are derived, and their position in thelandscape/topography. Subsoil clays that range from less than 3% to as highas 20%;Very high infiltration/permeability rates are associated with the sandy loamsand well sorted aeolian sands associated with the “desert” sands which arebelieved to be infillings to the ephemeral channels that had formed in thedisconformable calcrete land surface prior to the advancement of the desertsands into and over the area. These make up the deep (up to 25m ofequigranular sand found in some drill cores);Moderate to high in-situ permeability rates on the more clay rich loams andsandy clay loams associated with the shallower soils (600mm to 1500mm)and materials associated with the evaporite land surface (calcrete) and/or thedeposition of flood plain materials associated with the relict flood plains of theLimpopo River;A significant and impermeable calcrete (evaporite) as the “C” horizon to manyof the pedological profiles mapped;Moderate to good intake (infiltration) rates, depending on the type of claypresent;Moderate to poor water holding capacities for all but the more clay richmaterials, andPoor to very poor and unsuitable agricultural potential ratings (water holdingcapabilities and nutrient status) for all but the more clay rich materials.The physical characteristics are highly influenced by the parent materials from whichthe soils are derived, as well as their relative position in the topography, albeit that asignificant percentage of the soils that are likely to be disturbed are associated withthe flat to undulating arid plains and colluvial deposits within the relict waterways ofthe calcrete land surface, all of which are relatively young in pedological age, and arethe product of the various geologies and historical erosion surfaces that make up thearea of study.26

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-4Soils in the Limpopo West Mine Study area27

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment5.2.5. Catchments and DrainageThe LWM study area is located within Quaternary Catchment A41E, within the broaderLimpopo Drainage Catchment and the Limpopo Water Management Area (Figure 5-6). Thereare no permanent or seasonal rivers or streams within the proposed footprint areas, but thereare a number of pans and other wetland features. Drainage within the footprint area istherefore entirely endorheic.The Matlabas and Mokolo Rivers are located on either side of the proposed developments,west and east respectively (Figure 5-6). Neither of these catchments is likely to be impactedby effluents from the proposed project, so these systems were excluded from this study. Thepredominant hydrogeological feature flowing from the west in a north-westerly direction is theLimpopo River.The Limpopo River is an international river course shared by four countries, Botswana,Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The river rises in central southern Africa, and flowsgenerally eastwards to the Indian Ocean. It is approximately 1,750km in length. On majorreaches of the Limpopo River, the flow of water in dry years can occur for 40 days or less(CGIAR, 2003). In fact, in recent years it has been known to stop flowing for periods up to 36months (CGIAR, 2003). When the river does flow the water can contain up to 30% sand andsilt (CGIAR, 2003). The river is therefore said to be ephemeral in nature. Figure 5-5 showsthe flow within the Limpopo River from 2008-2011, highlighting the time of the aquaticsampling trips undertaken for the detailed baseline assessment in 2010/2011.Aquatic Sampling tripsFigure 5-5A5H006Flow volumes within the Limpopo River (2008-2011) at Gauge28

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentGroundwater within the LWM study area slopes gently towards the Limpopo River (Marais andKotze, 2008; Marais, 2009). Groundwater movement is generally slow because of lowhydraulic gradient (0.0075), and low permeability, but there are fault lines that providepreferential flow routes which are of potential concern (Marais and Kotze, 2008; Bester andVermeulen, 2010).5.2.6. Eco-RegionsAt a global scale, the LWM study area falls within the “Zambezian Lowveld” Eco-region(FEOW, 2011). This Eco-region is characterised as the interface between tropical andtemperate faunas. The Eco-region is included within the Zambezian Bioregion because therivers have historically been connected with the Zambezi River (Marshall 2000).Nationally, the DWA have delineated certain areas, in terms of the relative similarity of theaquatic ecological components within them, into what is known as an ecological region basedon the fact that ecosystems and their attributes show regional patterns over space withregards to their component variables such as physiography, vegetation, soils and geology.The Study area falls within Ecoregion 1 - Limpopo plain (Eco-region 1) and overlaps twosubsections (1.03 and 1.02) (DWAF’s GIS data layers 2005) (Figure 5-7) (Table 5-2). TheLimpopo plain Eco-region is predominantly flat with a slope of less than 5 % for 80 % of thearea and is characterised by a moderate to low relief in the plains and lowlands of theLimpopo province, with vegetation composed of sweet bushveld. The climate within this lowlying Eco-region is typically dry to arid and hot, with rainfall occurring during early to midsummer.Table 5-2Eco-Region 1 – Limpopo PlainMAIN ATTRIBUTESLIMPOPO PLAINTerrain Morphology: Broad division (dominanttypes in bold) (Primary)Plains; Low Relief;Plains; moderate relief;Lowlands; Hills and Mountains; moderate and highrelief (limited)Vegetation types (dominant types in bold) Mopane Bushveld; Sweet Bushveld; Mixed(Primary)Bushveld;Waterberg Moist Mountain Bushveld;Clay Thorn Bushveld; Kalahari Plains Thorn BushveldAltitude (m a.m.s.l) (Secondary)300-1100 (1100-1300 limited)MAP (mm) (modifying) 200 to 600Coefficient of Variation (%) of annual 25 to 40precipitationRainfall concentration index 60 to >65Rainfall seasonalityEarly mid summerMean annual temp. (°C) 18 to >22Mean daily max. temp. (°C): February 26 to 32Mean daily max. temp. (°C): July 20 to >24Mean daily max. temp. (°C): February 16 to >20Mean daily max. temp. (°C): July 2 to >10Median annual simulated runoff (mm) for

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-6Quaternary catchments and associated river systems within the Greater Limpopo West Mine Study area30

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-7Eco- regions within the Greater Limpopo West Mine Study area31

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment5.2.7. Regional VegetationThe LWM study area falls within the broader Savannah Biome which occupies 32.8% of South Africa at an altitude of 1500 - 1800 m extending from the Northern Capethrough the North-West Province, far western regions of the Free State and northernGauteng onwards to Limpopo, the northern areas of Mpumalanga and down intoinland KwaZulu Natal and the Eastern Cape.At a more local scale, Acocks (1988) placed the study area within the Arid SweetBushveld, with Mixed Bushveld towards the east. Low & Rebelo (1996) described thevegetation of the area as Sweet Bushveld. The vegetation classification presented inthe more recent Mucina & Rutherford (2006) describes the site as Limpopo SweetBushveld (Figure 5-9).Generally the area is covered by short open woodland, often dominated by Acaciaspecies or Dichrostachys cinerea (Figure 5-8). The soils are gravelly or sandy onhigher lying areas, clayey-loamy on plains or low-lying areas, sometimes withcalcrete and surface limestone. Although less than 1% is statutorily conserved, largeareas are utilised as game farms. Only about 5% is transformed for cultivation.Broad-leaved woodland dominated by Terminalia sericea, Combretum apiculatumand Burkea africana also covers large parts of the study area (Figure 5-8). Thisvegetation is typical of the Central Sandy Bushveld which occurs on the deep sandyplains.Typical plant species in the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld are listed in Table 5-3 (Mucina& Rutherford 2006).Figure 5-8Examples of landscapes from the Study area32

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-9Regional vegetation types within the Greater Limpopo West Mine Study area33

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 5-3 Plant species characteristic of the Limpopo Sweet BushveldSPECIES GROUP IMPORTANT TAXATall treesSmall treesTall shrubsLow shrubsGrassesAcacia robusta (d), Acacia burkeiAcacia erubescens (d), A. fleckii (d), A. nilotica (d), A. senegal varrostrata (d), Albizia anthelmintica (d), Boscia albitrunca (d),Combretum apiculatum (d), Terminalia sericeaCatophractes alexandri (d), Dichrostachys cinerea (d), Phaeoptilumspinosum (d), Rhigozum obovatum (d), Cadaba aphylla, Combretumhereroense, Commiphora pyracanthoides, Ehretia rigida subsp.rigida, Euclea undulata, Grewia flava, Gymnosporia senegalensisAcacia tenuispina (d), Commiphora africana, Felicia muricata,Gossypium herbaceum subsp. africanum, Leucospaera bainesii.Digitaria eriantha subsp. eriantha (d), Enneapogon cenchroides(d), Eragrostis lehmanniana (d), Panicum coloratum (d), Schmidtiapappophoroides (d), Aristida congesta, Cymbopogon nardus,Eragrostis pallens, E. rigidior, E. trichophora, Ischaemum afrum,Panicum maximum, Setaria verticillata, Stipagrostis uniplumis,Urochloa mosambicensis.Herbs Acanthosicyos naudinianus, Commelina benghalensis,Harpagophytum procumbens subsp. transvaalense, Hemizygiaelliotii, Hermbstaedtia odorata, Indigofera daleoides.Succulent herbsKleinia fulgens, Plectranthus neochilusSource: Mucina & Rutherford (2006)Key: (d) = dominant species; Bold indicates species confirmed on site5.2.8. Current Land UsesThe LWM study area consists of game and hunting farms as well as some agriculturalactivities (mainly livestock). Sasol owns several of the farms and some of these arecurrently rented to farmers for livestock farming.5.3. Conservation StatusUnder the various forms of legislation, governing the LWM study area and surrounds,the area has varying levels of conservation status and protection. These are discussedbelow.5.3.1. Nationally Protected AreasAll wetlands are protected within South Africa, with their legal protection extended toinclude buffer zones. South Africa has various pieces of legislation governing activities inand around wetlands under International, Regional and National legislation andGuidelines. The National Water Act, 1998, (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA) is the principle legal34

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentinstrument relating to water resource management in South Africa. All wetlands areprotected under the NWA. The NWA acknowledges“the National Government's overall responsibility for and authorityover the nation's water resources and their use, including theequitable allocation of water for beneficial use, the redistribution ofwater, and international water matters”As per Chapter 3 of the NWA: Protection of Water Resources:The protection of water resources is fundamentally related to theiruse, development, conservation, management and control. Parts 1,2 and 3 of this Chapter lay down a series of measures which aretogether intended to ensure the comprehensive protection of allwater resources.A number of wetlands (in the terms of pan systems) were identified within the LWMstudy area, all of which are protected under the NWA. The three major river systems inthe broader surrounds are all protected under the NWA but have the followingconservation status: The Limpopo River is in a moderately modified condition and is classified by Nelet al. (2004) to have conservation status of least concern, however it isconsidered to be poorly protected over much of its reach. It is howeverconsidered a NFEPA (Section 5.3.2).The non-perennial Matlabas River to the west has also been moderatelymodified. Most of the lower reach of the river is classified as least concern,being moderately conserved, while the upper catchment regions are poorlyconserved and considered vulnerable (Nel et al. 2004).The Mokolo River in the far east is a perennial river which has been largelymodified and is moderately to poorly conserved. Most of the river has beentransformed and as such, has been listed by Nel et al. (2004) as criticallyendangered interspersed with regions considered to be endangered.5.3.2. National Priority AreasAccording to the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), (Rouget et al.,2004), the study area falls does not fall within a National Priority Area (NPA). The NPAassessment was based on integrating data on species, habitats and ecologicalprocesses to identify areas of greatest biodiversity significance 2 . This resulted in theidentification of nine spatial priority areas for terrestrial biodiversity. These priority areasrepresent areas with high concentrations of biodiversity features and/or areas wherethere are few options for meeting biodiversity targets.2 Areas identified as NPA are done so at a national level, i.e. the data used is of a course scale. It is recommended byRouget et al. (2004) that the boundaries of these areas should not be identified at the level of property boundaries andshould therefore not be used in isolation for decision-making at the local scale.35

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentIn addition to the NPAs, SANBI, in collaboration with DWA, DEA, WRC, SANParks,WWF, CSIR and the NRF have further prioritized Freshwater systems in the country withan aim to incorporate conservation into Catchment Management Strategies (Driver et al,2011). The objectives set for the project included:1. The identification of National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (hereafterreferred to as ‘NFEPAs’) to meet national biodiversity goals for freshwaterecosystems; and2. Develop a basis for enabling effective implementation of measures to protectFEPAs, including free-flowing rivers.For the study area, the NFEPA Project recognizes one of the pan systems in the southas a wetland FEPA and the Limpopo River (Figure 5-12). FEPAs should be regarded asecologically important and as generally sensitive to changes in water quality andquantity, owing to their role in protecting freshwater ecosystems and supportingsustainable use of water resources (Driver et al, 2011). Further to this Driver et al (2011)state the following objectives for wetland FEPAs:Wetlands FEPAs that are in a good condition (equivalent to an A or B ecologicalcategory) should remain so. Wetlands FEPAs that are not in a good condition should berehabilitated to their best attainable ecological condition. This means that:• Land-use practices or activities that will lead to deterioration in the currentcondition of a wetland FEPA are not acceptable.• Land-use practices or activities that will make rehabilitation of a wetland FEPAdifficult or impossible are not acceptable.Specific management guidelines extracted from the report (Guidelines for land-usepractices or activities that impact on water quantity and quality in river/wetland FEPAs)related to Mining state:• Mining in any form should not be permitted in wetland FEPAs, or within1km of a wetland/riverine FEPA buffer.• No prospecting should occur in wetland FEPAs or within 1km of awetland/riverine FEPA buffer.• Care should be taken to reduce the risks of aquifer penetration whendrilling, wherever this occurs.The management guidelines for the NFEPA’s state that “Applications for mining andprospecting in FEPAs and associated sub-quaternary catchments should be subject torigorous environmental and water assessment and authorisation processes, as mininghas a widespread and major negative impact on freshwater ecosystems) (Driver et al,2011).5.3.3. Threatened EcosystemsA list of Threatened Ecosystems within the nine national Priority Areas was gazetted on9 December 2011 in NEM:BA (Act 10 of 2004). The identified Threatened Ecosystemsoccupy 9.5% of South Africa and were selected according to six criteria including: 1)36

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentirreversible habitat loss; 2) ecosystem degradation; 3) rate of habitat loss; 4) limitedhabitat extent and imminent threat; 5) threatened plant species associations; and 6)threatened animal species associations. According to the recently approved list, theLimpopo Sweet Bushveld vegetation type is not listed as a threatened ecosystem and noThreatened Ecosystems are found within close proximity to the study site.5.3.4. Regional VegetationAccording to Mucina and Rutherford (2006) and theNSBA, the conservation status of the Limpopo SweetBushveld is considered nationally Least Threatened.Conservation status is based on how much of anecosystem's original area remains intact, relative tothree different thresholds based on best availablescience (Figure 5-10) (Driver et al., 2005).Note: The threshold beyond which an ecosystembecomes Critically Endangered varies from 16%to 36%, depending on the ecosystem. The morespecies - rich the ecosystem, the higher thethreshold will be. This threshold is also knownas the biodiversity target. It represents theproportion of each ecosystem that one wouldideally like to see included in a formal protectedarea.A target of 19% of this vegetation type is required to be conserved, however less than1% of the vegetation type is statutorily conserved and is limited to reserves in the southeasternlimits of the area. Although less than 1% is statutorily conserved, large areas areutilised as game farms with only about 5% transformed for cultivation. Due to the level ofcoal mining proposed for the greater area, the percentage of transformation is expectedto increase significantly.Figure 5-10 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Terrestrial Ecosystem Status(Driver et al., 2005)5.3.5. Waterberg’s District Protected Areas and Conservation PrioritiesAccording to the Waterberg District Municipality’s Environmental ManagementFramework, Environmental Management Zones, the LWM study area falls within Zone 5- designated as a mining and industrial focus area. This zone is ranked as priority 0,under the district’s Protected Areas and Conservation Priorities category, on a scale of1-5, 1 being lowest priority and 5 being the highest. Although ranked as lowest priorityfrom a protected areas and conservation planning priority perspective by the districtmunicipality, it is stipulated that conservation of natural habitat should be the main focusin the required buffer areas around mines and industrial sites and that preference shouldbe given to accommodating any threatened species within the area. The greater regionincludes the Waterberg Biosphere (approximately 100 km away); on a smaller scale a37

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentnumber of reserves are located within the local vicinity and within a 150km radius of thestudy area and are listed below.Waterberg BiosphereThe Waterberg Biosphere is situated within the Waterberg District Municipalityapproximately 100 km from Lephalale and extends over 415 000 ha from MarakeleNational Park in the south-west to Wonderkop in the north east. The biosphere wasestablished in 2001 and recognised by UNESCO as part of an international network ofbiospheres which are areas of terrestrial and/or coastal ecosystems with the aim tosustainably promote the reconciliation of conservation efforts to protect biodiversity(Waterberg Biosphere website, 2011). The biosphere is made up of three zones namelythe core, buffer and transitional zones with areas of 115 000, 150 000 and 150 000 harespectively (Waterberg Wilderness website, 2011).The biosphere is made up of three broad habitat types namely sour bushveld, steepslopes with bare rock and cliff faces and river bed and wetland areas including 129mammal species 350 bird species and 2015 species of plants. The plant biodiversityconsist of:130 species of trees195 species of shrubs1292 species of forbs, herbs, dwarf shrubs and mosses206 species of grass75 species of geophytes18 species of fern20 species of parasitic plantsD’Nyala Nature ReserveThe Government owned D’Nyala reserve is situated 15km SE of Lephalale and has anarea 8281 ha and is stocked with a variety of game including white rhino and over 60mammalian species. A provincial road between Lephalale and Vaalwater bisects thereserve into western and eastern regions. The reserve features two hides and birdingopportunities in the wetlands. Over and above the various management roads a total of37 km of gravel tracks have been laid for game viewing.Hans Strijdom Nature ReserveThis reserve is situated approximately 37 km S of Lephalale and is located adjacent tothe Mokolo dam.Mokolo Nature ReserveThe 4600 ha Mokolo Nature Reserve, which is situated 50 km from Lephalale on theR510 was proclaimed a provincial nature reserve in 1993. The reserve includes theMokolo Dam (914 ha) which is surrounded by densely vegetated mountains and inplaces by cliffs. The reserve conducts environmental education programmes and servesas an important area for outdoor recreation.38

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentMoepel Nature ReserveThe Moepel Nature reserve is located within an area that is earmarked for ecosenstivetourism development. It is 66 km SE of Lephalale and is not a formally protected area.Marakele National ParkThis national park is part of the waterberg mountain range and occupies an area of 450km 2 . It is located 84 km SW of Lephalale. It is home to one of the largest breedingcolonies of Cape Vultures (Gyps coprotheres) in the world.Masebe Nature ReserveThis reserve is comprised of savanna and is rich in bird species diversity. Itencompasses 4500 ha and is situated 86 km E of Lephalele and 75 km NE ofMokopane.Wonderkop Nature ReserveThis reserve is bound on its eastern border by the Mogalakwena River and the GlenAlpine Dam and also borders the Waterberg Biosphere reserve. It covers an area of 16000 ha and is situated approximately 100 km NE of Lephalale.The reserve is renownedfor it’s koppies and diverse vegetation.Entabeni Nature ReserveThis privately owned nature reserve is 220 km 2 in expanse and is owned by LegendLodges. It is situated 110 km SE of Lephalale and 38 km SW from Mokopane. Alsolocated on the property is the Entabeni Nature Guide Training School.Doorndraai Dam Nature ReserveThe 7000 ha Doorndraai Dam Nature Reserve is situated 123 km SE of Lephalale and30 km SW of Mokopane. It encloses the Doorndraai Dam..39

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-11Significant protected areas in the greater vicinity of the Limpopo West Mine Study area40

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 5-12Wetland NFEPAs in the greater vicinity of the Limpopo West Study area41

6.1. Floral AssessmentLimpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6. METHODOLOGYNSS completed a baseline floral study in 2008 for the LWM study area, which included aneco-scan in August 2008 and a detailed study in December 2008 (NSS, 2009). However,access to the farms Gannavlakte and Ringbult was restricted and these farms could not besurveyed. The vegetation of these 2 farms was covered in more detail in the surveyundertaken by Eco-Agent in November 2010. Eco-Agent also refined the studies performedby NSS in 2008 with an additional 48 sample plots added to the existing 29 samples plotscollected by Natural Scientific Services (NSS, 2009). A further investigation was undertakenby NSS in November 2012 with a focus on the Protected tree species in order to calculate anaverage density per vegetation community for the required Permit Applications.6.1.1. Desktop ReviewThe floral assessment included a desktop review of available information and applicablelegislation. The literature study included the general vegetation descriptions of the area(Acocks 1988, Low & Rebelo 1996, Mucina & Rutherford 2006, EMF) and more specificstudies such as those of: Bosch (1971), Herbst (1973), Panagos et al. (1986), Pauw (1988),Peel (1990), Peel et al. (1991), Van Staden (1991), Bathusi Environmental Consulting (2009)and Bredenkamp (2010) and the draft EMF for the Waterberg District compiled byEnvironomics (2010).6.1.2. FieldworkThe following methodologies were employed: The vegetation was stratified into relatively homogeneous units on recent aerialphotographs (spot images printed on A3 paper sheet) of the area. At 77 sample plots,located in the homogeneous units, a description of the dominant and characteristicspecies was made. The sampling plot size was standardised at 2 500 m 2 . It must benoted that spot images were not available for the previous survey of the mine area in2009. These spot images have assisted in a further refinement of the broader plantcommunity boundaries identified in 2009. These descriptions were based on total floristic composition, following establishedvegetation survey techniques (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Westhoff & Vander Maarel 1978), using the Braun-Blanquet cover – abundance scale. Plant taxawere identified to species level. Data recorded included a list of the plant speciespresent, including trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs, with their cover – abundancevalues. Random transect walks were undertaken within the area to ensure samplingof less abundant or localised species. Comprehensive species lists were therefore derived for each plant community /ecosystem present on the site. These vegetation survey methods have been used asthe basis of a national vegetation survey of South Africa (Mucina et al., 2000) and areconsidered to be an efficient method of describing vegetation and capturing speciesinformation. These lists are supplied in Appendix 12.1.1. Additional notes were madeof any other features that might have an ecological influence.Artificial pastures and cultivated land or old fields were not sampled.42

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe identified systems are not only described in terms of their plant speciescomposition, but also evaluated in terms of the potential habitat for red-data plantspecies.Nationally Protected trees were, according to the list provided in the National ForestsAct of 1998, amended in 2006 (Government Gazette 29062, 2006).Provincially protected species are protected according to the provincial ordinance.Red-data plant species for the area were obtained from the SANBI data bases, withupdated threatened status (Raimondo et al. 2009). These lists were then evaluated interms of habitat available on the site, and also in terms of the present developmentand presence of man in the area.Medicinal plants are indicated according to Van Wyk, Van Oudthoorn & Gericke(1997) and Schmidt, Lotter & McCleland (2002).Alien invasive species, according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act(CARA) (Act No.43 of 1983) as listed in Henderson (2001), are indicated.The vegetation structure was based on the height (m) and cover (%) of the Tree,Shrub and Herbaceous layers6.1.3. Data Analysis MethodologyA TWINSPAN analysis (Hill, 1979), followed by Braun-Blanquet Table arrangementprocedures using the computer software programme JUICE ver. 6.5.2 Juice (Tichý L., Inst ofBotany and Zoology, Masaryk Univ., Brno, Czech Rep, 1999-2007) were used to classify thesample plot data into vegetation units, called plant communities.6.1.4. Plant Species StatusPlant species were recorded in each plant community with an indication of the status of thespecies by using the following symbols:A = Alien woody speciesD = Dominantd = subdominantG = Garden or Garden EscapeM = Medicinal plant speciesP = Protected trees speciesp = provincially protected speciesRD = Red data listed plantW = weed6.1.5. Plant Species RichnessSpecies Richness is interpreted as follows: Number of indigenous species recorded in thesample plots representing the plant community (Table 6-1). Alien woody species and weedsare not included.Table 6-1Plant species richness categoriesNo. OF SPECIESCATEGORY1-50 Low50-100 Medium101-150 High>150 Very High43

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.1.6. Areas of SensitivityThe Sensitivity ratings used are discussed in detail in Section 8.6.1.7. Study LimitationsDetailed sampling was conducted in the middle of the summer season, and therefore it mustbe noted that the absence of species on site does not conclude that the species is notpresent at the site. Reasons for not finding certain species may be due to:Sampling season does not coincide with flowering season of specific floral species;The disturbed nature of the site;The inconspicuous nature of the species; or simplyLack of species presence.As an alternative to other vegetation cover methods (such as the Domin method), the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale was used to analyze vegetation. It is reported that theBraun-Blanquet method requires only one third to one fifth the field time required to othersimilar methods (Wikum & Shanholtzer, 1978). Furthermore, cover-abundance ratings arebetter suited than density values to elucidate graphically species-environment relationships.For extensive surveys this method provides sufficiently accurate baseline data to allowenvironmental impact assessment as required by regulatory agencies. However, there are acouple of problems that have been detected with such sampling methods (Hurford &Schneider, 2007). These are as follows: It can be seen as subjective and dependent upon the experience and knowledge ofthe vegetation type by the surveyor. The cover estimate may vary from observer toobserver. There also may be a problem when the cover estimate is very close to two differentclasses (on the border so to speak) and then it is for the observer to decide whichclass it should be allocated to. In Hurford & Schneider’s (2007) experience, inmarginal situations, where the cover of a species is close to a boundary between twoclasses, the chance of two observers allocating the species to the same cover classis no better than 50:50. However, when comparing to other sampling methods suchas Domin, Braun-Blanquet scale is better adapted for monitoring (less cover classesand fewer boundaries).6.2. Faunal AssessmentThe Faunal Assessment was conducted by NSS. The faunal assessment (and the speciesinventories generated from it), for the mine area, was achieved through an integration of datafrom both the various NSS studies. The first study invoved an ecological scan of the LWMarea and was conducted in August 2008. This was followed by a more detailed biodiversityinvestigation of the entire mine area in December 2008 whith the exception of the farmsGannavlakte and Ringbult. These two farms were however covered, albeit briefly, during thethird investigation in 2010 which included, amongst others, a live trapping component at fourlocations within the mine area. The aim of the November 2012 study, in terms of fauna, wasto focus sampling efforts within the proposed LWM study area and survey any farm portionsthat were either scantly or not at all covered during the initial surveys, with the overriding goalof consolidating all the existing data. The methods used included both a desktop andfieldwork component. These methods are described in greater detail below.44

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.2.1. Desktop ReviewDesktop research for the current faunal project involved compiling probabable species listsfor the QDGS 2327CB covering the LWM study area. The most current conservation statuswas included for each of these species.Prior to the fieldwork components faunal probability lists were compiled for mammals, birds,reptiles, frogs and butterflies using a combination of sources. This was done to prioritizesampling strategy and active searching efforts towards detecting potential conservationimportant species. The likelihood of occurrence (LoO) for a given species was assesed usingdistribution data provided in the following sources:For mammals, species distribution maps in Friedman & Daly (2004) were used.For birds, online records of the first and second South African Bird Atlas Project(SABAP) for the QDGS 2327CB and petads 2340_2720 and 2330_2715 coveringthe study area were used. SABAP 2 is ongoing and continuously updated with newdata however verified for records for two additional pentads covering the area arelacking.For frogs, species distribution maps of Minter et al. (2004) were used. Speciesnames were updated using du Preez and Carruthers (2009);For reptiles, species distribution maps published online by the South AfricanReptile Conservation Atlas (SARCA) (2010) were used.For butterflies, species distribution maps published online by the South AfricanButterfly Conservation Atlas (SABCA) (2010) were usedThe following scale was used to assign a LoO for each species, based on their distribution aswell as the habitat availability on site, and is frequently used throughout this document:1 Present2 High Likelihood3 Moderate Likelihood4 Low Likelihood5 May occur as a managed or introduced population6.2.2. FieldworkThe faunal investigative measures involved active searching, live trapping and the use ofmotion-sensitive cameras to detect faunal species. The December 2010 survey was the onlysurvey that involved live trapping. The physical sampling methods employed by NSS duringthe various fieldwork components are described below.Active SearchingNumerous visual observations were performed by traversing the farm portions by vehicle andon foot, noting habitat types and the visual presence of animals or evidence of their presencein the form of faeces, pellets, spoor, nests, burrows, feathers, road kills etc. Conservationimportant species (CIS) identified during these visual observations were recorded usingGPS.Sweep-netting with hand nets was undertaken to sample terrestrial macro-invertebratesthroughout the study area. Any suitable micro-habitats, such as under rocks or logs, were45

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentinvestigated without destruction of those micro-habitats. Grab sampling was used forsampling animals that could be easily and safely captured.Live TrappingDuring the December 2010 assessment five trapping sites were selected in the LWM studyarea. Two sites namely MN 1 and MN2 were set up on the farm Groenfontein CL3 on thefarm Kameelbult and the remaining sites MN3 and MN4 were placed on the farmsWelgelegen and Duikerfontein respectively. Sites were selected that were representative ofthe major habitats within the mine area. An overview of the trapping site locations ispresented in Figure 6-4.Array traps (Campbell & Christman, 1982; Corn, 1994; Simmons, 2002) were used forherpetological and invertebrate sampling at each trap site. An array trap consisted of threelines, each consisting of plastic drift fences (30cm high and 8m long), with pitfall traps (fivelitre buckets sunken to the ground level) at the end of each line, with a pitfall at the centre ofthe array. Each pitfall trap was covered with a raised wooden board to provide shade andhad moist cotton wool balls to provide moisture for any amphibians caught, a stone underwhich creatures could hide/hold. Plastic mesh funnel traps were placed along either side ofeach of the three lines of wooden drift boards and each covered with a wooden board toprovide shade. All array traps were setup on the first day of each sampling week, thenchecked early morning and late afternoon for the remainder of the week.Pitfall trapPlastic sheeting8 metersFunnel trapFigure 6-1 Schematic layout of an array trap, including pitfall traps, plastic driftfences and plastic mesh funnel traps.Many NSS surveys, in a wide diversity of habitats, have revealed that the pitfall traps are aneffective tool for trapping small lizards, frogs, spiders, scorpions and a wide variety of46

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentinsects. Plastic mesh funnel traps are an effective tool for trapping snakes, lizards, frogs,scorpions, Solifuge spiders and large beetles.MN 1 MN 3Figure 6-2 Examples of drift fence arrays at the faunal trap sites MN1 and 3.A line transect of 16 (8 pairs) live mammal traps / Sherman traps was set out in the vicinity ofeach of the trapping sites for the live capture and identification of small mammals. Trapswere baited with peanut butter, rolled oats, sunflower oil, seeds and raisins. Traps were rebaitedas required, or at least every two days. Two small multi-entry traps were includedwithin each transect and were baited in the same manner. These traps have been shownduring NSS surveys to be effective for Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides), shrews, lizards andlarge insects. Examples of the various components of a typical NSS trapping site are shownin Figure 6-3.Funnel trap Sherman trap Small mammal trap Pitfall trapFigure 6-3Components of a faunal trapping siteMotion-sensitive CamerasMotion-sensitive cameras were mounted at various sites where faunal activity was expected(Figure 6-5 and Table 6-2). Nocturnal carnivores were specifically targeted and thuscameras were baited with wet cat food. Past NSS surveys have revealed that these motionsensitivecameras are an effective tool for surveying mammals of any size, birds and to alesser extent medium to large sized reptiles, depending on location and baits used.47

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 6-4Locations of faunal trap sites in the Limpopo West Mine study area48

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-2Motion Camera LocalitiesCAMERA COORDINATES DATES PLACEMENTHCO2 S23.65009 E27.37147 20-21 November 2012 Waterhole on RingbuiltHCO1 S23.53322 E27.32814 20-22 November 2012Concrete water trough onWelgelegenHC04 S23.58578 E27.31331 20-22 November 2012 Pan on GroenfonteinNSS1 S23.61165 E27.32153 20-22 November 2012Concrete water trough onTambotivleiNSS2 S23.67359 E27.37279 20-21 November 2012 Waterhole farm on GannavlakteNSS3 S23.51815 E27.35825 20-22 November 2012 Bath water trough on GrootwaterNSS4 S23.53758 E27.36864 20-22 November 2012Concrete water trough onGeelbekpanFigure 6-5areaGannavlakte Geelbekpan Tambotievlei Welgelegen6.2.3. Study LimitationsExamples of some heat-sensitive camera trap placements in the studyEcological sampling is usually constrained by resources such as surveying time andduration, financing and support, which are all interrelated. Constraints often drive the choiceof a sample over a complete census. A complete census is only feasible if:The target population is small;Measurement is not destructive;The study area is small and well delineated andYou have unlimited resources.Good survey practices are essential to ensure that sufficient high quality data are generatedto make defensible and robust impact predictions. In most cases, a sample is a moreeffective and efficient means of obtaining the required information. Sampling is the selectingof some part of a population to observe. The sample unit is that part of the population chosenfor measurement. Sample units are generally of two types: Natural entities e.g. vegetation/habitat and animal population groups; andArtificial entities e.g. soil cores.It must be emphasized that the absence of a certain species on site does not conclude thatthe species is not present at the site or does not utilise the site or areas near by. Reasons fornot finding certain species may be due to:The breeding season of animals does not correlate with the time of the survey;Lack of suitable habitat and foraging potential on site for animal species;49

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe disturbed nature of the site;The inconspicuous nature of the species; or simplyLack / low level of species presence andLimited sample size due to extent of the area and financial constraints.Specific limitations applicable to the LWM were due to the large size of the study area andthe controlled access to the various farms. Specifically:The overall LWM study area is approximately 12 000 ha. Although the team isconfident that the biodiversity of the area has been recorded accurately, there isalways the possibility that some entities may have been omitted due to the size ofthe study area.Although some farms are already owned by Sasol and site access to these farmswas uncomplicated, access too many of the farms required formal priorarrangement, and even then sometimes caused delays or restrictions.6.3. Wetland Assessment6.3.1. Desktop SurveyPrior to any field investigations being undertaken, the area was surveyed at a desktop levelusing SID images of the LWM study area, Google Earth TM imagery and 1:50 000topographical maps as reference material to determine the layout of potential wetlands onthe site.6.3.2. Wetland ClassificationWetlands can be classified according to different classification methods, based on thehydrological functioning, fauna and / or flora composition or diversity, soils or a combinationof these features. The classification method used mostly depends on the purpose forclassification, for example botanical purposes, ornithological purposes etc. An ecologicalclassification is based in the interaction of different biotic and abiotic features within a systemand will therefore use the functioning of the entire system as the fundamental part of theclassification (Ward & Lambie 1999, Allan et al. 1995). The most popular wetlandclassification method used in South Africa is the classification of wetlands into hydrogeomorphicunits developed by Kotze et al. (2008) in WET-EcoServices. This classificationsystem is based on a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) method, i.e. rather than being biologicallybased, the system focuses on the HGM determinants of wetlands and incorporatesgeomorphology; water movement into, through and out of the wetland; and the landscape /topographic setting. The hydro-geomorphic types include floodplain, valley bottom withchannel, valley bottom without channel, hillslope seepage feeding a water course, hillslopeseepage not feeding a water course and depressions (pans) as illustrated and described inTable 6-3. The system excludes artificial wetlands from the classification.50

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-3 Characteristic wetland hydro-geomorphic types supporting inlandwetlands in South AfricaHYDRO-GEOMORPHIC WETLAND TYPESFloodplainValley bottom with a channelValley bottom areas with a well-defined streamchannel, gently sloped and characterised by floodplainfeatures such as oxbow depressions and naturallevees and the alluvial (by water) transport anddeposition of sediment, usually leading to a netaccumulation of sediment. Water inputs occur from themain channel (when the channel banks overspill) andfrom adjacent slopes.Valley bottom areas with a well-defined streamchannel but lacking the characteristic floodplainfeatures. May be gently sloped characterised by thenet accumulation of alluvial deposits, or may havesteeper slopes and be characterised by the net loss ofsediment. Water inputs occur from the main channel(when channel banks overspill) and from adjacentslopes.WATER SOURCETO MAINTAINWETLANDSurface ***Subsurface*Surface ***Subsurface*/***Valley bottom without a channel Surface ***Valley bottom areas with no clearly defined streamchannel, usually gently sloped and characterised byalluvial sediment deposition, generally leading to a netaccumulation of sediment. Water inputs occur mainlyfrom the channel entering the wetland and also fromadjacent slopes.Subsurface*/***Hillslope seepage linked to a stream channel Surface *Slopes of hillsides which are characterised by colluvial(transport by gravity) movement of materials. Waterinputs are mainly from sub-surface flow and outflow isusually via a well-defined stream channel connectingthe area directly to a stream channel.Subsurface***Isolated hillslope seepage Slopes of hillsides which are characterised by thecolluvial (transported by gravity) movement ofmaterials. Water inputs mainly from sub-surface flowand outflow either very limited or through a diffuse subsurfaceand/or surface flow, but no direct surface waterflow connection to a stream channel.Depression (includes pans) A basin-shaped area with a closed elevation contourthat allows for the accumulation of surface water (i.e. itis inward draining). It may also receive sub-surfacewater. An outlet is usually absent, and therefore thistype is usually isolated from the stream channelnetwork.Key: * = Contribution usually small; *** = Contribution usually important;*/*** Contribution may be small or important depending on circumstancesSource: Kotze et al. (2008)Surface *Subsurface***Surface */***Subsurface*/***6.3.3. Assessment of Present Ecological State (PES)The Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index (VEGRAI) model was used in thisstudy to assess the PES (Present Ecological State) of wetlands in the LWM study area. TheVEGRAI developed by Kleynhans et al. (2007) is designed for qualitative assessment of theresponse of riparian vegetation to impacts in a way that qualitative ratings translate into51

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentquantitative and defensible results. The system compares the current vegetation to areference condition based on the natural situation in the absence of impacts. Being impactbased,the VEGRAI system provides an indication of the causes for riparian vegetationdegradation.The model was adapted to assess two vegetation zones, the riparian / fringe zone and thepan zone, and a separate PES was assessed for each zone in a site. A single PES wascalculated for simple sites where insufficient differentiation between pan and riparian zonesexisted.Several vegetation characteristics (metrics) are available within the VEGRAI model todescribe and rate riparian vegetation status. These are Abundance, Cover, Recruitment,Population Structure and Species Composition. Each is assessed per zone for both thewoody and non-woody vegetation component. Recruitment characteristics were excludedfrom this assessment.Ranking and weighting is used in the model to describe the degree of change from expectedreference conditions. The principle of following a ranking-weighting approach is that not allmetrics and zones have the same relative ecological significance. Thus, the rankingweightingprocess is done separately from the rating and should not be influenced by it. Asix-point rating system is followed, where metrics are scored in terms of the degree to whichthey have changed compared to the natural or close-to-natural reference:0 - No discernable change from reference/close to reference1 - Small modification from reference2 - Moderate modification from reference3 - Large modification from reference4 - Serious modification from reference5 - Extreme modification from referenceZones and the calculation of the Ecological CategoryThe weights of the vegetation zones are summed and a proportional weight determined foreach metric group. This proportional weight is multiplied by the percentage of the metricgroup in a natural condition and summed for all metric groups. This provides an integratedvalue that relates to the Ecological Category for the riparian vegetation that ranges from A toF (Table 6-4).52

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-4Generic ecological categories for eco-status componentsECOLOGICALCATEGORYDESCRIPTIONAUnmodified, natural(Scores between 87.4 and 92 = A/B)Largely natural with few modifications. A small change inBnatural habitats and biota may have taken place but theecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.(Scores between 77.4 and 82 = B/C)Moderately modified. Loss and change of natural habitat andCbiota have occurred, but the basic ecosystem functions arestill predominantly unchanged.(Scores between 57.4 and 62 = C/D)Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota andD basic ecosystem functions has occurred.(Scores between 37.4 and 42 = D/E)Seriously modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota andE basic ecosystem functions is extensive.(Scores between 17.4 and 22 = E/F)Critically modified. Modifications have reached a critical leveland the system has been modified completely with an almostF complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worstinstances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyedand the changes are irreversibleSource: Modified from Kleynhans (1996 & 1999) in Kleynhans (2007)SCORE(% OF TOTAL)90-10080-8960-7940-5920-390-196.3.4. EcoservicesThe wetlands identified in the LWM study area were assessed in terms of their ecosystemservices. The WET–EcoServices tool (Kotze et al., 2008) is a technique for rapidly assessingecosystem services for inland palustrine wetlands, i.e. marshes, floodplains, vleis and seeps.The tool has been developed to help assess the services that individual wetlands provide toallow for more informed planning and decision making. The wetland benefits included in theWET-EcoServices model are those considered most important for South African wetlands,but is by no means exhaustive.Table 6-5 provides an overview of services assessed in the WET-EcoServices tool. Ingeneral pans can provide the following services (Kotze et al., 2008): Flood attenuation. The opportunity for attenuating floods is limited by the position ofpans in the landscape, which are generally isolated from stream channels. However,they do capture runoff because of their inward draining nature, and thus they reducethe volume of surface water that would otherwise reach the stream system duringstormflow conditions.Precipitation of minerals. Temporary pans allow for the precipitation of minerals,including phosphate minerals due to the concentrating effects of evaporation.Nitrogen cycling is likely to be important with some losses due to denitrification, andvolatilization in the case of high pH.The pedology, geology and climate influence the response of these pan systems tonutrient inputs. In pans that dry out completely at some stage or another (non-53

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentperennial pans), some of the accumulated salts and nutrients (such as organicnitrogen, and various phosphate and sulphate salts) can be transported out of thesystem by wind and be deposited on the surrounding slopes. Those remaining maydissolve again when waters enter the system again as the pan fills after rainfallevents.Table 6-5 Ecosystem services included in, and assessed by, the WET-EcoServicesmodel (Kotze et al. 2008)1. The wetland benefits included in WET-EcoServices are those considered most important for South African wetlands,and which can be readily and rapidly described. This is by no means exhaustive. Other benefits include groundwaterrecharge and discharge and biomass export, which may all be important but are difficult to characterize at a rapidassessment level.2. Biodiversity maintenance is not an ecosystem service as such, but encompasses attributes widely acknowledged ashaving potentially high value to society.6.3.5. Fieldwork approachRiparian vegetation could be clearly distinguished from aerial imagery, and wetlands couldbe delineated based on a rapid decline in tree height, as well as based on speciescomposition distinguishable on SID imagery. Wetlands were identified from aerial imageryand visited on foot. The following measurements were taken at sample points:Location was measured using a handheld GPS device using a Geographic projectionand WGS 84;The surrounding landscapes were photographed;54

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentCommon and characteristic plant species within the near vicinity of each sample pointwere recorded and their abundance noted;Data for calculation of PES using the VEGRAI model were recorded;Evidence of ecoservice provision by wetlands was recorded;Evidence of impacts affecting the wetland was noted.Where available, the contour data was used, in addition to the riparian vegetation, todelineate the catchment boundary of the wetlands.Small pans were considered to be one ecological unit, have been mapped as such and datawere collected to assess a single PES calculated for the entire pan unit. Larger pans werehowever found to consist of readily-distinguishable vegetation and topographical units, suchas the pan itself and a surrounding fringe of riparian vegetation. These systems have beenmapped as different units and an ecological condition determined for each unit.The locations of wetlands that were visited in the mine area are illustrated in Figure 6-6.Access to some farms was restricted and thus not every wetland within the mine area couldbe visited, although these wetlands could still be mapped based on the extent of riparianvegetation and ground-truthing experiences gained elsewhere within the LWM study area.Sufficient wetlands were visited to present a reliable overview of the ecological state ofwetlands within the study area as a whole.55

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 6-6Locations of wetland sites sampled within farms of the Limpopo West Mine Study area56

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.3.6. Study LimitationsLimitations and uncertainties often exist within the various techniques adopted to assess thecondition of natural ecosystems. The following limitations apply to the techniques andmethodologies utilised to undertake the wetland assessment:Although contours were available for the entire LWM study area, the resolution differedwith high resolution covering most, but not all, of the site;Wetlands in the study area differ dramatically from wetlands in most parts of South Africa.Widely used methods for assessing and delineating wetlands do not readily apply towetlands here, and assessment tools needed to be adapted considerably to suit the localconditions. Models adapted include VEGRAI and the WET-EcoServices toolWET-EcoServices is a newly developed rapid assessment tool for the assessment of thebenefits and services supplied by a wetland system. Any newly developed assessmentsystem is likely to have shortfalls within a context in which it has not been extensivelytested, such as, highly transformed wetland systems. In addition, limited informationparticularly with regards to wetland benefits for local communities may limit the findings ofthe assessment.6.4. Aquatic AssessmentThe Aquatic Assessment was conducted by Nepid Consultants in 2010 and 2011.6.4.1. ApproachThe approach to this study was to focus on biological response variables that are sensitive tochanges in water quality and quantity at different temporal scales. The study therefore focused on: benthic diatoms, which typically reflect water quality over the past three days; aquatic invertebrates, which typically reflect water quality and instream habitat conditionsover the past month, and; fish, which typically reflect water quality and instream habitat conditions over the past sixmonths.The study focused on the most significant aquatic ecosystems in the LWM study area, namely theLimpopo River and the larger pans. Details of the aquatic sampling sites are given in Table 6-6 andillustrated in Figure 6-8.Table 6-6Details of aquatic sampling sites within the Limpopo West Mine Study areaCODE NAME FARM ALITITUDE(mamsl)Ephemeral River57dd.dddd (WGS84)L1 Limpopo Twee Riviere 279 842 -23.68314 27.03793L2 Limpopo Hardekraaltjie 212 821 -23.49890 27.19207L3 Limpopo Cambridge 7 785 -23.41709 27.43053Ephemeral PansP8 Vlakfonteinpan Vlakfontein 264 870 -23.62101 27.29444P9 Groenfonteinpan Groenfontein 250/1 860 -23.58392 27.31191P12 Groenfontein* Groenfontein 250 869 -23.59337 27.32718SE

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.4.2. Literature reviewKey sources of information for this study included the following:Desktop review of the Limpopo West Mine study area and an initial Baseline Assessment ofthe Mine area, including specialist studies of wetlands (MacEwan 2008, Bredin, 2009), waterquality (Blaine, 2008, Blain, 2009), hydrology (Everett 2008, Enslin, 2009) and geohydrology(Marais and Kotze, 2008, Marais, 2009);Environmental assessment of a proposed bridge across the Limpopo River at Stockpoort(Digby Wells & Associates, 2009), Environmental Scoping Report for the proposed Boikarabelo Coal Mine (Digby Wells &Associates 2010); and Google Earth TM satellite images, taken in 2003 and 2012.No information on aquatic invertebrate biomonitoring for the LWM study area was available fromNational River Health Database (www.riv.co.za) at the time of the baseline assessment. This is notsurprising considering the absence of suitable invertebrate biomonitoring sites in or adjacent to theLWM study area.6.4.3. Field SurveysField surveys for this study were carried out as follows: August 2010. A reconnaissance site-visit that focussed on pans. Most of the pans were dryat the time, so integrated surface soil samples were collected and rehydrated to identifyaquatic invertebrates present. Surface water in the area was limited to a few pans that wereartificially recharged from groundwater. A dumpy level was used to measure the maximumdepth at full supply of one of the larger pans (P9). Photographs of the pans visited areincluded in Appendix 12.3.1.November 2010. Data were collected on diatoms, aquatic invertebrates and fish at threesites in the Limpopo River. Flows at the time were low, and ideal for sampling diatoms andfish, but there was insufficient instream habitat at these sites to apply the SASS5biomonitoring method. Photographs of the sampling sites are included in Appendix 12.3.1. March 2011. Data were collected on diatoms and fish at two sites in the Limpopo River (L1and L3). The access road to Site L2 was blocked by debris following floods in January 2011,so no sampling was undertaken at Site L2. The SASS5 biomonitoring method was applied atSite L3 only, as there were insufficient instream habitats available at Site L1. Flows at thetime were moderate and ideal for sampling diatoms, aquatic invertebrates and fish.6.4.4. Water QualityA detailed analysis of surface water quality was beyond the scope of work for this study, but generalinformation on water quality can assist in interpreting biomonitoring results. The following waterquality parameters were recorded in situ at the three sampling sites in the Limpopo River: watertemperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and electrical conductivity.The South African Department of Water Affairs has a river monitoring stations in the Limpopo Riverdownstream of the Mokolo River confluence (A5H009), and downstream of the Lephalale River(A5H009). There were no water quality records for the former station, and a brief examination of theavailable data for the latter station indicates that water quality is influenced strongly by inflows from58

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentthe Mokolo and Lephalale Rivers. The available data on water quality in the Limpopo River wastherefore irrelevant for the purposes of this study, and not considered further.6.4.5. Stream FlowsNaturalised monthly stream flow data for the Limpopo River at quaternary A41E were obtained froma report on the water resources of South Africa in 2005 – WR2005 (Middleton and Bailey 2009).Stream flows during and prior to the collection of baseline data help to understand theenvironmental context in which the data were collected. For this reason, available flow records inthe vicinity of the proposed development were obtained from the Department of Water AffairsHydrological Information System (www.dwa.gov.za/hydrology). The nearest relevant flow gauge inthe Limpopo River was at Sterkloop (A5H006), located 105 km downstream of Site L3. Informationfor this gauge was available from March 1971 to February 2011 only at the time of this study.6.4.6. Habitat QualityThe quality of instream and riparian habitats in the Limpopo River was assessed at the threesampling sites using a rapid visual assessment protocol for lowland streams, developed by the USAEnvironmental Protection Agency (Barbour et al. 1999). Each site comprised a river reach of about200m long. The method involves rating ten parameters on a numerical scale between 0 and 20(highest). The values are added to provide a Total Score out of 200. The results were classifiedinto one of six categories, ranging from Optimal (>180), to Very Poor (180B Suboptimal 160-180C Moderate 120-160D Marginal 80-120E Poor 40-80F Very Poor

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-8 Classification of instream and riparian Habitat Integrity, based on the totalobserved Habitat Quality rating, expressed as a percentage of the expected (natural) rating.CATEGORY DESCRIPTION % OFEXPECTED6.4.8. DiatomsA Unmodified, Natural >90B Largely Natural 80-90C Moderately Modified 60-79D Largely Modified 40-59E Extensively Modified 20-39F Critically Modified 17.3 High QualityA/B 16.8 – 17.2B 13.3 – 16.7 Good QualityB/C 12.9 – 13.2C 9.2 – 12.8 Moderate QualityC/D 8.9 – 9.1D 5.3 – 8.8 Poor QualityD/E 4.8 – 5.2E < 4.8 Bad Quality60

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.4.9. Aquatic InvertebratesLimpopo RiverAquatic invertebrates in the Limpopo River were sampled using a standard SASS net and identifiedto at least family level according to the SASS5 3 sampling technique (Dickens and Graham 2002).Species that were easy to identify were also noted. Adult dragonflies were recorded at Sites L1 andL3 in March 2011, and the Dragonfly Biotioc Index was applied to provide a quantitative assessmentof their conservation importance and ecological sensitivity (Samways 2008).In November 2010 the available biotopes were limited to marginal vegetation out-of-current, so theSASS biomonitoring method could not be applied.In March 2011 there were suitable instream habitats for SASS5 biomonitoring at Site L3 only.Available biotopes sampled included stones in and out-of-current, marginal vegetation out-ofcurrent,and sediments. The results were classified into one of six categories, ranging from Natural(Category A), to Critically Modified (Category F) (Figure 6-7).Figure 6-7 Guidelines used to delineate the Present Ecological State Categories of aquaticinvertebrates, based on SASS5 biomonitoring results. The delineation was based on ascatter plot of SASS scores against the Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) from the LimpopoPlains Ecoregion (Dallas 2007).PansThe larger pans were dry during the site visits, so aquatic invertebrates from these systems weresampled by collecting about 200 g of pooled (integrated) surface soil at each pan. Each samplewas placed in 5 l plastic jars and hydrated with about 3 l of groundwater. Fine-mesh cloth was3 SASS5, or South African Scoring System (version 5), is a rapid method of quantifying the condition orhealth of a river, based on the presence of major invertebrate groups (mostly families), each of which havebeen allocated a “sensitivity” value (Dickens and Graham 2002). The values are summed to provide a TotalScore, and divided by the total number of taxa to provide an Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT).61

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentplaced over the mouth of each jar to allow air flow and to prevent intruders from laying eggs.Specimens hatching were identified over a period of several weeks.6.4.10. FishFish were sampled at three sites in the Limpopo River using a portable, battery-operated, pulseddirect current electro-fisher (Samus 725M). A fine-meshed net was attached to a 30 cm anode ring.This equipment allowed unrestricted access to shallow areas, and is less prone than other methodsto biased sampling. Sampling was limited to about 20 minutes at each site. The comparativeabundance of each species caught was expressed as the total number that would have been caughthad sampling been conducted for one hour (i.e. Catch per Unit Effort). Fish species were identifiedusing the guide Freshwater Fishes of Southern Africa (Skelton 1993). Specimens were returned tothe river after identification. Representative specimens were preserved in formalin and sent to theSouth African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity, Grahamstown, to confirm identifications (DenisTweddle, pers. comm.). Fish habitats were categorized according to the following depth-flowclasses:Slow (0.5m): deep runs, rapids and riffles (Kleynhans 1999).The Present Ecological State of the fish assemblage at each site was based on the differencebetween the expected and observed composition and abundance of species, expressed as apercentage, where 100% = natural. The following indices were applied:Fish Assemblage Integrity Index (FAII), using the species intolerance component of thisindex only (Kleynhans 1999). This method sums the species intolerance values for allspecies that are recorded at each site to obtain a total intolerance score (Kleynhans 2006).The total scores are expressed as a percentage of the total intolerance scores for speciesthat are expected to have been caught at each site under natural conditions. This index hasbeen applied widely in South Africa, and is suited to assessing the ecological conditions at aspecific site.Biotic Integrity (Gaigher and Fouche 2001). This method has been applied to rivers in theLimpopo Province, and was applied for comparative purposes.The expected composition of fish was based largely on the National reference Frequency ofOccurrence expected to have occurred in the Limpopo River at Stockpoort (Site A4 Limp-Stockpoort) (Kleynhans et al. 2007), and distribution records published by the IUCN (www.iucn.org).The species composition was adjusted to account for the instream habitats present at each site atthe time of sampling, and the likelihood of catching each species with the equipment that was used,and the effort that was made. Species known to occur in the area, but with a low likelihood ofoccurrence because of the flow conditions, such as Leaden labeo, Labeo molybdinus, andsuckermouths, Chiloglanis spp., were therefore excluded from the analysis. The results wereclassified on a six-point scale, shown in Table 6-10.62

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-10 Classification of Present Ecological State of fish, based on the total observedintolerance ratings expressed as a percentage of the total expected intolerance ratings(Kleynhans 2003).CATEGORY DESCRIPTION% OFEXPECTEDA Unmodified, or approximate natural conditions closely. 90 to 100B Largely Natural with few modifications. A change in80 to 89community characteristics may have taken place but speciesrichness and presence of intolerant species indicate littlemodification.C Moderately Modified. A lower than expected species richness 60 to 79and presence of most intolerant species. Some impairment ofhealth may be evident at the lower limit of this class.D Largely Modified. A clearly lower than expected species 40 to 59richness and absence or much lowered presence of intolerantand moderately intolerant species. Impairment of health maybecome more evident at the lower limit of this class.E Seriously Modified. A strikingly lower than expected species 20 to 39richness and general absence of intolerant and moderatelyintolerant species. Impairment of health may become veryevident.F Critically Modified. An extremely lowered species richnessand absence of intolerant and moderately intolerant species.Only tolerant species may be present with a complete loss ofspecies at the lower limit of the class. Impairment of healthgenerally very evident.0 to 196.4.11. Assumptions and LimitationsSpatial Extent. The spatial extent of this study was restricted to the receiving aquaticenvironment, as the extent of the donor systems and conveyance routes was unknown whenthe study was planned. It is now understood that initial water requirements for the proposeddevelopments will be met first by interbasin transfer from the Mokolo Dam, located in theadjacent Mokolo River, and then from the transfer of surplus effluent return flows from theCrocodile River (West) / Marico systems (DWA 2010a). Consideration is also being given toadditional augmentation from the Vaal River system, either directly or through transfers fromthe Vaal River system via the Crocodile River Catchment (DWA 2010b). The exclusion fromthis report of the donor environment and conveyance routes is considered appropriatebecause these aspects will need to be addressed as part of the water augmentationscheme, referred to as the Crocodile River (West) Transfer Scheme.Spatial Resolution. This study assessed ecological conditions at a few strategicallyselected sites only. No attempt was made to collect primary data from all the pans andwetland systems in the area, partly because of the uniform nature of these systems, andpartly because detailed physical data on most of the pans within the mining area werealready described by Bredin (2009). The extent of primary data collection, with a focus on63

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentthe Limpopo River and main pans, was therefore considered appropriate for the purposes ofthis report.Temporal Variation. Aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of the proposed development arehighly variable, and this makes defining baseline conditions extremely difficult. Highlyvariable rainfall is likely to lead to rapid and large changes in surface waterphysicochemistry, and particularly within the shallow pans. The aquatic biota associated withthese systems has evolved to tolerate wide fluctuations in environmental conditions, andhave life-histories that tend to be opportunistic. Primary data for this study was based on asingle survey conducted when most pans were dry, and when flows in the Limpopo Riverwere zero or a trickle. Previous surveys of invertebrates and fish in the Limpopo River wereconducted during high flow (Digby Wells & Associates 2009, 2010). Combining the primarydata collected during this study with available data on the aquatic ecology of these areasprovides a reasonable understanding of short-term fluctuations, but the medium andespecially the longer-term natural fluctuations remain uncertain. This highlights theimportance of long-term monitoring of selected key response variables.Sampling Risks. Fish were not sampled in some of the deeper pools because of risks ofcrocodile attack. Larger fish species expected in deeper habitats are therefore likely to havebeen under-sampled, but this was taken into consideration when the data were analysed.Taxonomic Resolution. The taxonomic resolution used in the study varied among thegroups. Fish and diatoms were identified to species level, whereas aquatic invertebrateswere identified mainly to family level. It was beyond the scope of this study to identify aquaticinvertebrates to species level, as this requires considerable time, skill and equipment. Thepresence of endemic or undescribed invertebrate species may therefore have beenoverlooked, but such level of detail is usually not appropriate for Baseline Assessments.Reference Conditions. The composition of aquatic biota in the study area prior to majordisturbance will never be known for certain. For this reason, reference conditions arehypothetical, and are based on professional judgment, and/or inferred from limited dataavailable.Present Ecological State. The Present Ecological State (PES) of invertebrates inhabitingpans could not be quantified because of the taxonomic resolution needed, and becausethere is no known or accepted way of doing so. The PES of the pans was therefore basedon an assessment of habitat and vegetation integrity, and is presented in Section 6.3.3.64

Limpopo West Mine – Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 6-8Location of the aquatic sampling points65

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment6.5. Impact AssessmentThe Impact Assessment is conducted by determining how the proposed activities will affectthe state of the environment previously described.The Methodology detailed below is based on the requirements specified in the ToR and hasbeen adapted from the methodology provided by SRK. The various activities associated withthe Mine have been identified together with the environmental aspects of these activities.The impacts relate to how these aspects will affect the existing state of the environment. Theratings used in ascribing significance are listed in Table 6-11.The overall significance of each impact was determined by combining the consequence ofthe impact and the probability of occurrence i.e.: Significance = Consequence (intensity +spatial extent + duration) X Likelihood (Frequency of Activity + Frequency of Impact). Thesignificance scores are highlighted in Table 6-13 and Table 6-13.The flora, fauna, wetland and aquatic sections have been combined into one impact tabledue to the possibility of one aspect impacting on a number of elements of biodiversity.Table 6-11Impact:Descriptors used in ascribing impact significanceTo be prepared in separate tables for project related and then cumulative impactOnly to be prepared for applicable phases – but one table per phase (eg.Project phase:Construction)SRKCONSEQUENCE OF IMPACTSub-total:SEVERITY OF IMPACT RATING SPATIAL SCOPE / EXTENT RATING DURATION OF IMPACT RATINGInsignificant / non-harmful 1 Activity specific 1 One day to one month 1Small / potentially harmful 2 Area / site specific 2 One month to one year 2Significant / slightlyharmful3 Local area (within 5 km of site) 3 X One year to ten years 3Great / harmful 4 XRegional(provincial,catchment)4 Life of operation 4Extremely harmful 5 National 5 Post-closure/permanent 5 XSRK LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT OCCURRINGSub-total:FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITY RATING FREQUENCY OF IMPACT RATINGAnnually or less / low 1 Almost never / almost impossible 16 monthly / temporary 2 Very seldom / highly unlikely 2Monthly / infrequent 3 Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3Weekly / life of operation / regularly / likely 4 Often / regularly / likely / possible 4 XDaily / permanent / high 5 X Daily / highly likely / definitely 5TOTAL OF PRE-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTProposed mitigation:SRKCONSEQUENCE OF IMPACTSub-total:SEVERITY OF IMPACT RATING SPATIAL SCOPE / EXTENT RATING DURATION OF IMPACT RATINGSRK LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACT OCCURRINGSub-total:FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITY RATING FREQUENCY OF IMPACT RATINGTOTAL OF POST-MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT66

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 6-12Significance Assessment MatrixConsequence (Severity+Spatial Scope+ Duration)Likelihood (Frequency of activity andfrequency of impact)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 152 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 303 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 454 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 605 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 756 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 907 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 1058 16 24 32 40 48 56 63 72 80 88 96 104 112 1209 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 13510 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150Table 6-13ColourCodeMitigation RatingsSignificanceRatingVery HighHighValueNegative Impact ManagementRecommendationPositive Impact ManagementRecommendations126-150 Improve current management Maintain current management101-125 Improve current management Maintain current managementMedium-High 76-100 Improve current management Maintain current managementLow-Medium 51-75 Maintain current management Improve current managementLow 26-50 Maintain current management Improve current managementVery Low 1-25 Maintain current management Improve current management6.5.1. Assumptions and LimitationsThe following general assumptions have been made for the IA:Professional wildlife management will take place, during Phase 1 and 2 of the project,on the farms owned by Sasol and yet not mined during these phases;It is assumed that all vegetation will be removed in the farms applicable to eachPhase of the project, with the vegetation of the entire LWM study area removed byPhase 3 of the project, with no natural vegetation remaining;Based on the groundwater IA (SRK, 2013b), this assessment assumes that it is“almost impossible” for the groundwater contamination plume, during Phase 1, 2 and3 of mining, and Acid Mine Drainage post-closure, to reach the Limpopo River. Duringthe operational phases of the mine the dewatering operations will create a ‘sink’ effectwhere groundwater will be pulled towards the pit; therefore contaminated water willbe captured within the pit lake. During Phase 1 of mining it is likely that the pit lakewill form a through flow system and there is therefore the possibility of contaminatedgroundwater reaching the Limpopo River is “Likely” with the level of contaminationbeing low (300-500mg/l of sulphates) and therefore the severity rated as “slightlyharmful”;This assessment assumes, based on the SRK groundwater IA (SRK, 2013b) thatthere is no link between the groundwater and surface pans and that no perched67

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentaquifer exists, meaning that the pans will not be impacted on by the dewatering of themine pits;The decrease in baseflow of the Limpopo River due to the de-watering of pits duringPhase 1, 2 and 3 of the mine is expected to be less than 1% (SRK, 2013b).It is assumed that all wetlands within the mining area will be destroyed, excluding theFEPA wetland in the south and associated 1km buffer; andIt is assumed that the LWM study area will be rehabilitated post-mining and the openpits partially back-filled. Portions of the Northern Pit B, Central Pit B and Southern Pitwill remain open and will form ‘terminal’ pit lakes.68

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7. RESULTS7.1. Floral Assessment7.1.1. Vegetation CommunitiesNine plant communities were identified within the LWM study area (Figure 7-1). Table 7-1provides a summary of the various plant communities in terms of their size, species richness,Conservation Value and Sensitivity.Table 7-1Plant communities within the proposed Limpopo West Mine study areaPLANT COMMUNITY SIZE (ha) SPECIES RICHNESS SENSITIVITY1. Wetlands 46 Medium Very High2. Acacia nigrescens Bush clumps 10 Medium Medium3. Mixed Acacia Bush 680 Medium Medium4. Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana 4543 High MediumWoodland5. Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia 2329 High Mediumsericea Woodland7. Sclerocarya birrea Woodland 209 High High8. Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps 65 Medium High9. Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba 1399 Medium HighWoodland10.Boscia-Grewia-CommiphoraBushveld307 High MediumAdditional areas include Old Fields (465 ha), where no detailed vegetation surveys wereundertaken. The sensitivity for these areas is considered to be Low, as the vegetation wasdestroyed and the biodiversity degraded.A summary of the communities is given below with a more detailed description of these plantcommunities given in the sections that follow.The larger part of the mine area is covered by Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericeaWoodland, which is widespread over the northern parts of the site, mostly on the FarmsGrootwater, Welgelegen and Groenfontein merging into the northern parts of the FarmsGeelbekpan and Tambootievley and Kameelbult. The closely related Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland covers large areas in the southern parts of the mine area,especially on the Farms Ringbult, Gannavlakte, Duikerfontein, Kameelbult and Vlakfontein,merging into the Farm Tambootievley. A further large patch of this plant community occurson the Farms Geelbekpan, Hans and Japie. Albeit that this vegetation is primary bushveld ina good condition, these plant communities occur widespread within the Limpopo SweetBushveld and the Central Sandy Bushveld.Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba Woodland is prominent and widespread on the FarmsTambootievley and Kleinberg.69

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSclerocarya birrea Woodland patches are restricted to a small area in the south-westerncorner of the Farm Vlakfontein and Kameelbult, while patches of the Spirostachys africanaBush Clumps occur on the Farms Ringbult, Kameelbult and Gannavlakte. The Sclerocaryabirrea Woodland and the Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps are important plantcommunities, with the protected trees Sclerocarya birrea (Marula) and Spirostachys africana(Tamboti) being the dominant trees respectively. These plant communities therefore have aHigh Sensitivity.All wetlands are protected in South Africa and are considered to be sensitive, especially so indrier areas such as the Limpopo Province. Therefore the wetland plant community has aVery High Sensitivity.All the other plant communities cover small areas and occur scattered over the site of themine area.A description of each of the plant communities mapped for the mine area is provided below,with a complete species list in Appendix 12.1.1.70

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-1A vegetation map for the Limpopo West Mine Study area71

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPlant Community 1: WetlandsRelatively few pans are found scattered over the planned mine area. A relatively large pan ispresent on the Farms Matopi and Groenfontein. A total of 94 plant species were recorded,many of which also occur in the Mixed Acacia Bush (Plant Community 3), which mostlysurrounds the pans. The wet patches are dominated by hygrophilous grasses, especiallyEragrostis rotifer. The most prominent species are, however, on the drier spots including thethorn trees Acacia grandicornuta, Acacia tortilis, Acacia erubescens, Acacia mellifera andAcacia nigrescens. Boscia foetida and the nationally protected Boscia albitrunca¸ as well asLycium cinereum and Lycium schizocalyx are often prominent. The protected Aloe littoralis isrestricted to a few of the driest patches of this vegetation community and is considered to bevery rare within the study area. The protected tree Combretum imberbe was also found, but itis rare in this vegetation community.Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 below summarise the description of Plant Community 1, as well asits vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-2 Summary description of Plant Community 11. WetlandsStatusWetlandsSoil Sandy loam Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.Medium Sensitivity: HighLow Need forrehabilitation0LowAcacia grandicornuta, Acacia tortilis, Acacia erubescens, Bosciafoetida, Lycium cinereumTable 7-3 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 1Vegetation StructureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 7 30Shrubs 0.5-3 19Grass 0.4 20Forbs 0.2 4Figure 7-2 below depicts a typical pan found within the mine area (pan on the farmMatopi/Groenfontein).72

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-2A wetland in the Mine AreaPlant Community 2: Acacia nigrescens Bush ClumpsThe Acacia nigrescens Bush Clumps is a rare plant community, a small piece of thisvegetation occurs within the mine area on the Farm Vlakfontein. Large individuals of Acacianigrescens are characteristic of this vegetation. The protected trees Acacia erioloba,Combretum imberbe, Boscia albitrunca, and Sclerocarya birrea occur in this vegetation.Although often in a good condition, the grass in this vegetation is highly palatable andpreferred by cattle and game, and is therefore prone to over-grazing. As this type ofvegetation is widespread on a greater scale and not rare, it is regarded to have a MediumSensitivity. Within the LWM study area, this community is very small and occurs within apatch of Sclerocarya birrea Woodland (Plant Community 7).Table 7-4 and Table 7-5 below summarise the description of Plant Community 2, as well asits vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-4 Summary description of Plant Community 22. Acacia nigrescens Bush ClumpsStatusPrimary thorn bushveldSoil Sandy loam Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Medium Sensitivity: MediumLow Need forrehabilitationDominant spp. Acacia nigrescens, Commiphora pyracanthoides, Combretumapiculatum, Boscia foetida, Acacia erubescens, Grewia flava, Grewiabicolor0Low73

Table 7-5 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 2Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 7 60Shrubs 0.5-3 15Grass 0.5 10Forbs 0.3 1Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDue to the small size of this plant community and the fact that it is widespread on a greaterscale, it is suggested that the proposed development be supported for this area.Plant Community 3: Mixed Acacia BushThe Acacia-dominated vegetation normally surrounds the wetlands. The largest extent of thisplant community is on the Farms Welgelegen and Grootfontein and also around the pan onthe Farms Matopi and Groenfontein. Although often in a good condition, the grass in thisvegetation is highly palatable and preferred by cattle and game, and is therefore prone toover-grazing. Although this type of vegetation is widespread and not rare, the vegetationcommunity forms an important buffer zone around the pans and one of the dominant treespecies, Boscia foetida, is provincially protected. The vegetation community therefore has aMedium Sensitivity. Figure 7-3 below depicts typical Mixed Acacia Bush found within themine area.Table 7-6 and Table 7-7 below summarise the description of Plant Community 3 as well asits vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-6 Summary description of Plant Community 33. Mixed Acacia BushStatusPrimary thorn bushveldSoil Sandy loam Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.0-1Medium Sensitivity: MediumLow Need forrehabilitationLowBoscia foetida, Acacia erubescens, Acacia tortilis, Acacia grandicornuta,Dichrostachys cinerea, Grewia flava, Grewia bicolor, Lycium cinereumTable 7-7 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 3Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 5 13Shrubs 0.5-3 19Grass 0.4 38Forbs 0.4 474

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-3Mixed Acacia Bush in the Mine AreaPlant Community 4: Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana WoodlandThe Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland is restricted to the sandy eastern parts ofthe study area. It is a broad-leaved savanna type, with Combretum apiculatum andTerminalia sericea very abundant, while species such as Burkea africana and Ochna pulchraare characteristic for this plant community. Within the mine area, the Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland covers large areas in the southern parts, especially on the FarmsRingbult, Gannavlakte, Duikerfontein, Kameelbult and Vlakfontein, merging into the FarmTambootievley. A further large patch of this plant community occurs on Geelbekpan. Thisvegetation is primary bushveld in a good condition, with high species richness and a numberof nationally and provincially protected species. This plant community therefore has aMedium sensitivity even though it occurs widespread within the Limpopo Sweet Bushveldand the Central Sandy Bushveld, and is therefore not at all rare.Table 7-8 and Table 7-9 below summarise the description of Plant Community 4 as well asits vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-8 Summary description of Plant Community 44. Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana WoodlandStatusPrimary thorn bushveldSoil Deep sand Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.0-1High Sensitivity: MediumLow Need forrehabilitationLowTerminalia sericea, Combretum apiculatum, Burkea africana, Bauhiniapetersiana, Commiphora pyracanthoides, Combretum zeyheri75

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 7-9 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 4Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 6 23Shrubs 0.5-3 18Grass 0.8 38Forbs 0.4 3Several protected species occur in this plant community. The protected trees Sclerocaryabirrea and Acacia erioloba are found scattered throughout the area. A permit is needed toremove protected trees. The once protected forb Harpagophytum procumbens (Devil’s Claw)is also present, though in low abundance.Figure 7-4 below is a typical visual representation of this plant community found within themine area.Figure 7-4The Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana WoodlandPlant Community 5: Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericea WoodlandThis broad-leaved bushveld vegetation is closely related to Plant Community 4 (Terminaliasericea-Burkea africana Woodland). It covers a large portion of the mine area, and is veryprominent on the Farms Grootwater, Welgelegen, Geelbekpan, Groenfontein, Kameelbultand more limited on Tambootievley and Vlakfontein. This type of vegetation is widespreadover the Limpopo Province and is not at all rare. Therefore, although being in good condition,with low disturbance, High species richness and a number of protected species, theSensitivity is regarded as Medium.Table 7-10 and Table 7-11 below summarise the description of Plant Community 5 as wellas its vegetation structure respectively.76

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 7-10 Summary description of Plant Community 55. Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericea WoodlandStatusPrimary broad-leaved bushveldSoil Sandy Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.0-5High Sensitivity: MediumLow Need forrehabilitationLowTerminalia sericea, Combretum apiculatum, Gymnosporia tenuispina, Grewiabicolor, Peltophorum africanum, Acacia erioloba, Bauhinia petersianaTable 7-11 Vegetation structure of Plant Community 5Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 7 15Shrubs 0.5-3 21Grass 0.6 47Forbs 0.4 3A total of 122 species were recorded, with 32 tree and shrub species. The grass layer isoften scanty, but many forb (79) species, including several weedy species are found in thisvegetation community. The protected tree Acacia erioloba is widespread and prominent.Although present, the protected trees Sclerocarya birrea, Boscia albitrunca and Combretumimberbe have a more limited distribution in this plant community. Adenium oleifolium, alsopresent in this vegetation unit, is a protected forb species.Figure 7-5 below is a typical visual representation of this plant community found within themine area.Figure 7-5The Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericea WoodlandPlant Community 7 Sclerocarya birrea WoodlandSclerocarya birrea Woodland is rare within the mine area, and is found in the south-westerncorner of the Farm Vlakfontein and on the Farm Kameelbult. The vegetation is dominated by77

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentlarge Marula trees. Marula is a protected tree species and may not be removed or evenpartly cut without a permit. These Marula patches occur within, and are closely related to, theTerminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland (Plant Community 4) and the Combretumapiculatum-Terminaliasericea Woodland (Plant Community 5). However, the abundance oflarge Marula trees results in a specific structure and appearance. Due to the large numbersof this protected tree species, this area is considered to have a High Sensitivity.Table 7-12 and Table 7-13 below summarise the description of Plant Community 7 as wellas its vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-12 Summary information for Plant Community 77. Sclerocarya birrea WoodlandStatusPrimary broad-leaved bushveldSoil Sandy Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:0-5High Sensitivity: HighLow Need forrehabilitationDominant spp. Sclerocarya birrea, Terminalia sericea, Combretum apiculatum,Gymnosporia tenuispina, Grewia bicolorLowTable 7-13 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 7Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 10 25Shrubs 0.5-3 24Grass 0.6 50Forbs 0.4 5Plant Community 8: Spirostachys africana Bush ClumpsA few patches of the Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps occur scattered in the eastern partof the Farms Ringbult, Kameelbult and Gannavlakte Spirostachys africana (Tamboti) is thedominant tree and is protected by provincial ordinance. Other protected trees present withinthese bush clumps are Boscia foetida, Boscia albitrunca, Acacia erioloba and Sclerocaryabirrea. These patches of Tamboti have a limited distribution and they are quite rare, thereforethe Sensitivity is regarded as High.Table 7-14 and Table 7-15 below summarise the description of Plant Community 8 as wellas its vegetation structure respectively.78

Table 7-14 Summary information for Plant Community 8Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment8. Spirostachys africana Bush ClumpsStatusPrimary bushveld clumps of a protected treeSoil Sandy loam Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.Medium Sensitivity: HighLow Need forrehabilitationSpirostachys africana, Boscia foetida, Boscia albitrunca, Grewia bicolor, Eucleaundulata Dichrostachys cinerea, Commiphora pyracanthoides, Acacia erioloba,Sclerocarya birrea0LowTable 7-15 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 8Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 10 25Shrubs 0.5-3 24Grass 0.6 50Forbs 0.4 5Figure 7-6 below is a typical visual representation of this plant community found within themine area.Figure 7-6Spirostachys africana Bush ClumpsPlant Community 9: Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba Woodland79

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThis plant community is well developed and widespread within the LWM study area. It ispresent on the Farms Kleinberg, Tambootievley, Groenfontein, Kameelbult andDuikerfontein, and it stretches into Groenfontein. Both Combretum imberbe and Acaciaerioloba are protected trees. A protected tree species and may not be removed or evenpartly cut without a permit (The National Forests Act, 2006 (Act 84 of 1998 as amended)).Due to the presence of these protected tree species, this area is considered to have a HighSensitivity.Table 7-16 and Table 7-17 below summarise the description of Plant Community 9 as wellas its vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-16 Summary Information for Plant Community 99. Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba WoodlandStatusPrimary bushveldSoil Sandy Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.0-5Medium Sensitivity: HighLow Need forrehabilitationLowTerminalia sericea, Combretum apiculatum, Gymnosporia tenuispina,Grewia bicolorTable 7-17 Vegetation structure for Plant Community 9Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 7 16Shrubs 0.5-3 26Grass 0.5 38Forbs 0.4 3Figure 7-7 below is a typical visual representation of this plant community found within themine area.80

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-7The Combretum imberbe-Acacia erioloba WoodlandPlant Community 10: Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora BushveldThis plant community occurs patchy within the mine area, on the Farms Welgelegen,Groenfontein and Vlakfontein. This is a mixed vegetation, often shrubby and dense, with thetwo Boscia species, Boscia albitrunca, which is nationally protected, and Boscia foetida,which is provincially protected, often prominently present. Several Grewia and Commiphoraspecies are also characteristically present in this plant community.Table 7-18 and Table 7-19 below summarise the description of Plant Community 10 as wellas its vegetation structure respectively.Table 7-18 Summary information for Plant Community 1010. Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora BushveldStatusPrimary mixed bushveld or shrubveldSoil Sandy Rockiness% coverSpeciesRichness:Agriculturalpotential:Dominant spp.0-5High Sensitivity: MediumLow Need forrehabilitationLowBoscia foetida, Boscia albitrunca, Grewia bicolor, Grewia flava,Commiphora pyracanthoides, Commiphora mollis, Rhigozumbrevispinosum, Dichrostachys cinereaTable 7-19 Vegetation Structure for Plant community 10Vegetation structureLayer Height (m) Cover (%)Trees 6 8Shrubs 0.5-3 31Grass 0.4 33Forbs 0.4 381

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThis vegetation is very rich in species and contains protected trees such as Bosciaalbitrunca, Boscia foetida, Combretum imberbe and Acacia erioloba. In spite of this, it isregarded to have a Medium Sensitivity, due to its wide distribution.Figure 7-8 below is a typical visual representation of this plant community found within themine area.Figure 7-8Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora Bushveld7.1.2. Species of Conservation ImportanceA Threatened species and species of Conservation Priority (CP) list for the Quarter DegreeGrid Square (QDGS) 2327AC was obtained from the POSA database on the SANBI website.Threatened species are those that are facing high risk of extinction, indicated by thecategories Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU). Species ofConservation Concern include the Threatened Species, but additionally have the categoriesNear Threatened (NT), Data Deficient (DD), Critically Rare (CR), Rare (R) and Declining (D).This is in accordance with the new Red List for South African Plants (Raimondo et al. 2009).Acacia erioloba (Declining) was the only red-data species found on site during the fieldsurvey. Harpagophytum procumbens, however, is a species found throughout the LWMstudy area, and was once listed as protected by NEMBA and was regarded as nationally asNT in 1996 (Government Notice 2007). This species is significant and was once highlysought after internationally for its treatment of arthritis and rheumatism, but currently holds noofficial CI importance.In addition, Provincially and Nationally Protected (NP) species listed in Table 7-20 wereidentified to occur within the mine boundaries, and would require the acquisition of a permitfrom the Limpopo Department of Economic, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) for theirremoval.82

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe main reasons for this NP tree list is to provide strict protection to certain species, whileothers only require control over harvesting and utilisation. These species occur widelythroughout the study area and are by no means restricted in range. In addition, these speciesare not threatened (not Red-Data listed), but should be considered during the developmentphase of the project based on their legal status. In terms of the National Forests Act of 1998,a license should be granted by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (or adelegated authority) prior to the removal, damage or destruction of any individual.Tree species identified on site showed uneven population structure, with very few seedlingsand primarily large mature trees. This may be attributable to grazing by livestock kept onfarms, preventing seedlings from reaching maturity. This assumption however, is basedlargely on speculation but does seem to ne the most likely cause for the lack of juvenile treespecies (including mostly Protected Species).Table 7-20 Protected plant species identified on siteSPECIES COMMON NAME VEGETATION UNITAcacia erioloba E.Mey. 1;2 Camel Thorn Mixed Acacia BushAdenium oleifolia 1 Impala Lily Combretum apiculatum – Terminalia sericeaWoodlandBoscia albitrunca (Burch.) Shepherd’s Tree Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora BushveldGilg & Gilg-Ben. 1;2Boscia foetida Schinz 1 Smelly Shepherd’s Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora BushveldTreeCrinum sp. 1Combretum imberbe Wawra 1 Leadwood Combretum imberbe-Acacia WoodlandSclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Marula Sclerocarya birrea WoodlandHochst 2Spirostachys africana Sond. 1 Tamboti Spirostachys africana BushclumpsKey: 1 Provincially Protected according to Limpopo Protected Species Schedule 12; 2 Nationally Protected according to NationalForests Act, 1998 (Act no. 84 of 1998)Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) HochstMarulaFigure 7-97.1.3. Medicinal plantsExamples of Protected Tree species found on site83Boscia foetida SchinzSmelly Shepherd’s TreeA number of these species are highly prized for their traditional healing properties, especiallyfor “muthi” (they have ethno medicinal value). It is estimated that more than 28 million peoplein South Africa consume about 19 500 tonnes of plant material per annum (Mander, 1998).

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFor example, certain popularly traded species have become over-exploited and are now rareor extinct in the wild. This has resulted in the forced use of alternative species and ageographical shift in the harvesting pressure of previously unexploited areas. Although mostof these plant species are regionally widespread and abundant, some of the more soughtafterplant resources are currently declining and should be envisaged as priority conservationentities.Medicinal plant species identified on site are described by the following sources: Ali et al.2011, Van Wyk, Van Oudthoorn & Gericke (1997) and Schmidt, Lotter & McCleland (2002)and are listed with their uses in Appendix 12.1.2. No evidence was seen on site of medicinalharvesting, however these plant resources are still of Conservation Importance (CI).7.1.4. Alien and Weed SpeciesInvaders and weed species are plants that invade natural or semi-natural habitats; especiallyareas disturbed by humans and are commonly known as environmental weeds. Weeds thatinvade severely disturbed areas are known as ruderal and agrestal weeds. Most of theseweeds are annuals colonising waste sites and cultivated fields. These weeds only persist onrecently disturbed areas and seldom invade established areas (Henderson, 2001).In 1984, regulations were passed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act(CARA) regulations declaring about 50 species “weeds” or “invader plants”. On 30 March2001 the Minister of Agriculture promulgated an amendment to these regulations. Thisamendment now contains a comprehensive list of species that are declared weeds andinvader plants dividing them into three categories. These categories are as follows: Category 1: Declared weeds that are prohibited on any land or water surface inSouth Africa. These species must be controlled, or eradicated where possible. Category 2: Declared invader species that are only allowed in demarcated areasunder controlled conditions and prohibited within 30m of the 1:50 year floodline ofany watercourse or wetland. Category 3: Declared invader species that may remain, but must be preventedfrom spreading. No further planting of these species are allowed.In terms of the amendments to the regulations under the Conservation of AgricultureResources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983), landowners are legally responsible for the controlof alien species on their properties. Various Acts administered by the DEA and DWA, as wellas other laws (including local by-laws), spell out the fines, terms of imprisonment and otherpenalties for contravening the law. Although no fines have yet been placed againstlandowners who do not remove invasive species, the authorities may clear their land ofinvasive alien plants and other alien species entirely at the landowners cost and risk.The protection of our natural systems from invasive species is further strengthened withinSections 70-77 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of2004). Under Section 70, the Invasive Species Regulations have placed those listed inCARA as well as an additional 47 invasive species within the following categories:Category 1a: Remove and destroy (Refers to invasive species requiring compulsorycontrol as a top priority)Category 1b: Remove and destroy (The equivalent of the CARA Category 1, theseare invasive species controlled as part of an integrated invasive species controlprogramme under local, provincial or national authority)84

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment Category 2: Invasive species regulated by area (A demarcation permit is requiredto import, possess, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept plants as a gift. No permitsfor plants exist in riparian zones. Category 3: Invasive species regulated by activity (An individual plant permit isrequired to import, posses, grow, breed, move, sell, buy or accept plants as a gift. Nopermits for plants exist in riparian zones)Section 73 (2) states that a person who is the owner of land on which a listed invasivespecies occurs must:• Notify any relevant competent authority, in writing, of the listed invasive speciesoccurring on that land;• Take steps to control and eradicate the listed invasive species and to prevent itfrom spreading; and• Take all the required steps to prevent or minimise negative impacts to biodiversity.Declared weeds and invaders have the tendency to dominate or replace the canopy orherbaceous layer of natural ecosystems, thereby transforming the structure, composition andfunction of natural ecosystems. In the natural vegetation the only declared alien speciesrecorded was Opuntia species (Category 1 (CARA); 1b (NEMBA)). Other Declared weedsand invaders included woody species that were found at the farmsteads where they wereplanted as garden ornamentals or shade trees, for example Pinus spp. ((Category 2 (CARA);2b (NEMBA)), Eucalyptus sp. ((Category 2 (CARA); 2b (NEMBA)), Jacaranda mimosifolia((Category 3 (CARA); 1b (NEMBA)), Bougainvillea sp. and various fruit trees, for examplepeach, apricot, orange and lemon.Strict weedy species were also quite rare, however some indigenous as well as exotic weedyspecies were recorded in the sample plots. The weedy species that were recorded do notpose any threat of invading natural veld. Most of them are annual species that may appearannually at disturbed sites. They are not considered to be a problem. An analysis of these isgiven per plant community in Table 7-21 - Table 7-29.Table 7-21 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 1: WetlandGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/ Percentage (%) ofWeeds (W)Alien/Weedy speciesWoody Species 20 1 (A) 5Grasses 16 0 0Forbs 58 14 (W) 24TOTAL 94 15 16Table 7-22 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 2: Acacianigrescens Bush clumpsGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/ Percentage (%) ofWeeds (W)Alien/Weedy speciesWoody Species 25 0 0Grasses 10 0 0Forbs 50 7 (W) 14TOTAL 85 7 885

Table 7-23BushLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAlien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 3: Mixed AcaciaGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 17 1 (A) 6Grasses 12 0 0Forbs 51 6 (W) 12TOTAL 80 7 9Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy speciesTable 7-24 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 4: Terminaliasericea – Burkea africana WoodlandGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 31 0 0Grasses 11 0 0Forbs 71 7 (W) 10TOTAL 113 7 6Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy speciesTable 7-25 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 5: Combretumapiculatum – Terminalia sericea WoodlandGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 32 0 0Grasses 11 0 0Forbs 79 7 (W) 9TOTAL 122 7 6Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy speciesTable 7-26 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 7: Sclerocaryabirrea WoodlandGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 30 0 0Grasses 13 0 0Forbs 70 8 (W) 11TOTAL 113 8 7Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy speciesTable 7-27 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 8: Spirostachysafricana Bush ClumpsGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 29 0 0Grasses 10 0 0Forbs 46 4 (W) 9TOTAL 85 4 5Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy species86

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 7-28 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 9: Combretumimberbe – Acacia erioloba WoodlandGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 26 0 0Grasses 8 0 0Forbs 48 9 (W) 19TOTAL 82 9 11Percentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy speciesTable 7-29 Alien and weed plant species found in Plant Community 10: Boscia –Grewia – Commiphora BushveldGrowth Form Total Species Declared Aliens (A)/Weeds (W)Woody Species 29 0 0Grasses 13 0 0Forbs 95 15 (W) 167.2. Faunal AssessmentPercentage (%) ofAlien/Weedy species7.2.1. Faunal CommunitiesLimpopo Province is diverse supporting as many as 568 species of birds (SABAP, 2010),168 mammal species, 148 reptile species and 46 frog species (LEDET, 2003b).Presented in Table 7-30 is a summary of the total numbers of potentially occurring andobserved mammal, bird, reptile, frog, and butterfly species that have been observed withinthe LWM study area. Potential species lists were compiled using various literature sources(Friedman & Daly (2004); Minter et al. (2004); SABAP (2010); SARCA (2010); SABCA(2010). These lists are presented in Appendices 12.2 to 12.6.Table 7-30Numbers of faunal species identifiedSPECIES RICHNESSFAUNAL GROUPPOTENTIAL OBSERVED PROPORTION (%)Mammals 107 31 29Birds 193 + 119 62Reptiles 84 22 26Amphibians 24 6 25Butterflies 107 11 10It is apparent from the above summary that there is scope for an increase in the detection ofall faunal groups. However it is important to note that potential species lists are based ondistribution data over QDGS or pentad scales, which often encompass a larger area andinclude habitats that may either be degraded or completely lacking on site. As such, theprobability lists (presented in Appendices 12.2 to 12.6) also include species which areunlikely to occur on site but which are modelled to occur within the greater area. This resultsin an overestimation of probable species and the actual number of species which are likely tooccur on site is considerably lower.Conservation important species (CIS) either present or potentially occurring within the minearea are discussed in greater detail in Section 7.2.7.87

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.2.2. MammalsA complete list of the potentially occurring and observed mammal species for the study areais provided in Appendix 12.2. This list includes 107 potentially occurring mammal speciesbased on distribution records from within and surrounding the QDGS 2327CB (Friedman andDaly, 2004).Numbers of potentially occurring and observed species per mammalian order aresummarised in Table 7-31 using Stuart & Stuart’s (1988) classification. Mammal species thatare likely to occur but which were not observed are mainly those that are secretive (e.g.small carnivores), nocturnal (e.g. and bats) and inconspicuous (e.g shrews, rats and mice).Further camera-trapping would increase the probability of recording additional carnivorespecies, while live-trapping for longer periods of time and at more localities would increasethe chance of recording additional small mammal species.Combining all NSS surveys within the mine area the presence of a total of 31 mammalspecies has been confirmed to date. Some examples of these species are illustrated inFigure 7-10. This represents 29 % of the total number of species which are modelled tooccur (Friedman and Daly, 2004). It is important to note however that 24 of these species areconsidered likely to occur only in managed populations and a further 4 species areconsidered unlikely to occur based on marginal distribution ranges or lack of suitable habitat,leaving 75 species that are likely to occur naturally on site. Examples of some of themammals detected within the LWM study area are presented in Figure 7-10.Table 7-31studiesNumbers of faunal species identified during current and previousSPECIES RICHNESS PROPORTIONFAMILYPOTENTIAL OBSERVED (%)MACROSCELIDEA (Elephant Shrews) 3 0 0TUBILIDENTATA (Aardvark) 1 1 100HYRACOIDEA (Dassies) 1 0 0LAGOMORPHA (Hares & Rabbits) 2 1 50RODENTIA (Rodents) 23 6 26PRIMATES (Bush Babies, Monkeys &Baboon) 3 1 33INSECTOVORA(Insectivores) 3 0 0CHIROPTERA (Bats) 16 0 0PHOLIDOTA (Pangolin) 1 0 0CARNIVORA (Carnivores) 26 5 19PERISSODACTYLA (Odd toed Ungulates) 3 2 67ARTIODACTYLA (Even-toed Ungulates) 25 15 60TOTAL 107 31 29The majority of farm portions within and surrounding the study area are managed as game /hunting farms. Fifteen of the 24 potentially occuring stocked mammal species were detectedwithin the mine area, of which two are conservation important species (CIS).Species considered unlikely to occur based on a lack of suitable habitat, for example,include those that are dependant on significant rocky outcrops namely Mountain reedbuck(Redunca fulvorufula), Rock Hyrax (Procavia capensis) and Jameson's Red Rock Rabbit(Pronolagus randensis) or species such as otter which are quite strongly tied to permanent88

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentwater bodies such as the Limpopo River. Several bat species certainly occur, but none wererecorded since mist-netting and acoustic surveys were not performed.Eland(Tragelaphus oryx)African buffalo(Syncerus caffer)Greater kudu(Tragelaphus strepsiceros)Gemsbok(Oryx gazelle)Giraffe(Giraffa camelopardalis)Common warthog(Phacochoerus africanus)Banded mongoose(Mungos mungo)Black-backed jackal(Canis mesomelas)Brown hyaena(Hyaena brunnea)Figure 7-10 Examples of naturally occurring mammals identified in the LWM Studyarea89

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.2.3. BirdsA total of 172 bird species have been recorded during both the first and second South AfrcanBird Atlas Projects (SABAP) within the QDGS 2327CB as well as the pentands 2340_2720and 2330_2715 that cover the study area (SABAP, 2010). These species together with thosedetected on site are are listed in Appendix 12.2.2. Verified SABAP records for the pentadsand which also cover the study area are lacking.During all site visits (from 2008 to 2012) NSS has detected a total of 119 bird species withinthe mine area which represents 62 % of the total number of species recorded during both theSABAP surveys. Twenty of these species have not been recorded during either SABAP 1 or2. One of which, the Short-clawed Lark (Certhilauda chuana), is a Near-threatened species.These species are marked with an asterix in Appendix 12.2.2. Some examples of birdsrecorded in the LWM study area are illustrated in Figure 7-11.Burchell's Sandgrouse(Pterocles burchelli)Spotted Flycatcher(Muscicapa striata)Figure 7-11 Examples of birds identified in the LWMCape Penduline-tit(Anthoscopus minutus)To assess possible sampling bias (towards more conspicuous species), the bird specieswere allocated to 11 categories based on their behaviour and feeding habits (Table 7-32) inaccordance with Newman (1983). The percentages of observations per category werecompared between the SABAP1 and SABAP2 records and the NSS observations for boththe LWM study area and adjacent farms. The results are presented in Figure 7-12.Table 7-32 Newman’s (2002) modified bird categoriesCATEGORYDESCRIPTION1. Ocean birds Albatrosses, gannets/boobies, gulls, penguins, petrels, prions, shearwaters,skimmer, skuas, subAntartctic birds, terns, & tropic-/frigatebirds.2. Inland water birds Pelicans, cormorants, herons, egrets, storks, hamerkop, flamingos, spoonbill,ibises & finfoot.3. Ducks & wading Ducks, geese, grebes, coot, gallinules, crakes, flufftails, snipes, plovers,birdslapwings, waders, jacanas, oystercatchers, curlews, avocet & stilts.4. Large terrestrial Thicknees, pratincoles, coursers, korhaans, bustards, cranes, quail,birdsfrancolins, spurfowl, buttonquail, guineafowl, ostrich & secretarybird.5. Raptors Vultures, kites, eagles, buzzards, sparrowhawks, hawks, harriers, falcons &90

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentCATEGORYDESCRIPTIONkestrels.6. Sandgrouse, Sandgrouse, doves, pigeons, parrots, lovebirds, trogon, turacos & go-awaydoves, etcbirds (louries), cuckoos & coucals.7. Owls & nightjars Owls & nightjars.8. Aerial feeders, etc Swallows, martins, swifts, mousebirds, bee-eaters, kingfishers, rollers,hoopoes, hornbills, barbets, woodpeckers, wryneck & honeyguides.9. Cryptic & elusive Larks, finchlarks, pipits, wagtails, drongos, black flycatcher, cuckooshrikes,insect-eaterscrows, orioles, bulbuls, tits, babblers, thrushes, chats & robins.10. Regular insecteatersWarblers, apalises, titbabblers, eremomelas, carmoropteras, grassbird,cisticolas, prinias, flycatchers, batises, shrikes, boubous, tchagras,helmetshrikes & starlings.11. Oxpeckers & Sunbirds, oxpeckers, white-eyes & queleas.nectar feeders12. Seedeaters Sparrows, weavers, widow birds, bishops, finches, firefinches, waxbills,manikins, whydahs, canaries, siskins & buntings.Although the proportion of bird groups represented in NSS and SABAP lists are fairly similarthroughout, NSS data did show one major deviation, represented by a significantly lowerproportion of regular insect-eaters (cisticolas, prinias and shrikes). This is most likely due tothe nature of the study and the time constraints involved leading to these somewhat crypticbirds being easily overlooked. Raptors also showed a lower than expected representation.Suitable habitat does exist on site for all of the raptors recorded during SABAP surveys andthis discrepancy is likely due to sampling limitations. In any event neither SABAP nor NSSlists, although comprehensive should be regarded as absolute.Proportion of Bird Diversity (%)25 SABAP 1 and 2NSS TOTAL201510501. Ocean birds2. Inland water birds3. Ducks & wading birds4. Large terrestrial birds5. Raptors6. Owls & nightjars7. Sandgrouse, doves etc8. Aerial feeders, etc9. Cryptic & elusive insect-eaters10. Regular insect-eaters11. Oxpeckers & nectar feeders12. SeedeatersBird GroupFigure 7-12 Percentage of birds observed per category for SABAP1 and 2 recordsand during the three NSS field investigations.91

7.2.4. ReptilesLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAccording to the LEDET (2003b) Limpopo Province supports 148 reptile species. Howevercomprehensive data provided in the yet unpublished South African Reptile ConservationAssesment (SARCA) shows that as many as 215 species of reptile occur in the province thehighest species richness of all the provinces. Of these species 11 are endemic to theprovince (LEDET, 2003b).A complete list of the 84 potentially occurring reptile species based on SARCA (2010)distribution data for the study area is provided in Table 7-33. However 16 of these speciesare considered only moderately likely to occur while a further 7 are considered unlikely tooccur based on marginal distribution and / or the lack of suitable habitat. This leaves anoptimistic estimate of 23 species that are highly likey to occur on site.Table 7-33Reptile diversity in the study areaSPECIES RICHNESS PROPORTIONFAMILYPOTENTIAL OBSERVED (%)TYPHLOPIDAE (Blind Snakes) 2 0 0LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE (Thread Snakes) 1 0 0BOIDAE (Boas and Pythons) 1 0 0ATRACTASPIDIDAE (Burrowing Snakes) 4 0 0COLUBRIDAE (Typical Snakes) 16 2 9ELAPIDAE (Mambas, Cobras and Relatives) 6 2 9VIPERIDAE (Adders and Vipers) 4 0 0AGAMIDAE (Agamas) 4 3 14CHAMAELEONIDAE (Chameleons) 1 1 5VARANIDAE (Monitors) 2 1 5LACERTIDAE (Lacertids) 8 2 9SCINCIDAE (Skinks) 11 2 9CORDYLIDAE (Girdled Lizards) 3 0 0GERRHOSAURIDAE (Plated lizards) 3 1 5GEKKONIDAE (Geckos) 9 4 18AMPHISBAENIDAE (Worm Lizards) 3 1 5CROCODYLIDAE (Crocodiles) 1 0 0PELOMEDUSIDAE (Terrapins) 2 1 5TESTUDINIDAE (Tortoises) 3 2 9TOTAL 84 22 100* Adapted from: Branch (1998); SARCA (2010)A total of 22 species of reptile have been recorded within the LWM study area. Although thisshows a relatively high species richness for the mine area it represents only half of thenumber of species recorded by NSS within the greater area, suggesting that the currentinventory significantly underestimates the true species richness. Nevertheless, the listprovides a good representation of some of the more common species to be found within themine area. Some examples of reptiles recorded in the mine area are illustrated in Figure7-13.92

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFlap-necked chamaeleon(Chamaeleo dilepis)Common barking gecko(Ptenopus garrulous garrulous)Bushveld lizard(Heliobolus lugubris)Kalahari tent tortoise(Psammobates oculifer)Tree agama(Acanthocercus atricollis)Leopard tortoise(Stigmochelys pardalis)Figure 7-13 Examples of reptiles identified in the Limpopo West Mine Study areaThe lack of significant rocky outcrops precludes the presence of several ripiculous (rockdwelling) species such as Southern Rock Agama (Agama atra) or any of the flat lizards(Platysaurus spp.) or flat geckos (Afroedura spp.). More extensive trapping following heavyrains and over longer periods of time would increase the detection of snake species.A large proportion of the reptiles that do occur within this study area are typicallycharacterised by those species adapted to soft aeolian Namib sands. These include reptilessuch as sand snakes, quill-snouted snakes, lacertid lizards, and worm lizards. Lacertidlizards were possibly the most commonly observed reptile group other than tortoises. Thesequick moving diurnal lizards are capable of withstanding body temperatures as high as 44 ˚C,significantly higher than most other reptiles (Alexander & Marais’s, 2007) possibly explainingthere prevalance during site visits. Two species of Lacertid lizard were identified on sitenamely the Common rough-scaled lizard (Ichnotropis squamulosa) and the Bushveld Lizard(Heliobolus lugubris) whose aposematic hatchlings mimic the noxious Oogpister Beetle, withtheir unusual dark colouration and staggered gait (Branch, 1998). Turning of logs yieldedrecords of the fausorial Kalahari Round-headed Worm Lizard (Zygaspis quadrifrons). ARough-scaled Plated Lizard (Gerrhosaurus major) which was captured at site 3 presented aninteresting find as it appears to represent a significant extension to the known range of the93

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentspecies. The nearest SARCA record is from the QDGS 2229CD some 200km north east(SARCA, 2010), near the town of Alldays.7.2.5. FrogsThe Limpopo Province supports approximately 46 amphibian species (LEDET, 2003b).Published data from the South African Frog Atlas (Minter et al. 2004) was used to compile alist of 24 amphibian species that could occur within study area. These species aresummarised per group in Table 7-34. Three species are however considered unlikely tooccur with a further four considered only moderately likely to occur based on distribuitionleaving 17 species that are highly likely to occur. A total of 9 species have been recordedwithin the QDGS according to the South African Frog Atlas (Minter et al. 2004).Table 7-34 Frog diversity in the study areaSPECIES RICHNESS PROPORTIONFAMILYPOTENTIAL OBSERVED (%)BREVICIPITIDAE (Rain Frogs) 1 1 100BUFONIDAE (Toads) 6 2 200RHACOPHORIDAE (Foam Nest Frogs) 1 1 100HEMISOTIDAE (Shovel-nosed Frogs) 1 0 0HYPEROLIIDAE (Kassinas & Reed Frogs) 1 1 100MICROHYLIDAE (Rubberfrogs) 1 1 100PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE (Puddle Frogs) 1 0 0PTYCHADENIDAE (Grass & Ornate Frogs) 3 0 0PIPIDAE (Platannas) 1 0 0PYXICEPHALIDAE (African Common Frogs) 7 0 0RHACOPHORIDAE (Foam Nest Frogs) 1 1 100TOTAL 24 6 100*Adapted from Minter et al. (2004)A total of 6 frog species have been recorded within the mine area during all NSS surveys,none of which are Red Listed species. Some of the amphibians identified in the study areaare illustrated in Figure 7-14.Southern Foam Nest Frog(Chiromantis xerampelina)Banded Rubber Frog(Phrynomantis bifasciatus)Bushveld Rain Frog(Breviceps adspersus adspersus)Figure 7-14 Examples of frogs identified in the LWM Study area94

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe various more permenant water holes and troughs support Eastern Olive Toad(Amietophrynus garmani) and Raucous Toad (Amietophrynus rangeri) while those morenaturalized waterholes with good amounts of emergent vegetation also provide habitat forBubbling Kassina (Kassina senegalensis) and Southern Foam Nest Frog (Chiromantisxerampelina). The soft Namib sands provide the Bushveld Rain Frog (Breviceps adspersusadspersus) with a convenient burrowing substrate. Rainfrogs which were (heard calling andseen following heavy rainfall) are not dependant on water as there young complete theredevelopment within subterranean burrows and as such are far more evenly dispersedthroughout the study area.Ephemeral pans within the study area such as on Groenfontein and Matopi provide importanthabitat for frog species which are capable of breeding in such temporary environments. Onesuch species recorded on site is the Banded Rubber Frog (Phrynomantis bifasciatus) whichis even capaple of breeding in pools formed in tyre tracks or large animal footprints (du DuPreez & Carruthers, 2009). Other such explosive breeding species that may occur but thatwere not detected include the African Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus edulis), Giant Bullfrog(Pyxicephalus adspersus) and two snad frog species Tremolo Sand Frog (Tomopternacryptotis) and Knocking Sand Frog (Tomopterna krugerensis). Although the the study arealies in a region of range overlap for both African and Giant Bullfrog the former is more likelyto occur in savannah areas while the latter frequents grasslands (Du Preez & Carruthers,2009).7.2.6. InvertebratesApart from butterflies, comprehensive distribution data for many invertebrate species islargely lacking. This is partly because of the immense number of species involved and partlyas a result of taxonomic uncertainty. The South African Butterfly Conservation Atlas(SABCA) has made available distribution maps and conservation status data for publicaccess through the publication of the South African Red Data Book: Butterflies by Henning etal. (2009) and a new revised addition will be released by the middle of this year (SABAP 2website, 2012).At least 40 terrestrial macro-invertebrate species belonging to 20 families have beenrecorded within the study area by NSS. These species are listed in Appendix 12.2.6.Beetles (Order: Coleoptera), butterflies (Order: Lepidopter), spiders (Order: Araneae) andscorpions (Order: Scorpiones) consitituted the majority of these taxa. Some of theinvertebrates identified in the mine area are illustrated in Figure 7-15.95

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentParabuthus sp.Baboon spider (Family:Theraphosidae) burrowRed Velvet Mite(Trombidium sp.)Figure 7-15 Examples of invertebrates identified in the Study area7.2.7. Species of Conservation ImportanceThere are various listings that indicate whether an animal is of conservation importance (CI).These are described below.On a National level, Atlases and Red Data Books for mammals, birds and frogs have beenupdated fairly recently (Friedman & Daly, 2004; Barnes, 2000; Minter et al., 2004), while thereptile Atlas is in progress. These National listings follow the International IUCN system forcategorizing the conservation status of species. Differences exist in species listed asThreatened / Near Threatened between the international and national lists. For the purposesof this report, national lists were used, because they consider the status of the variousspecies within the local South African context. The IUCN categories are depicted below inFigure 7-16.Extinct (EX)Extinct in the wild (EW)Adequate dataThreatenedCritically Endangered(CR)Endangered (EN)EvaluatedVulnerable (VU)Near Threatened (NT)Least Concern (LC)Not(NE)Data Deficient(DD)EvaluatedFigure 7-16 IUCN Red Data List Categories (Friedmann and Daly, 2004)96

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentNEMBA (2007) provides a further listing of threatened and protected species (TOPS) thatcan also differ with the IUCN national and international listings. The TOPS (NEMBA, 2007)categories were also used in the current study.On a Provincial level, the Limpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 7, 2003)lists Specially Protected Wild Animals (SPWA) (Schedule 2) and Protected Wild Animals(PWA) (Schedule 3) (LEDET, 2003). The primary reason for listing mammals as speciallyprotected or protected is to control the hunting and/or catching of these species, i.e. permitsare required from the relevant authorities.Nationally Red Data listed, NEMBA listed, SPWA listed and PWA listed animals have beenprovided in the various animal group discussions below.7.2.8. MammalsTable 7-35 lists the 38 conservation important (CI) mammal species that may occur withinand around the QDGS 2327CB covering the study area. The Likelihood of occurrence isbased on distribution data provided provided in the Red Data Book of the Mammals ofSouthern Africa (Friedman and Daly, 2004). The table categorises each CI species accordingto their South African Red Data Book status. Additionally the table incorporates theirconservation status at provincial (LEDET, 2003), national (Nemba Schedule, 2007) andinternational scales (IUCN, 2012).The list of CI mammal species for the mine area includes 1 Critically Endangered, 2Endangered, 7 Vulnerable and 11 species of Near Threatened mammals (Table 7-35). Thetable also lists a further 17 mammal species which are not red-listed in South Africa but arenevertheless protected species in Limpopo Province and / or South Africa. However eight ofthese species are considered unlikely to occur on site as they are mainly restricted to largerreserves in the greater area with a further two species considered unlikely to occur based onmarginal distribution. This leaves 28 naturally occurring CI species which may very welloccur on site.Eight of these CI species have been detected by NSS within the mine area. Two of whichnamely Brown hyaena (Parahyaena brunne) and Honey badger (Mellivora capensis) are redlistedspecies in South Africa and are discussed briefly below.Brown hyaena (Parahyaena brunne) – Near-Threatened: The presence of BrownHyaena within the Mine area was confirmed from both spoor as well as imagesobtained via heat-sensitive motion cameras. This species detected on the farmportions Geelbekpan, Gannavlakte and Ringbuilt but is expected to occur throughoutthe study area. The national Brown Hyaena population is considered to be stable butpersecution for traditional medicine, hunting and poisoning mean that certainlocalised populations are declining (Friedman & Daly 2004). The species isconsidered a Protected Species (PS) on a national scale according to the NEMBASchedule (2007) but is also listed as a Protected Wildlife Animal (PWA) in LimpopoProvince (LEDET, 2003b).Honey badger (Mellivora capensis) – Near-Threatened: Evidence of the presenceof Honey Badger on farm Welgelegen was obtained through a motion camera image97

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentof a single individual approaching a water trough. Although the population trend iscurrently unknown, Honey Badger population sizes in South Africa are neverthelessconsidered to be very low (less than 10 000 individuals). Threats to the speciesinclude ongoing persecution though poisoning or the use of parts for the traditionalmedicine trade as well as trophy hunting (Friedman & Daly 2004). Honey Badger, likeBrown Hyaena are protected nationally (NEMBA Schedule, 2003b) as well asprovincially within Limpopo Province (LEDET, 2003b).Conservation important species that have been introduced within the study are include WhiteRhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) and Giraffe (Giraffacamelopardalis) White Rhinoceros and in particular the northern race are considered Nearthreatenedon a global scale due to the continued and increasing threat of poaching arisingfrom an increasing illegal demand for it’s horn (IUCN, 2012). Both African Buffalo and Giraffeare considered as Protected Wildlife Animals (PWA) in Limpopo Province (LEDET, 2003b).Species considered highly likely to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat that werenot detected during the fieldwork include; Ground pangolin (Manis temminckii), SouthernAfrican hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis), Rusty pipistrelle (Pipistrellus rusticus), Serval(Leptailurus serval), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Cape fox (Vulpes chama), Bat-eared fox(Otocyon megalotis) and Aardwolf (Proteles cristatus).The Rusty Pipistrelle bat has been detected by NSS during past surveys (2009) in thegeneral vicinity (farm Grootegeluk). The lack of detection of this species on site is mainlyattributable to the lack of specialised bat work including mist netting and acoustic surveys.Ground Pangolin and Hedgehog are most likely present and may be detected given moresampling time. Failure to detect the presence of the various CI small carnivores that are likelyto occur is mainly due to insufficient sampling time but persecution may play also be playinga role.Table 7-35Potentially occurring mammal species of conservation importanceSPECIES COMMON NAME LoO STATUS (OTHER)Critically EndangeredCloeotis percivali Short-eared trident bat 3 -EndangeredLycaon pictus African wild dog 5 EN*, SPWADamaliscus lunatus Tsessebe 5 EN*, PWAVulnerableLaephotis botswanae Botswana long-eared bat 4 -Manis temminckii Ground pangolin 2 VU*, SPWAAcinonyx jubatus Cheetah 3 VU*, PWAPanthera leo Lion 5 VU*, PWADiceros bicornis Black rhinoceros 5 EN*Hippotragus equinus Roan 5 VU*Hippotragus niger Sable 5 PWANear-threatenedAtelerix frontalis Southern African hedgehog 2 PS*, PWARhinolophus hildebrandtii Hildebrandt's horseshoe bat 3 -Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's horseshoe bat 3 -Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's horseshoe bat 3 -Miniopterus natalensis Natal clinging bat 3 -Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty pipistrelle 2 -98

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSPECIES COMMON NAME LoO STATUS (OTHER)Myotis tricolor Temminck's hairy bat 3 -Parahyaena brunne Brown hyaena 1 PS*, PWACrocuta crocuta Spotted hyaena 5 PS*Leptailurus serval Serval 2 PWAMellivora capensis Honey badger 1 PS*, PWALeast Concern - Protected SpeciesPanthera pardus Leopard 2 VU*, PWAFelis nigripes Black-footed cat 3 VU**, PSVulpes chama Cape fox 2 PSCeratotherium simum White rhinoceros 1 PS*, NT**, SPWARaphicerus campestris Steenbok 1 PWARedunca arundinum Southern reedbuck 3 PWARedunca fulvorufula Mountain reedbuck 3 PWAConnochaetes gnou Black wildebeest 5 PS*Syncerus caffer African buffalo 1 PWAOtocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox 2 PWAFelis silvestris African wild cat 1 PWAGalago moholi South African galago 2 PWAGiraffa camelopardalis Giraffe 1 PWAHippopotamus amphibious Hippopotamus 5 PWAProteles cristatus Aardwolf 2 PWAPronolagus randensis Jameson's red rock rabbit 4 PWACivettictis civetta African civet 1 PWA7.2.9. BirdsA list of the 20 conservation important (CI) bird species considered likely to occur based onSABAP data and / or prior NSS observations within the area are classified in Table 7-36according to their South African Red List status as presented in Barnes (2000). TheirNEMBA (2007) and LEDET (2003a) protection status has also been included.Three conservation important bird species have been detected within the mine area whichincludes one Vulnerable species one Near-threatened species and one conservationimportant Least Concern Species. White-backed Vulture (Gyps africanus) – Vulnerable: White-backed Vultures aregenerally associated with dry woodland and tall trees, which they are dependant uponfor breeding. Birds were recorded soaring above the study area and feeding within it.However no evidence of breeding activity was immediately apparent on site. The totalpopulation is estimated at less than 10000 idividuals and is in decline. The mostsignificant cause of this decline being a loss of habitat and decreased foodavailability. Collision, electrocution, poisoning and drowning also threaten thisspecies. Red-billed Oxpecker (Buphagus erythrorhynchus) – Near-Threatened: althoughformely widespride these birds suffered local population declines particularly in theEatern Cape and Pilanesberg National Park as a result of hunting of game and theuse of arsenic-based ‘purple lable’ cattle dips which poisoned both ticks andoxpeckers. More recently ongoing re-introductions and the use of oxpecker friendlygreen-label dips together with the oxpecker’s adaptability to feed on domesticlivestock are bringing them back from localised extinctions99

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentA third conservation important species to be observed within the study area is the EuropeanRoller (Coracias garrulus) which was often observed perching on powerlines during the 2010summer survey. Although listed as Least Concern in South Africa it is hower regarded asNear-threatened globally (IUCN, 2012).Table 7-36 Potentially occurring bird species of conservation importanceSPECIES COMMON NAME LoOOTHERSTATUSVulnerableGyps coprotheres # Cape Vulture 2 EN*, SPWAGyps africanus # White-backed Vulture 1 EN*, SPWATorgos tracheliotus # Lappet-faced Vulture 2 EN*, SPWAAquila rapax # Tawny Eagle 2 VU*, SPWAPolemaetus bellicosus # Martial Eagle 2 VU*, SPWATerathopius ecaudatus Bateleur 3 VU*Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel 3 VU*, SPWAArdeotis kori # Kori Bustard 2 VU*, SPWACrex crex Corn Crake 3 SPWABucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground-hornbill 4 PS*, SPWANear-threatenedCiconia nigra Black Stork 3 VU*Leptoptilos crumeniferus Marabou Stork 3 -Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork 3 -Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon 3 -Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird 2 -Certhilauda chuana # Short-clawed Lark 2 -Buphagus erythrorhynchus # Red-billed Oxpecker 1 -Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-snipe 3 -Glareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole 4 -Least Concern - Protected SpeciesCoracias garrulus European Roller 1 NT**Key: EN* = Endangered (NEMBA, 2007)EN** = Endangered (IUCN, 2012)VU* = Vulnerable (NEMBA, 2007)PS* = Protecred species (NEMBA, 2007)SPWA = Specially Protected Wildlife Animal (LEDET, 2003b)PWA = Protected Wildlife Animal (LEDET, 2003b)# = Recorded by NSS within the greater Limpopo West mine area.LoO: 1 = Present, 2 = High LoO; 3 = Moderate LoO; 4 = Low LoO7.2.10. HerpetofaunaNine CI herpetofaunal species (Table 8.7) have the potential, to occur on site based ondistribution data (Minter et al. 2004; SARCA, 2010). The conservation status of the speciespresented here is based on discussions with; renowned herpetologist Professor GrahamAlexander of Wits, the LEDET (2003) and NEMBA (2007). Only four of the species listed inTable 7-37 are formally protected species at provincial or national scales. These include twoamphibian species namely African Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus edulis) and Giant Bullfrog(Pyxicephalus adspersus) as well as two reptile species that of Black File snake (Mehelyanyassae) and African Rock Python (Python natalensis).Only two of these conservation important herpetofaunal species were confirmed within thestudy area are discussed in greater detail below: Sundevall’s Garter Snake (Elapsoidea sundevallii longicauda): This species wasfound within the soft sands of the farm Kameelbuilt. The record (along with others100

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentrecorded by NSS for the greater Limpopo West Mine area) represents a significantrange extension for the species that has to date only been known from a restricteddistribution in the far north of South Africa (SARCA, 2010). Kalahari Tent Tortoise (Psammobates oculiferus): This species althoughdistributed widely, typically survives at low densities (G. Alexander, pers. comm.).Many individuals were observed throughout the study area in most cases crossingroads. Kalahari Tent Tortoise are listed on CITES Appendix II (Alexander & Marais,2007).Suitable breeding habitat for Giant Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) exists in the form of alarge shallow pan on the farm Groenfontein. Although the study area lies within the modelleddistribution of Giant Bullfrog (Yetman et al. unpubl. data, Minter et al. 2004), the species ispredominantly a grassland frog (du Preez and Curruthers, 2009), and the savannah habitaton site perhaps more suited to the African Bullfrog (P. edulis). Suitable habitat exists on sitefor most of the other conservation important herpetofauna listed in Table 7-37.Table 7-37Study areaConservation important herpetofauna potentially occurring in the LWMSPECIES COMMON NAME LoO STATUS (OTHER)Near-threatenedPyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog 3 PS*, PWALeast Concern - Conservation Important / Protected SpeciesPyxicephalus edulis African Bullfrog 2 PS*Scelotes limpopoensis limpopoensis Limpopo dwarf burrowing skink 3 CIElapsoidea sundevallii longicauda Sundevall’s garter snake 1 CIMehelya nyassae Black file snake 4 PWAPython natalensis African rock python 2 PS*, PWAXenocalamus bicolor bicolour Bicoloured quill-snouted snake 2 CIXenocalamus lineatus Striped quill-snouted snake 4 CIPsammobates oculifer Kalahari tent tortoise 1 CI, CITES7.2.11. InvertebratesApart from butterflies, and the work conducted during SABCA, comprehensive data of theIUCN status of any particular order of invertebrate is limited. However the NEMBA (2007)Schedule lists a number of South African invertebrate taxa as protected.Table 7-38 provides a list of 9 potentially occuring CI terrrestial macro-invertebrates. The listincludes both South African red data butterfly species as listed in Henning et al. (2009) andinvertebrate taxa listed as Protected Species in NEMBA (2007).Only three CI terrestrial macro-invertebrates species were observed on site. The burrowingscorpion Opistophthalmus wahlbergii was found to be particularly widespread throughout thestudy area with burrows being found mainly within the soft namib sands. A particularly denseconcentration of baboon spider (Harpactira spp.) burrows was recorded within the easternsection of farm Vlakfontein. Several Manticora spp. (Monster Tiger beetles) wereencountered frequently throughout the study area.101

Table 7-38Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPotentially occurring invertebrate species of conservation importanceSPECIES COMMON NAME LoO STATUS (OTHER)VulnerableLepidochrysops irvingi Irving's Blue 3Protected SpeciesInsectsManticora spp. Monster Tiger Beetles 1 PS*Oonotus spp. Stag Beetles 3 PS*AracnidsOpisthacanthus spp. Creeping Scorpions 2 PS*Opistophthalmus spp. Burrowing Scorpions 1 PS*Hadogenes spp. Flat Rock Scorpions 3 PS*Ceratogyrus sp. Horned Baboon Spiders 2 PS*Harpactira sp. Common Baboon Spiders 1 PS*Pterinochilus sp. Golden Brown Baboon Spiders 2 PS*7.3. Wetland Assessment7.3.1. Wetland ClassificationAn ecological classification of wetlands based on hydro-geomorphic (HGM) characteristicsusing the system (Kotze et al., 2008) was attempted as this system is widely used in SouthAfrica. Many small wetlands that conform to the Isolated Depressions HGM type were found.7.3.2. Wetland DelineationThe DWAF (2005) guidelines require that wetlands are delineated based on the fourattributes of (i) Terrain unit, (ii) Soil form, (iii) Soil wetness and (iv) Vegetation.The LWM study area is largely flat. The topographical maps show an altitude change of 60meters over a distance of 10 km, which represents a 0.6% slope. With such minor slopes, noclear differences between terrain units can be distinguished and the entire area thus belongsto Terrain unit 1, and terrain unit is thus of little value as an indicator for the purpose ofwetland delineation. Where available, the contour data was used to delineate the catchmentboundary of the wetlands.Soils were mapped by Earth Science Solutions (ESS) and no prominent soil forms thatdemonstrate permanent wetness were found in the Limpopo West Mine area, thus renderingthis indicator of little value for the purpose of wetland delineation.Soil wetness indicators were found around some of the pans, but in most cases did notrepresent clear cut examples. Many of the areas consisted of a reddish sandy clay andmottling could not be clearly distinguished within the soil sample. Generally soil wetnessindicators occurred close to the edges of the pans and disappeared from a soil profile withina short distance from the pan edge. Soil wetness indicators did not link the small pans to oneanother within the woodland pan mosaic.Vegetation provided the only reliable indicator of wetland extent in the study area. TheDWAF (2005) guidelines list a variety of plant species that are classified into groups and canbe used as indicators for various wetland zones. That list of species was compiled for simpleapplication on a national scale, with an emphasis on typical conditions of the Highveld and102

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentKwaZulu Natal. None of the species listed by DWAF (2005) were encountered in thewetlands of the study area, and this list limited use in identifying wetland indicators.The proposed LWM study area is located within the savanna biome (Mucina & Rutherford,2006) and the vegetation is thus dominated by woody species. Woody species haveprovided important indicators of plant communities in the study area. Typical indicatorspecies of wetland conditions have primarily been woody species of the riparian vegetationand a few hydrophilic grasses.Acacia grandicornuta (Figure 7-17) was restricted to wetland conditions within the study areaand provided a reliable indicator for this study. Ziziphus mucronata was similarly restricted towetland sites, but not widespread among the many sites visited. Echinochloa holubi was ahydrophilic grass species restricted to seasonal pans. Acacia erubescens (Figure 7-17)demonstrated a high affinity for wetland conditions, however this species was alsoencountered in areas that do not show sufficient characteristics to classify as wetlands in thestudy area. Acacia mellifera and Acacia tortilis are typical woody species of the dry terrestrialvegetation, however these species were dominant in the riparian vegetation of many pans inthe study area. These species have responded to increased soil moisture in the vicinity ofpans, growing as taller specimens in dense thickets. This response has enabled the easydelineation of riparian vegetation based on vegetation structure rather than speciescomposition for many of the pans within the LWM study area.Acacia grandicornuta leaf structure, bark and growth formAcacia erubescens (Blue thorn Acacia) growth form and leaf structureFigure 7-17 Examples of wetland vegetation indicators - Limpopo West Study area103

7.3.3. Description of Wetlands in the mine areaLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAll of the wetlands identified within the LWM study area were classified as pans/isolateddepressions, of which 13 were assessed. The locations of the wetlands assessed areillustrated in Figure 6-6 above. Areas covered by these wetlands are presented in Table7-39.Table 7-39 Summary of results of the wetlands in the Mine areaWETLANDAREAFARMCODECATCHMENT RIPARIAN PAN TOTALPESMn1 Welgelegen 1.79 -Mn2 Groenfontein 0.67 0.37 1.05 BMn3 Groenfontein 10.48 20.79 7.71 38.99 CMn4 Groenfontein 4.65 0.21 4.87 -Mn5 Groenfontein 0.94 0.75 1.69 -Mn6 Groenfontein 0.21 0.74 AMn7 Tambotievley 2.21 -Mn8 Tambotievley 6.06 0.66 6.71 AMn9 Tambotievley 0.93 1.64 2.57 AMn10 Vlakfontein 2.68 0.96 3.63 AMn11 Vlakfontein 4.57 0.50 5.08 BMn12 Vlakfontein 0.23 -Mn13 Gannavlakte 1.16 CA large pan (Mn3) occurs on the farm Groenfontein and Matopi. This pan is weaklydeveloped and does not appear to hold water for sufficient periods of time to exclude thegrowth of woody terrestrial vegetation, and considerable encroachment of shrubs and treesis evident within the pan. The pan provides an important habitat, but is not as significant asthe large Brakpan, located nearby (although not within the study area). Other pans within themine area are small but are nevertheless important sites for provision of water for biodiversityoccupying the greater area.104

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.4. Wetland Site MN1Location S23.52836006; E27.32470014 Farm: WelgelegenPhotoSite descriptionA small isolated pan in the northof the mine area within theLimpopo West Mine Study areaThis pan was not visited duringthe Baseline Assessment of2010. Results extracted fromprevious NSS surveys (Pan 2 inBredin, 2009).MapLEGENDA = PanB = 50 m bufferImage:Google Earth TMEcoservicesSensitivity: High105

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.5. Wetland Site MN2Location S23.58727801; E27.30906895 Farm: GroenfonteinPhotoSite descriptionThis site was formerly a small shallowwoody-dominated seasonal pan. Noriparian indicators were observed,however terrestrial woody species,particularly Acacia tortilis and Acaciamellifera responded to locally elevatedsoil moisture to form a riparian fringe.MapLEGENDA = PanB = RiparianC= CatchmentD = 50 meter bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)Present state descriptionSmall isolated pan that was excavated many years previously. Dense woody vegetation wasobserved growing on artificial levees created from excavation. Presence of an old water pipe and lineof stones suggest that water was previously pumped into this pan, however no recent evidence ofsuch activities were observed. Densification of terrestrial woody species has occurred due to soildisturbances and past pumpingSpeciescompositionWoody speciesAcacia tortilisAcacia melliferaDiospyros lycioidesEuclea crispaGrewia flavaGymnosporia sp.Ziziphus mucronataGrass / HerbaceousspeciesSolanum panduriformePanicum maximumEcoservices Riparian EC: 83% PES = BMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High106

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.6. Wetland Site MN3Location S23.58791397; E27.31347009 Farm: GroenfonteinPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = Riparian veg(terrestrial species)D = CatchmentE = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)Site descriptionThis large pan has a poorly defined edge, with considerable terrestrial woody encroachment into thepan. The floor of the pan is dominated by grasses, with Sporobolus ioclados being prominent there.Moisture is largely confined to smaller wallows created by small wallowing megafauna such aswarthog. These areas support a diversity of hydrophilic vegetation, dominated by Echinochloagrasses.A riparian fringe exists but is poorly developed and dominated by typically terrestrial woody species,although a few riparian indicators (i.e. Acacia grandicornuta) occur there.Present state descriptionThe pan and surrounding areas show evidence of excessive grazing intensity in the past years. Thefloor of the pan was dominated by forbs at the time of the survey, which was considered to be due toprevious grazing intensity. Terrestrial woody encroachment is considered to be exaggerated by theeffects of high grazing intensity.Ground water is pumped into artificial pans within the riparian zone, which has attracted increasedanimal densities to the site. The effects of grazing and trampling have increased the woody density,particularly Acacia mellifera which formed impenetrable thickets at the time of the field visit. Exclusionof fire for a long period may have contributed to the increased woody tree density.Woody speciesAcacia tortilisAcacia grandicornutaAcacia melliferaBoscia albitruncaBoscia foetidaCombretum imberbeDichrostachys cinereaGrewia flavaRhigozumbrevispinosumHerbaceous forbsTribulus terrestrisKalanchoe rotundifoliaHibiscus trionumJusticia flava.Nidorella sp.Solanum panduriformeGrass speciesPanicum maximumEragrostis rigidiorSporobolus iocladosEcoservices Riparian EC: 76% PES = C107

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentImpacts:High grazing intensityexaggerated by the artificialprovision of water to parts of thewoody riparian vegetation.Sensitivity: High108

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.7. Wetland Site MN4Location S23.58580048; E27.32384902 Farm: GroenfonteinPhotosSite descriptionA small depression occurs onthe farm Groenfontein withinthe Limpopo West Mine Studyarea.This pan was not visitedduring the BaselineAssessment of 2010. Resultsextracted from previous NSSsurveys (Pan 8 in Bredin,2009).The pan is poorly developedbut has a large catchment /depression identified fromcontours.MapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)EcoservicesSensitivity: High109

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.8. Wetland Site MN5Location S23.59174093; E27.32408664 Farm: GroenfonteinMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)EcoservicesSensitivity: High110

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.9. Wetland Site MN6Location S23.59353358; E27.32716199 Farm: GroenfonteinPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)Site descriptionGrass dominated pan surrounded by terrestrial woody species. No riparian-restricted woody speciesobserved. Pan holds a relatively high volume of water compared to similar pans in the vicinity, andprovides refuge for waterfowl. Bird species observed utilizing the pan included White-faced duck,Egyptian goose, Blacksmith lapwing and Rattling cisticola.Present state descriptionThe present state resembles the reference state, as few impacts could be discerned. Wetland has notbeen affected by land management practices, and no detectable grazing pressure was observed atthe time of the field visit. Minimal alien infestation of Conyza bonariensis.SpeciescompositionWoody speciesAcacia tortilisAcacia melliferaEuclea crispaGrewia flavaGrass speciesEragrostis rigidiorPanicum maximumHerbaceous forbs: Solanum panduriformeEcoservices Riparian EC: 96% PES = AMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High111

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.10. Wetland Site MN7Location S23.59340426; E27.35711552 Farm: TambotievleyPhotosSite descriptionA small depression occurson the farm Groenfonteinwithin the Limpopo WestMine Study area.This pan was not visitedduring the BaselineAssessment of 2010.Results extracted fromprevious NSS surveys (Pan7 in Bredin, 2009).The pan is poorlydeveloped and riparianvegetation is dominated bywoody terrestrial species.MapsLEGENDA = PanB = CatchmentC = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)EcoservicesSensitivity: High112

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.11. Wetland Site MN8Location S23.60546729; E27.31243734 Farm: TambotievleyPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)Site descriptionSmall dry seasonal pan with a noticeable depression from the surrounding landscape. No indicatorriparian species present, although a rim of terrestrial woody species forms a riparian zone. The openarea of the pan is dominated by grass species.Present state descriptionAn old wind pump erected nearby provides evidence of water being pumped into the pan in the past.Dense groves of Acacia mellifera could have established as a result of heavy grazing and trampling inthe past. Possibility that pan was excavated in the past, however there is insufficient evidence toprove this.SpeciescompositionWoody speciesAcacia tortilisAcacia melliferaGrewia flavescensGrewia flavaHerbaceous forbsMelhania acuminataJusticia flavaGomphrena celosioidesGrass speciesSporobolus iocladosSchmidtia pappophoroidesEcoservices Riparian EC: 98% PES = AMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High113

7.3.12. Wetland Site MN9Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentLocation S23.61335893; E27.32263873 Farm: TambotievleyPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)SitedescriptionPresent statedescriptionSpeciescompositionSmall isolated circular pan associated with a local depression located in a dry Acaciatortilis-dominated savanna. No woody riparian species were observed, howeverterrestrial woody species show increased size and density in response to increasedsoil moisture in the vicinity of the pan. Pan inundation area excludes terrestrial woodyspecies.The present state resembles the reference state, as few impacts could be discerned.Wetland has not been affected by land management practices.Woody speciesHerbaceous forbsAcacia tortilisCommelina benghalensisAcacia melliferaSolanum panduriformeBoscia albitruncaSida dregeiGrewia flavaCommiphora pyracanthoidesGrass speciesEragrostis rigidiorEnneapogoncenchroidesEcoservices Riparian EC: 96% PES = AMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High114

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.13. Wetland Site MN10Location S23.62173178; E27.29174583 Farm: VlakfonteinPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PansB= Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SID image(SASOL)Site descriptionSmall circular pan isolated from other wetland systems. Considerable grass cover exits within the pan,but no woody riparian indicators were observed. The central area of the pan is raised island of woodyvegetation suggesting that the raised area is sufficient to avoid inundation there. Possibly created bywallowing faunal species such as warthog over a long period.Present state The present state is similar to reference state. No discernable grazing pressure coulddescriptionSpeciescompositionbe detected. Exclusion of fire may have resulted in some woody densification.Woody speciesGrass speciesAcacia melliferaSporobolus iocladosAcacia tortilisAristida congestaBoscia albitruncaHerbaceous forbsEchinochloaLeonotis sp.Gomphrena celosioidesMarsilea spHibiscus trionumSida dregeiEcoservices Riparian EC: 97% PES = AMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High115

7.3.14. Wetland Site MN11Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentLocation S23.62115434; E27.29444053 Farm: VlakfonteinPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian vegC = CatchmentD = 50 m bufferImage: SIDimage (SASOL)SitedescriptionPresent statedescriptionSpeciescompositionSmall circular pan isolated from other wetland systems. The central area of the pan isopen with limited grass cover and Marsilea (fern) species. No woody riparian indicatorspecies present, although a terrestrial woody fringe was discernable from tallerindividuals.Pan exists in a natural state, with a fence erected to exclude cattle from grazing withinthe pan, possibly for health reasons. A small secluded hide suggests the pan is usedfor hunting purposes.Woody speciesBoscia albitruncaGrewia flavescensAcacia tortilisAcacia melliferaEuclea crispaGrewia flavaHerbaceous forbsMarsilea spLeonotis sp.Grass speciesSporobolus iocladosEcoservices Riparian EC: 83.3% PES = BMinimal impacts detectedSensitivity: High116

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.15. Wetland Site MN12Location S23.63593785; E27.29747344 Farm: VlakfonteinPhotosMapsLEGENDA = PanB = 50 mbufferImage: SIDimage(SASOL)SitedescriptionEcoservicesThese two pans are discussed as a single unit due to their close proximity.These pans were not visited during the 2010 Baseline Assessment. Results wereextracted from a previous NSS surveys (Pans 4 and 5 in Bredin, 2009).Water is artificially maintained in the southern pan, suggesting impacts of high grazingintensity and trampling.Sensitivity: High117

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.3.16. Wetland Site MN13Location S23.67392875; E27.3727842 Farm: GannavlaktePhotosSite description:Small isolated panbased on deep blackvertic clay soils.Limited and incompleteriparian fringe existsconsisting of terrestrialwoody speciesMapsLEGENDA = PanB = Riparian veg C =CatchmentImage: Google Earth TMPresentstateSpeciescompositionEcoservicesPan exists in a modified state. Some excavation may have occurred to boost thewater-holding capacity and clearing of woody vegetation to improve visibility forhunting. The farm is well stocked with large ungulates and rhino, and this pan is afocal area for water provision and supplementary feeding, which results in tramplingand over-grazing of the natural vegetationWoody speciesBoscia albitruncaGrewia flavescensAcacia tortilisAcacia melliferaEuclea crispaGrewia flavaRiparianEC: 73%PES =C118

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment7.4. Aquatic Assessment7.4.1. Results for the Limpopo RiverThe following section presents the results that are relevant to the project as a whole, andrefers specifically to the ecological conditions in the Limpopo River. The locations of thesampling points along the Limpopo are indicated in Figure 7-18.Water QualityWater quality recorded in the Limpopo River in November 2010 was characterised by analkaline pH (7.5 to 8.3), high conductivity (74 to 100 mS/m), high temperature (26.0 to 32.9o C), and variable concentrations of oxygen (5.6 to 10.3 mg/l). Water colour was bright green,indicating eutrophic conditions. The pH and oxygen concentrations were expected to behighly variable over a 24 hour period.A review of available surface water quality data for the area concluded that water quality isunsuitable for some water users (Blain, 2008). The water quality parameters of particularconcern which are common to all of the monitoring sites include elevated conductivity, and toa lesser extent pH, alkalinity and silica (Blain, 2008).119

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-18Location of the aquatic sampling points along the Limpopo River120

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentStream FlowsNaturalised monthly flows in the Limpopo River at A41E, simulated between 1920 and 2004,indicate highly variable flows, with highest flows in January, and flow cessation typicallyoccurring for six months, between May and October (Figure 7-19).Figure 7-19 Naturalised monthly flows in the Limpopo River at A41E, simulatedbetween 1920 and 2004 (Data extracted from Middleton and Bailey 2009).Available flow records for the Limpopo River for the period preceding this study indicate theriver had been in spate in February 2009 and again in April 2010, and dry for four monthsbetween August and December 2009 (Figure 7-20). In November 2010, the river compriseda few standing pools, with zero flow, or a trickle at most. The initial baseline data for thissurvey were therefore collected during a dry period, but no more than seven months after theriver had been in spate. The second field survey, in March 2011, was conducted 7 weeksafter a major flood (Figure 7-20).121

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-20 Daily average flows in the Limpopo River at Sterkloop (A5H006),between October 2008 and February 2011. Arrows indicate sampling times for thisstudy.Habitat QualitySite L1. The expected and observed quality of instream and marginal habitats at SiteL1 was rated as Moderate - Category C (Appendix 12.3.3). Similar scores wererecorded 9 km downstream by Digby Wells & Associates (2010). Instream habitatavailability was estimated to comprise 10 to 30% of the bed substrate, and includedareas with slow-shallow and slow-deep habitats. There were no fast-flowing habitats.Pool substrates comprised a mix of fine sand and mud, with some root mats andsubmerged vegetation and snags present (Appendix 12.3.1). There was a good mixof large- shallow, large-deep, small-shallow, small-deep pools present. Sedimentdeposition was moderate, with an estimated 50 to 80% of the bottom affected. Thewater reached the base of both lower banks, and minimal amount of channelsubstrate was exposed, despite the low flows. The channel was moderately modifiedbecause of incision associated with a failed weir (Appendix 12.3.1). Satelliteimagery from 2003 show a bedrock outcrop and with a deep pool downstream of theoutcrop, but no weir. Channel sinuosity over a length of 4 km was no different fromnatural conditions, and was 1.7 times longer than a straight line. About 40% of theleft stream bank was actively eroding, compared to 30% on the right bank.Vegetation protection on the left bank was high in areas that were not eroded (70%cover), whereas vegetation protection on the right bank was low (50% cover). Theriparian zone on the left bank was intact, whereas the riparian zone on the right bankwas highly degraded (Appendix 12.3.1).122

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSite L2. The expected and observed quality of instream and marginal habitats at SiteL2 was rated as Moderate - Category C (Appendix 12.3.3). The results are similar tothose reported at Stockpoort by Digby Wells & Associates (2009). Instream habitatavailability was estimated to comprise less than 10% of the bed substrate, andincluded areas with slow-shallow and slow-deep habitats. There were no fast-flowinghabitats. Pool substrates comprised mainly mud, with some root mats andsubmerged vegetation present. The reach comprised mostly deep pool habitat, butthere were shallow areas that provided nursery habitat for fish (Photograph D ofAppendix 12.3.3.). There was little evidence of sediment deposition. The waterreached the base of both lower banks, and minimal amount of channel substrate wasexposed, despite the low flow at the time (Photograph C of 12.3.1.3.). Channelsinuosity over a length of 4 km was no different from natural conditions, and was 1.3times longer than a straight line. About 40% of the left stream bank was activelyeroding, compared to 20% on the right bank. Vegetation protection on both bankswas suboptimal (Photograph B of Appendix 12.3.1.3). The riparian zone on bothbanks was is intact and considered natural (Photograph D of Appendix 12.3.1.3).The presence of the alien red water fern Azolla filiculoides, was present in lowabundance along the river margins.Site L3. The expected and observed quality of instream and marginal habitats at SiteL1 was rated as Moderate - Category C (Appendix 12.3.3). Instream habitatavailability was estimated to comprise 30% of the bed substrate. Most of theinstream habitat comprised slow-shallow waters. There were no fast-flowing habitats.Gravels, small cobbles and snags (woody debris) provided some, but limited cover(Photograph A of Appendix 12.3.1.4). Pool substrates comprised a mix of fine sandand mud, with abundant aquatic vegetation (mainly Potamogeton pectinatus andsome P. crispus). Most of the reach was naturally very shallow, although it is likelythat pools have become shallower because of sedimentation. Sediment depositionwas moderate to high, with about 70% of the bottom affected. About 40% of thechannel substrate was exposed. The right bank was slightly modified by a lodgedevelopment. Channel sinuosity over a length of 4 km was no different from naturalconditions, and was 1.1 times longer than a straight line. Lower banks were stable,but higher banks were moderately unstable. Vegetation protection on both bankswas moderate (70% cover). The riparian zone on the left bank was intact, whereasthe riparian zone on the right bank was highly degraded (Photographs C and D ofAppendix 12.3.1.4).Habitat Integrity Site L1. Habitat Integrity at Site L1 was rated as Moderately Modified (Category C)(Appendix 12.3.3.) The main causes of degradation appear to be related tovegetation removal, overgrazing and trampling by livestock (right bank), and localisedchannel incision caused by a failed weir.Sites L2 & L3. Habitat Integrity at Sites L2 and L3 were rated as Largely Natural(Category B) (Appendix 12.3.3). The main causes of degradation are related to bank123

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDiatomsinstability, which is likely to have multiple causes, including vegetation removal andtrampling by livestock.The SPI scores for the diatom samples from the Limpopo River are given in Table 7-40, andthe diatom based ecological classification for water quality is given in Table 7-41. Thedominant 4 species are listed in Table 7-42. Detailed data are presented in Appendix 12.3.4.Table 7-40 Specific Pollution sensitivity Index (SPI) score classification of diatomsrecorded at three sites in the Limpopo River in November 2010 and March 2011.SiteNovember 2010No of speciesSpecific Pollutionsensitivity Index (SPI)DescriptionCategoryL1 38 10.2 Moderate Quality CL2 25 7.7 Poor Quality DL3 43 9.8 Moderate Quality CMarch 2011L1 37 6.9 Poor quality DL3 35 7.1 Poor quality DTable 7-41 Generic diatom based ecological classification of diatoms recorded atthree sites in the Limpopo River in November 2010 and March 2011 (according to vanDam et al. 1994).Site pH Salinity Organic nitrogen Oxygen levelsNovember 2010L1L2L3March 2011L1L3AlkalineAlkalineAlkalineAlkalineAlkalineFreshbrackishBrackish freshFreshbrackishBrackishfreshBrackishfreshSmall concentrationsof organically boundnitrogenContinuously elevatedconcentrations oforganically boundnitrogenContinuously elevatedconcentrations oforganically boundnitrogenContinuously elevatedconcentrations oforganically boundnitrogenContinuously elevatedconcentrations oforganically boundnitrogenFairly high(>75%saturation)Moderate(>50%saturation)Moderate(>50%saturation)Moderate(>50%saturation)Moderate(>50%saturation)PollutionlevelsModerateStrongModerateVeryheavyVeryheavyTrophicstatusEutrophicEutrophicEutrophicEutrophicEutrophic4 Species contributing 5% or more to the total count were classified as dominant species.124

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 7-42 Dominant diatom species recorded at three sites in the Limpopo River inNovember 2010 and March 2011, expressed as a percentage of the total sample.Species L1 L2 L3November 2010Aulacoseira granulata var. angustissima (O Müller) Simonsen 4.7Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg 4.7Cocconeis placentula var. euglypta (Ehrenberg) Grunow 4.7Cocconeis placentula var. lineata (Ehrenberg) Van Heurck 27.7 25.5Epithemia sorex Kützing 27.7 25.5Nitzschia frustulum (Kützing) Grunow 21 70.2 26.7Nitzschia species 5.5Pleurosigma salinarum (Grunow) 5March 2011Aulacoseira ambigua (Grunow) Simonsen 6Aulacoseira granulata var. angustissima (O Müller) Simonsen 9.7 7Cyclotella medunae Germain 16.2 11.7Eolimna species 9.25Eolimna subminuscula (Manguin) Lange-Bertalot 6.2 4.75Nitzschia frustulum (Kützing) Grunow 21 36.5Nitzschia inconspicua Grunow 5.2 6.75 Site L1. November 2010The SPI score for Site L1 of 10.2 indicates that the biological water quality wasModerate. Oxygen saturation was fairly high, while organically bound nitrogen levelswere low. The dominant species Cocconeis placentula var. lineata (Ehrenberg) VanHeurck usually occurs in oligotrophic waters (Taylor et al., 2007b). The genusCocconeis has a broad ecological range and is found in most running waters, exceptwhere nutrients are low or acidic conditions prevail (Taylor et al., 2007b). This genusis tolerant of moderate organic pollution and also extends into brackish waters. It isabundant on rocks, but is also found on other surfaces such as filamentous algae andmacrophytes (Kelly et al., 2001). Epithemia sorex Kützing, is found in flowing andstanding waters with moderate to high electrolyte content, also extending intobrackish biotopes. Nitzschia frustulum (Kützing) Grunow, is usually found inelectrolyte rich and brackish waters, is tolerant of osmotic fluctuations in osmoticpressure and tolerant of critical levels of pollution (Taylor et al., 2007b). Pleurosigmasalinarum (Grunow) is often found in brackish to saline waters (Taylor et al., 2007b).The presence of N. frustulum and P. salinarum in high abundance in the absence ofindustrial activity in the area may be an indication that salinity levels in the LimpopoRiver system are naturally elevated. However, the community composition indicatesthat the site is impacted by anthropogenic activity. The presence of cattle in the areadoes have an impact at this site. The biological water quality is in a C Category, withnutrients and organics being the variables of concern. The Trophic Diatom Index(Kelly and Whitton 1995), an index that is specifically used to monitor eutrophication,indicated that there were 27.8% pollution tolerant valves present in the sampleindicating high levels of organic pollution. The diatom species composition indicatesthat salinity levels are very high at this site.125

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentMarch 2011The biological water quality deteriorated to Poor and the SPI score was 6.9. All thedominant species have a preference for eutrophic electrolyte rich waters (Taylor etal., 2007b). The main reason for an overall deterioration in the biological waterquality is a marked increase in nutrient and organic loading. Although the system isephemeral and it is expected that nutrient and organic levels would be elevated dueto an absence of continual flow, good flow was present during sampling and it wouldbe expected that flows would alleviate the levels of nutrients and organics to someextent due to fresh inundation. However, organic loading increased twofold at thissite compared to the previous survey, while nutrient levels were continually elevated,and this indicates that there is an accumulative impact from anthropogenic activitiesin the upper catchment. As determined with the previous sampling, salinity levelsseem to be naturally elevated, although salinity level were higher than recordedduring the previous sampling and the system was classified as brackish-fresh, whichindicates high salinity. The abundance of N. frustulum was similar to November2011, although N. inconspicua and C. medunae were also dominant, indicatingincreased salinity and eutrophication. The general increase in Eolimna speciesindicates that the source of organic pollution was recent. Site L2. November 2010The SPI score for Site L2 of 7.7 indicates that the biological water quality was Poor.This site was dominated by N. frustulum and the Cocconeis genus, while the rest ofthe diatom community is represented by species that have a preference for waterswith high salinity, nutrient and organic levels. Organically bound nitrogen levels arecontinuously elevated and oxygen saturation is moderate. It is evident that the site isimpacted by anthropogenic activity that may include cattle farming and agriculture.Nutrients and especially organic levels are variables of concern as the P proportion oftolerant valves made up 78% of the sample. This level is critical and will impact onother aquatic biota in terms of breeding and survival of juveniles if water temperatureincreases and oxygen levels decrease. Site L3. November 2010The SPI score for Site L3 of 9.8 indicates that the biological water quality wasModerate. Dominant species were similar to Site L1, although Nitzschia specieswere also dominant, along with Aulacoseira granulata var. angustissima (O Müller)Simonsen. A dominance of Nitzschia species indicates a highly polluted water body,with readily available nutrients (van Dam et al., 1994; Cholnoky, 1968). Aulacoseiragranulata var. angustissima usually occurs in eutrophic waters (Taylor et al., 2007b).There was a 40% presence of tolerant valves in the sample, indicating high levels oforganics. Nutrient levels are also very high, and these two variables are problematicat this site. Agriculture and cattle farming appear to be affecting biological waterquality at this site.March 2011Biological water quality at Site L3 in March 2011 was classified as Poor, mainly dueto an increase in organic loading. Species dominance was similar to Site L1, but with126

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentan increased dominance of N. frustulum and Eolimna species. As with Site L1, thedominance of Eolimna species indicates that organic pollution was recent. Pollutiontolerant valves increased from 40% in November 2010, to 68% in March. The diatomcommunity also indicated a general increase in salinity and the site was classified asbrackish-fresh. Nutrient levels were similar to November 2010, although these levelsare continuously high. Nutrient and organic loading are problematic at this site and isimpacted by agriculture and cattle in the area.Diatom species composition indicated that organic and nutrient levels and salinity arenaturally elevated, although agricultural activities and cattle do contribute to elevated levelsof these variables and are therefore the main localized impact. Diatom indicator species ofindustrial impacts were very low in all the baseline samples, and this indicates that industrialactivity does not have a significant impact on this system and does not contributesignificantly to pollution levels. Nitzschia frustulum occurred in high abundance on bothsampling occasions, and this species is usually dominant in industrial impacted waters and isa good indicator of these conditions. However in the absence of industrial activity, thisspecies is an indicator of elevated salinity and refers high nutrient levels (Taylor et al., 2007b;Van Dam et al., 1994).At face value the pollution levels were classified as Heavily Polluted (polysaprobic), but thisclassification should be interpreted with caution because of the naturally ephemeral nature ofthe system. Due to naturally elevated nutrients and organics in the system, the conditionswere more realistically classified as Moderately Polluted (ά-mesosaprobic).Monitoring the impacts of future industrial activity would be important as increased pollutionlevels originating from these activities could impact severely on a system that has naturallyelevated organic, nutrient and salinity levels.Aquatic InvertebratesHistorical data. A review of blackfly distribution in southern Africa indicates that twospecies of blackflies have been recorded in the Limpopo River at Martin’s Drift:Simulium bovis and S. damnosum species complex (Palmer and de Moor 1998). Theformer is a typical post-flood species that is found in large, turbid rivers throughoutsub-Saharan Africa. The latter is typically found in medium to small rivers andstreams throughout sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in impoundment outlets. Bothspecies are potential pests of livestock and humans.Thirty-five species of adult dragonfly and damselfly (Odonata) were recordedalongside the Limpopo River at Mmabolela Estate, near Swartwater, in February2009 (Tarboton and Tarboton 2009). This estate is about 130 km downstream of SiteL3, but the same species are expected for the Limpopo West Mine area because ofthe similar habitats present.November 2010. Aquatic invertebrates recorded in marginal vegetation in theLimpopo River in November 2010 were characterised by a high diversity of bugs(Hemiptera), abundance of the freshwater shrimp Caridina nilotica, and a notable127

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentabsence of caddisflies (Trichoptera) ((Appendix 7 – Section F.6.7 of Chapter F)). Thenumber of SASS5 taxa was similar at the three sites, and ranged between 17 and 20.Most taxa recorded were hardy and widespread, and typical of ephemeral rivers andstreams. The most sensitive taxa recorded at all three sites were freshwater shrimps(Caridina nilotica), Aeshnid dragonflies (Aeshnidae) and Creeping water bugs(Naucoridae). Mayflies comprised mainly a single species of Chloeon speciescomplex, which is typical of seasonal and ephemeral conditions. Three families offlies were recorded, including mosquitoes (Culicidae), and biting midges(Ceratopogonidae). Four families of snails were recorded, including Bulinus sp. andthe alien Physa acuta. There was no significant difference in the composition of taxaamong the three sites.March 2011. The Present Ecological State of aquatic invertebrates recorded at SiteL3 in March 2011 was classified as Largely Natural (Category B). A total of 25SASS5 taxa were recorded, with a Total SASS5 Score of 130 (Appendix 12.3.5).The fauna was characterised by moderate numbers of filter-feeding invertebrates,including hydropsychid caddisflies (2 species) and tricorythid mayflies(Trichorythidae). Large numbers of bivalve shells (Chambardia wahlbergi andCorbicula fluminalis) were also recorded. High numbers of empty pupal casesbelonging to the pest blackfly Simulium bovis were recorded on exposed the marginalvegetation and trees, reflecting recent post-flood conditions. The most sensitive taxarecorded were trichorythid mayflies, freshwater shrimps (Caridina nilotica), and acordulid dragonfly (Corduliidae).Seventeen species of adult dragonfly and damselfly (Odonata) were recordedalongside the Limpopo River at Sites L1 and L3 in March 2011 (Appendix 12.3.5).Most species are widespread and tolerant (Appendix 12.3.5). The Dragonfly BioticIndex ranged between 1.13 and 1.42, indicating low conservation importance andecological sensitivity (Appendix 12.3.5).Fish Site L1. November 2010The Present Ecological State of fish at Site L1 in November 2010 was rated asLargely Modified (Category D) (Appendix 12.3.6). Eighteen species of fish wereexpected to occur at this site under natural conditions, of which seven were recordedduring this survey. The abundance of fish was Moderate, with 63 specimenscollected in 25 minutes, which is equivalent to 151/hr. The most sensitive taxaexpected were Redeye labeo, Labeo cylindricus and Southern papermouth, Barbusrapaz, both of which were recorded. The flow-dependent Sawfin suckermouth,Chiloglanis paratus, was not expected because there was no flowing water, but onespecimen was recorded. The presence of this species reflects the high flows that hadoccurred some seven months earlier. The most common species comprisedSouthern mouthbrooder, Pseduocrenilabrus philander (44.4%), and Redbreastedtilapia, Tilapia rendalli (28.6%). Both these species prefer standing or slow-flowingwater, and are highly tolerant of water quality deterioration. One alien species,Common carp, Cyprinus carpio, was recorded in low abundance. Species that wereexpected but not recorded included Threespot barb, Barbus trimaculatus;128

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBroadstriped barb, Barbus annectens; Beira barb, Barbus radiatus and River sardine,Mesobola brevianalis.March 2011The Present Ecological State of fish at Site L1 in March 2011 was rated as LargelyNatural (Category B). The results indicated a significant improvement in ecologicalconditions compared to the previous survey. Eighteen species of fish were expectedto occur at this site under natural conditions, of which 13 were recorded during thissurvey. The abundance of fish was significantly higher than the previous survey, with174 specimens collected in 28 minutes, which is equivalent to 373/hr. The mostsensitive species recorded was the line-spotted barb, Barbus lineomaculatus, whichwas not recorded during the previous survey. The most common species wereStaightfin barb (Barbus paludonosus) (25.3%) and Broadstriped barb (Barbusannectens) (21.3%). The only alien fish species recorded was a single specimen of aMosquito fish (Gambusia affinis). Site L2. November 2010The Present Ecological State of fish at Site L2 in November 2010 was rated asLargely Modified (Category D) (Appendix 12.3.6). Seventeen species of fish wereexpected to occur at this site under natural conditions, of which ten were recorded.The abundance of fish was Moderate, with 59 specimens collected in 24 minutes,which is equivalent to 148/hr. The most sensitive taxa expected were Southernpapermouth, Barbus rapaz, and Broadstriped barb, Barbus annectens, both of whichwere recorded. The most common species were highly tolerant, and comprisedRedbreasted tilapia, Tilapia rendalli (42.4%), and Mozambique tilapia, Oreochromismossambicus (16.9%). One alien species, Common carp, Cyprinus carpio, wasrecorded in low abundance. Species that were expected but not recorded includedBeira barb, Barbus radiatus and River sardine, Mesobola brevianalis. Site L3. November 2010The Present Ecological State of fish at Site L1 in November 2010 was rated asModerately Modified (Category C) (Appendix 12.3.6). Eighteen species of fish wereexpected to occur at this site under natural conditions, of which 13 were recorded.The abundance of fish was High, with 153 specimens collected in 18 minutes, whichis equivalent to 510/hr. The most sensitive taxa expected but not recorded wereBulldog, Marcusenius pongolensis, as there was suitable habitat for this species atthis site (submerged roots). Another species that was noticeably absent was theSouthern mouthbrooder, Pseudocrenilabrus philander. The most common specieswas Mozambique tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus (40.5%). Some of thesespecimens showed faint vertical barring on the tail, which is characteristic of the O.niloticus, so hybridisation with this alien species is suspected (Tweddle pers. comm.).Hybridisation of O. mossambicus/niloticus is also likely among the specimensrecorded at Sites L1 and L2, but this could not be confirmed because voucherspecimens from Sites L1 and L2 were not kept. Other alien species recorded at SiteL3 were Common carp, Cyprinus carpio, and Mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis.129

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentA notable recording at Site L3 was the Bowstriped barb, Barbus c.f. viviparous. Thisgroup appears to comprise two species (Tweddle pers comm). True B. viviparus isrestricted to a small area around the type locality in Kwazulu-Natal. This speciesdoes not have pigmentation of the lateral line, so the name bowstripe barb isinappropriate. The other species, and the one recorded in this study, is widespreadthroughout south-eastern Africa, at least as far north as the Rovuma system. Theupper stripe is often in the form of three elongated spots, merging together into acontinuous stripe, particularly in larger specimens.March 2011The Present Ecological State of fish at Site L3 in March 2011 was rated as LargelyNatural (Category B). The results indicated a significant improvement in ecologicalconditions compared to the previous survey (Appendix 12.3.6). Eighteen species offish were expected to occur at this site under natural conditions, of which 16 wererecorded during this survey. The abundance of fish was similar to that recordedduring the previous survey, with 280 specimens collected in 35 minutes, which isequivalent to 480/hr. The most sensitive species recorded was the line-spotted barb,Barbus lineomaculatus, which was not recorded during the previous survey. Themost common species were Staightfin barb (Barbus paludonosus) (28.6%) and theThreespot barb (Barbus trimaculatus) (18.6%). No alien fish species was recorded.7.4.2. Results for the mine areaThe largest surface water feature in this area is the pan on the Farm Matopi andGroenfonteini, a shallow, ephemeral pan that covers an area of 8 ha. The closest significantaquatic ecosystem to the proposed mine area is the Limpopo River, located 7 km north of theproposed Mine boundary at its nearest point. The aquatic sampling sites are indicated inFigure 7-21.Aquatic HabitatsAquatic habitats within the proposed mine area are limited to ephemeral pans. An image ofthe aquatic systems assessed is provided in Figure 7-21.The most significant aquatic ecosystem within the mine area is Groenfontein Pan (Site P9)(Photograph B of Appendix 12.3.1.1). This pan has an area of 8 ha and an average waterdepth of about 9 cm when full. This pan is therefore unlikely to hold water for longer than afew weeks. The area appears to be largely unmodified.Site P8 was artificially recharged from groundwater, presumably for the purposes ofproviding game with drinking water (Photograph A of Appendix 12.3.1.1).Site P12 appears as a pan from satellite imagery, but the field survey suggested that thearea was created from a road quarry (Photograph D of Appendix 12.3.1.1). Thisobservation was supported by the low conductivity (18mS/m) that was recorded in a soilsample that was hydrated with groundwater 5 , which indicates rapid drawdown (i.e. leakage).This site is therefore regarded as Highly Modified.5 The groundwater used to hydrate soil samples had low conductivity (12 mS/m).130

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAquatic InvertebratesSeed shrimps (Ostracoda) and wheel animalcules (rotifera) were the only invertebrates tohatch from soil samples from the mine area, at Pans 8 and 9. This indicates that aquaticbiodiversity within the proposed mine area is Low. The only possible exception to this isGroenfontein Pan (Site P9). This pan was not sampled, but is likely to have a moderate tohigh diversity of aquatic invertebrates when it recharges.7.4.3. . Conservation Important TaxaRed Data SpeciesThis section concerns aquatic biota listed nationally or internationally as species ofconservation Importance. The species listed were found within the Limpopo West mine areawhich includes the Limpopo River.Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. None known.Near Threatenedo Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis massambicus). This species is underthreat from hybridisation with the alien Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)(Cambray and Swartz 2007). Populations of Mozambique tilapia recordedduring this study indicate that hybridisation has already occurred within theLimpopo West Mine Study area (including the Limpopo River).Least Concerno Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). The status of the Nile Crocodile iscurrently rated as Low Risk/Least Concern (IUCN Version 2.3). However, theclassification needs to be updated (Crocodile Specialist Group 1996).o Cape Clawless Otter (Aonyx capensis). This species occurs along theLimpopo River and its riparian zone (Friedman and Daly 2004).o Fish Species. Most of the fish species recorded or expected in the area arecategorised in the IUCN Red Data Book for fish as Least Concern (IUCN2001).o Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata). Over forty species of dragonfliesand damselflies are expected to occur within the Study area, and several ofthese are listed as Least Concern (IUCN 2001). These include Lestesdissimulans, Green-striped sprite, Pseudagrion makabusiense; Slenderbottletail Olpagastra lugubris; Common fairytail, Lestinogomphus angustus;Quarre’s tiger Gomphidia quarrei; Horned talontail Crenigomphus cornutusand White-masked wisp Agriocnemic falcifera.131

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 7-21Aquatic systems identified and assessed for the Limpopo West Mine Study area132

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentData Deficiento Southern bulldog (Marcusenius pongolensis). The taxonomic status ofsouthern African bulldogs is unresolved, and there appears to be a muchhigher number of species than previously recognised. Southern bulldogs ofthe Limpopo and rivers south to the Phongolo are different from those to thenorth and are now recognised as M. pongolensis (Bills et al. 2007). Thisspecies was not recorded during this study, but was expected to occur at SiteL3 because of suitable habitats present.Protected SpeciesThe following aquatic species are protected, and are either confirmed or high likely to occurin the Study area:Nationally Protectedo African bullfrog, Pyxicephalus edulis. This species is protected in terms ofSection 56(1) of the National Biodiversity Act (Act No 10 of 2004). Onespecimen of this species was recorded in the lower reaches of the MatlabasRiver, Matlabas Game Lodge, in November 2010. The specimen was aboutnearby the mine site, and is certain to occur in the riparian zone of theLimpopo River, and in some of the ephemeral pans within the Study area.The protection status gives this species high conservation value that requiresprotection at a national level. However, the species is widespread in Africa,and is not considered threatened (Minter et al. 2004).Provincially Protectedo Nile crocodile, Crocodylus niloticus. This species is Specially Protected interms of Schedule 2 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act No7 of 2003). A number of individuals were observed in the Limpopo Riverduring fieldwork in November 2010.o Cape clawless otter, Aonyx capensis. This species is protected in terms ofSchedule 3 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act No 7 of2003). This species occurs along the Limpopo River and its riparian zone(Friedman and Daly 2004).Endemic SpeciesThere are no confirmed aquatic species that are endemic to the Study area, but the followingare noteworthy:o Seed Shrimps (Ostracoda). The diversity of seed shrimps in southern Africais high, with an estimated 150 species (Martens 2001). A notable feature ofthe seedshrimp fauna is a band of high endemisity in temporary systems innorthern and central Namibia and Botswana, and southern parts of Zimbabwe(Martens 2001). The Limpopo West Mine Study area is therefore almostcertain to contain species of seedshrimp that are endemic to the temporarysystems in this band.o Fairy Shrimps (Anostraca). The diversity of fairy shrimps in southern Africais one of the highest in the world, with an estimated 46 species, of which 80%are endemic to southern Africa (Hamer 1999). Three species endemic to133

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentsouthern Africa have been recorded near the Study area: Stretocephaluscafer, S. macrourus, and S. indistinctus (Hamer & Brendonck 1997).Migratory SpeciesThere are several species of fish in the Limpopo River that migrate. These include: Threespot barb Barbus trimaculatus Broadstriped barb Barbus annectens Longbeard barb Barbus unitaeniatus Redeye labeo Labeo cylindricus Leaden labeo Labeo molybdinus Rednose labeo Labeo rosae Bulldog Marcusenius macrolepidotus Silver catfish Schilbe intermedius Brown squeaker Synodontis zambezensisGoods and ServicesThe most important Goods and Services provided by aquatic ecosystems within the studyarea is the supply of water and grazing for livestock and game. The potential for tourism andrecreation along the Limpopo River is also considered high.Maintenance of aquatic biodiversity is generally very low, with the notable exceptions of theLimpopo River and Brakpan (Site P1).There are no known commercial aquatic species in the study area, but all of the largerspecies of fish are certain to be caught for local subsistence consumption when river levelsare high or subside. Consumption of fish by local communities is likely to be very low andirratic because of the ephemeral nature of the river.Water supply for direct human use is likely to be very low because of poor quality.Several pest species are associated with aquatic ecosystems within the study area, andthese are regarded here as negative Goods and Services. This aspect is discussed infurther detail below.Pest SpeciesAquatic ecosystems in the study area provide habitat for a wide range of pest species, whichinclude:Malaria Mosquitoes (Anopheles gambiae complex), which are responsible fortransmitting the parasite that causes malaria, which is endemic in the region. Themost common vector of malaria in the area is A. arabiense, which typically breeds intemporary, shallow, sunlit pools, as well as many other temporary waterbodies, suchas discarded motorcar tyres. The latter is a well-known breeding ground for thesemosquitoes. Other members of the complex, such as A. funestus, prefer marginal134

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentvegetation in more permanent waterbodies, such as the margins of the LimpopoRiver.The LWM is located outside the present (2006) distribution of malaria risk because ofan active and effective malaria control programme (Department of Health 2008).However, in the absence of malaria control, the Limpopo West Mine Study area has aModerate risk in summer (Department of Health 2008). In 2006, Limpopo Provincehad the highest number of malaria cases (6,369) in South Africa, including 57 deaths(57) (Gerritsen et al. 2008). An abnormal increase in malaria cases was reported inAkhado (Louis Trichardt) in January 2011, and the increase was attributed to migrantworkers returning to South Africa after their holiday in Zimbabwe or Mozambique (MrPhilip Kruger, Malaria Control Programme Manager of the provincial Department ofHealth and Social Development). Most South Africans have no natural immunity tomalaria (Gerritsen et al. 2008). An influx of workers and their families into the LWM,some of whom will be carrying the disease, together with the creation of temporaryartificial waterbodies, and the further development of resistance of the Anophelesfunestus group to pyrethroids, will certainly increase the likelihood of malariaoutbreaks within the LWM.The disease is likely to be highly seasonal, with peak transmission occurring towardsthe end of the rainy season (i.e. March to April). Mosquitoes are poor flyers, and areusually restricted to within a few hundred meters of their breeding sites. It follows thatcertain areas within the LWM area are likely to be significantly more prone tomosquitoes problems, and hence malaria transmission, than others.Biting Midges. Members of the genus Culicoides spp. (Family: Ceratopogonidae)are predicted to be abundant in the Study area (Baylis et al. 1998; Meiswinkle et al.2004). Culicoides imicola is the only proven vector of bluetongue and African horsesickness in South Africa, but it is suspected that many other members of the genusare equally capable of transmitting these diseases (Gert Venter, pers comm).Bilharzia Snails (Biomphalaria and Bulinus spp). Both genera of bilharzia snailsare likely to occur in the Study area, although only one was confirmed during thisstudy.135

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment8. AREAS OF SENSITIVTYSensitive areas within the footprint of the various activities were determined based on theresults of the various biodiversity specialists. The ecological sensitivity of any piece of land isbased on its inherent ecosystem service (e.g. wetlands) and overall preservation ofbiodiversity. The following components were therefore considered when determining levels ofsensitivity:Ecological Function. Ecological function relates to the degree of ecologicalconnectivity between systems within a landscape matrix. Therefore, systems with ahigh degree of landscape connectivity amongst one another are perceived to bemore sensitive and will be those contributing to ecosystem service (e.g. wetlands)or overall preservation of biodiversity.Conservation Importance. Conservation importance relates to species diversity,endemism (unique species or unique processes) and the high occurrence ofthreatened and protected species or ecosystems protected by legislation.The sensitivity scale described below is based on the sensitivity-value process that has beendeveloped within SANParks to ensure that land-use, development and zoning decisionswithin national protected areas are based on best possible landscape-level biodiversityinformants (SANParks, 2005).Critically High – According to the IFC Performance Standards (www.ifc.org) acritical habitat includes areas with high biodiversity value 6 , including habitatrequired for the survival of critically endangered or endangered species 7 ; areashaving special significance for endemic or restricted-range species; sites that arecritical for the survival of migratory species; areas supporting globally significantconcentrations or numbers of individuals of congregatory species; areas withunique assemblages of species or which are associated with key evolutionaryprocesses or provide key ecosystem services; and areas having biodiversity ofsignificant social, economic or cultural importance to local communities. Theseguidelines have been taken into consideration when determining areas withCritically High sensitivity.Very High – These systems are very unique to an area and are sensitive tochange and are considered of high conservation priority to all biodiversitydisciplines. They provide habitat to CI plants and animals and usually provide otherecological services. These areas should be protected;High – Sensitive ecosystems with either low inherent resistance or low resiliencetowards disturbance factors or highly dynamic systems considered being importantfor the maintenance of ecosystem integrity. Most of these systems representecosystems with high connectivity with other important ecological systems OR withhigh species diversity and usually provide suitable habitat for a number ofthreatened or rare species. These areas should be protected;Medium – These are slightly modified systems which occur along gradients ofdisturbances of low-medium intensity with some degree of connectivity with other6 Such as areas that meet the criteria of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) classification.7 As defined by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or as defined in any national legislation.136

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentecological systems OR ecosystems with intermediate levels of species diversity butmay include potential ephemeral habitat for threatened species; andLow – Degraded and highly disturbed/transformed systems with little ecologicalfunction and are generally very poor in species diversity (most species are usuallyexotic or weeds).8.1. Areas of Floral SensitivityAreas of floral sensitivity are depicted in Figure 8-1 overleaf.All wetlands are considered to be sensitive (in South Africa), especially so in drier areas suchas the Limpopo Province. The wetland vegetation type has a unique assemblage of plantspecies in an otherwise arid environment, the vegetation type also occurs within the pancatchment which is designated as sensitive (GDARD, 2009). Therefore, this vegetation unitis regarded to have a Very High sensitivity.Other areas of High sensitivity include the tall canopy constituents represented by Acaciaerioloba and Combretum imberbe and the tall Sclerocarya birrea woodland and theSpirostachys africana Bush Clumps.8.2. Areas of Faunal SensitivityAreas of faunal sensitivity are largely based on habitat condition and suitability. Suitability willmean different things for different animals and will relate strongly to the soil type, vegetationtype and water and food availability. Although the area is heavily fenced, which impacts onsome of the faunal species in terms of distribution patterns, the area is still highly suitable forfaunal species and would be even more so if the fences were removed. In terms of thecurrent LWM, the following habitats were designated with varying levels of sensitivity:Wetlands: These are given a Very High sensitivity due to their scarcity andimportant ecological service they provide for different animals, for example:• Breeding habitat for frogs, in particular the PS African bullfrog.• Foraging habitat for a variety of animals – mammals, birds, frogs,reptiles, etc. Although not reported within the SABAP 1 or 2 listings(ADU, 2010), the NT Lesser and Greater Flamingos have beenreported to utilise Brakpan in the wet season.• Shade and refuge. In such arid surrounds, these wetlands often havethick vegetation growth and thus provide shade and shelter to animals.• Drinking water. Albeit brief, these systems hold water during certainperiods of the year and can provide water for drinking purposes tomany species. Even if surface water is not available, the water isgenerally near the surface due to the calcrete layer, especially duringthe wetter periods of the year.Tall Canopy Woodlands: The tall canopy of clumps of tree species such asAcacia erioloba and Combretum imberbe were given a High sensitivity and providewooded habitat for large birds of prey, roosting for tree dwelling bats, such as theMauritian tomb bat, Yellow-bellied house bat, Darling’s Horseshoe bat, etc. and avariety of other mammals, invertebrates, and reptiles.137

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 8-1Areas of floral sensitivity within the Mine Study area138

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSoft Namib Sands: The majority of the CI invertebrates and reptiles were found inthese sandy substrates. Because the sands take up a large percentage of theLWM area, the sand types with the highest numbers of recorded CI animals weregiven a High sensitivity, whilst the remaining sandy areas were given a Mediumsensitivity.Remaining Natural Vegetation: All undisturbed natural habitat remaining after thehigher sensitivity areas have been allocated, were marked as Medium-Low as theywill support a diverse array of wildlife but are not necessarily unique habitat for anyCI animals.Disturbed Areas: Areas previous disturbed by infrastructure or agriculture weregiven a Low faunal sensitivity.8.3. Areas of Wetland SensitivityAll wetlands within South Africa are protected by legislation and are considered to besensitive, particularly in arid areas such as the Limpopo Province. All wetlands discussed inthis report have thus been classified with having a HIGH Sensitivity. This includes the buffersassociated with the catchment of each pan.8.3.1. Protection of Buffer ZonesThe National Water Act (Act 36, 1998) requires that all wetlands are protected. This includesthe riparian vegetation and a buffer around the outer edge of the wetland. The legalrequirement for buffer zones is however unclear. The Gauteng Department of Agriculture,Resource and Development (GDARD) have been the most pro-active provincial authority onthis matter and have produced “Guidelines on the Requirements for BiodiversityAssessments” (GDARD, 2012). These guidelines state that the wetland and a protectivebuffer zone, beginning from the outer edge of the wetland temporary zone, must bedesignated as sensitive. For areas outside of an urban edge, a 50 meter buffer must bedesignated from the wetland outer edge. The purpose of the buffer is to preventencroachment of developments into the wetland and protect habitats for wetland-dependantorganisms. In terms of pans the GDARD guidelines state that the catchment of the pan is tobe designated as sensitive (GDARD, 2012).A 50 meter buffer around the catchment of each of the pans within the Mine Study area,including those not visited during fieldwork, has been calculated. Due to the size of the LWMstudy area, these buffers cannot be effectively shown on a large scale map. A 1 km bufferhas been placed on the FEPA pan on the southern boundary of the proposed mine.139

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 8-2Areas of faunal sensitivity within the Mine Study area140

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment8.4. Areas of Aquatic Priority and SensitivityAlthough not within the LWM study area, the Limpopo River could potentially be affected bymining and therefore falls within the LWM Study area. The Limpopo River and its associatedfloodplain was identified as Highly Sensitive in terms of aquatic ecosystems and isconsidered “No-Go” and worthy of protection. A buffer zone of 1km from the edge of theLimpopo River is recommended based on the NFEPA guidelines (Driver et al, 2011). Theedge of the Limpopo River has been taken as the 1:100 year floodlines supplied by SRK(2013) and an extrapolated desktop assessment for areas not covered by the floodlines. Theremaining aquatic ecosystems in the mine area are common and widespread throughout theregion, and are unlikely to harbour species of particular conservation concern or ecologicalimportance or sensitivity.8.5. Overall SensitivityUsing all information provided by the biodiversity specialist team, a final map indicating Areasof Sensitivity was compiled for the LWM study area (Figure 8-3). The Limpopo River and itsassociated drainage basin are of significance as an important water resource for the countryand in terms of the eco-services it provides. Based on the groundwater IA (SRK, 2013b), thisassessment assumes that it is “almost impossible” for the groundwater contamination plume,during Phase 1, 2 and 3 of mining, and Acid Mine Drainage post-closure, to reach theLimpopo River. During Phase 1 of mining it is likely that the pit lake will form a through flowsystem and there is therefore the possibility of contaminated groundwater reaching theLimpopo River is “Likely” with the level of contamination being low and therefore the severityrated as “slightly harmful”.Although there were no CR or EN plant or animal species confirmed for the LWM study area(excluding the White-Backed Vulture – EN), and despite some of the habitats beingwidespread in the Limpopo Province, the ecosystem services supplied by this area cannot beoverlooked, especially considering the large scale of the proposed LWM and the cumulativeimpact of other such projects in the region.Biodiversity offsets should be considered for the area, taking into consideration the physicalloss of areas with a Very High (238ha) and High sensitivity (1898ha), and the loss of thefunctions these areas provide, for example water provision and migration corridors (Section10.1).141

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFigure 8-3Overall areas of sensitivity within the Limpopo West Study area142

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment9. IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe results of the impact assessment are summarized in Table 9-1 below and described inmore detail in the sections that follow under the various environmental aspects identified.Those impacts with a SEVERE or HIGH significance have been described in more detail withan explanation given for the rankings. For many of the impacts the ratings will not change forthe various Phases of the mine and the phases have therefore been grouped together.9.1. Impacts9.1.1. Creation of Artificial HabitatsPhase 1, 2 and 3 of the Mine will result in the creation of artificial habitats, with pit lakesremaining post-closure. These habitats include the open pits, water storage facilities, storageof waste rock, coal and ore and storm water facilities. These habitats will have the followingimpacts: Loss or injury to fauna, for example due to drowning in any artificial water bodies,health impacts due to dirty water storage facilities or the end of mine pit lakes. Themajor impact regarding the loss or injury to fauna, due to the creation of artificialhabitats, for the proposed LWM, will be due to the open pits that are left after Phase 1and then again post closure. The loss or injury to fauna, relating to the Mine, has aHIGH significance.Change in faunal distribution and behaviour, for example change in available habitatfor species, for example nesting potential in high wall and within stockpiles. Thechange in faunal distribution and behaviour will be of LOW-MODERATE significance;Change in floral species composition and structure, for example an encroachment ofreeds in disturbed areas where there is an accumulation of water, will have a LOW-MEDIUM significance;Increase in aquatic pest species and associated diseases particularly malaria willhave a MEDIUM-HIGH significance for the Mine.9.1.2. Removal of Vegetation and TopsoilIt has been assumed that all vegetation and topsoil will be removed from within the Minefootprint as per the various project phases. The removal of vegetation and topsoil will resultin the following main impacts:Loss of vegetation types with various sensitivities. The impact significance will varydepending on the sensitivity of the vegetation type lost. The loss of the WetlandVegetation type will have a HIGH significance. This vegetation type will be lost duringPhase 1, 2 and 3 of the mine. Although Phase 1 is of the smallest scale, the largestpan system is found on the Farm Groenfontein 250 LQ. The vegetation type has aunique assemblage of plant species in an otherwise arid environment, the vegetationtype also occurs within the pan catchment which is designated as sensitive (GDARD,2012). A number of highly sensitive vegetation types occur within the areasdesignated for Phase 1, 2 and 3 and the loss of these vegetation types will also havea HIGH significance.143

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe destruction of available natural habitat for faunal species will result in thefollowing negative impacts:• Loss of species that will not disperse, for example fossorial species;• A reduction in available foraging ground for birds of prey and aerial insectfeeders;• Loss of functional guilds (and the subsequent loss of species), e.g. in dungbeetle assemblages or Oxpecker populations due to a decrease inmammalian diversity; and• Loss of nesting habitat for bird species, especially raptors.The destruction of available natural habitat for faunal species, and the resultant lossof species that will not disperse will have a HIGH significance. Within the variousphases of the mine, areas of Very High and High faunal sensitivity will be lost. Theseareas include the wetlands, the aeolian sands and the tall canopy woodlands. All ofthese are habitats are important for faunal species. In particular the Aeolian sands, inwhich a large number of CI fossorial species were identified. The majority of thesefossorial species will not disperse and will therefore be lost. The impact has a HIGHsignificance, and will have a definite impact on those species within the site. Theimpact will have a severe intensity and will be permanent and irreversible.The removal of natural vegetation will result in an increase in ruderal weeds and alienand invasive species due to the disturbed conditions. Although only a MODERATE-HIGH impact it is important that mitigation measures are implemented to ensure thatthese species do not spread as the area currently has a very low percentage of alienand invasive species. Further impacts associated with an increase in alien andinvasive species include:• Loss of grazing potential and livestock production on surrounding farms;• Increase in use of available water in an already scarce water environment;• Increases competition between floral species and in the long term mayresult in a decrease in indigenous species diversity.The removal of topsoil and the incorrect stockpiling of this soil will result in the loss ofthe seed bank and the resultant loss of vegetation regeneration potential and geneticvariability. The impact is assessed as LOW-MODERATE.9.1.3. Loss of wetland habitatAll wetlands within the mine area will be lost (excluding the FEPA wetland on the southernboundary of the site), this will result in a loss of an irreplaceable resource and the ecoservicessupplied by these wetlands. These eco-services mainly include the maintenance ofbiodiversity, tourism and recreation. Based on data from the SRK baseline and IA report(SRK, 2013b), it is understood that there is no perched aquifer and no link between thegroundwater and the pan systems. The de-watering cone should therefore have no impacton the wetlands in the areas adjacent to the mine. The loss of pans within the study area(including all Phases) will have a VERY-HIGH impact due to the following:Loss of specific vegetation communities,Loss of habitat for faunal species in terms of foraging, breeding, water supply, shadeand refuge;144

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentChange in faunal dispersal patterns (e.g. flamingo’s and various duck species) forwetland dependant fauna due to a change in surface water availability (specifically forPhase 3);Loss of aquatic habitat and associated aquatic species. From an aquaticsperspective, no aquatic systems of High significance were identified within the Mine,however it was proposed that the pan on Matopi/Groenfontein (Phase 1 and re-minedin Phase 3) would contain species of aquatic sensitivity once recharged.The impact will have a VERY-HIGH significance and will be irreversible. In the case of loss ofwetland habitat the intensity will be severe and will impact on the Local area with theprobability being Definite.9.1.4. Habitat FragmentationThe main impacts associated with habitat fragmentation are discussed in further detail below: Disruption in faunal species natural dispersal/distribution patterns and geneticisolation for both faunal and floral species, due to disruption of dispersal patterns. Thedisruption of natural dispersal/distribution patterns will have a MODERATE - HIGHimpact on faunal species during Phase 1 and up to a VERY-HIGH impact duringPhase 3. The decline in populations requiring large territories will have a MODERATE-HIGHsignificance. The loss or injury to fauna through road kills. This impact is of LOW-MODERATEsignificance for the Mine.9.1.5. Increase in ErosionThe increase in erosion, predominantly wind erosion, will result in the following impacts: Potential health impacts on fauna. This impact has a LOW-MODERATE significance.Decreased evapotranspiration and resultant decrease of productivity in vegetation.This impact has a LOW significanceIncrease in sediment loads being deposited into surrounding wetland areas due toexposed areas and stockpiles and an increased velocity of runoff on hardenedsurfaces. This will inhibit these wetland units to offer basic wetland functions relatedto water quality improvement, nutrient cycling, and other biogenic processes thattransform and sequester pollutants. This impact has a MODERATE-HIGHsignificance.9.1.6. Increase in noise and vibration levelsThe increase in noise and vibration levels will impact on faunal populations by resulting inspecies dispersal, increased stress, increasing risk of death by changing the delicate balancein predator/prey detection and avoidance, and by interfering with their use of sounds incommunication especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. The impactsignificance is MODERATE-HIGH.9.1.7. Deterioration of Surface and Ground Water QualityBiodiversity is exposed to ground and surface water contamination as groundwater isabstracted for game and livestock watering, the Limpopo River is used for livestock watering145

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentand the pans are fed by surface water (from within their catchments). Based on thegroundwater IA (SRK, 2013b), this assessment assumes that it is “almost impossible” for thegroundwater contamination plume, during Phase 1, 2 and 3 of mining, and Acid MineDrainage post-closure, to reach the Limpopo River. During the operational phases of themine the dewatering operations will create a ‘sink’ effect where groundwater will be pulledtowards the pit; therefore contaminated water will be captured within the pit lake. DuringPhase 1 of mining it is likely that the pit lake will form a through flow system and there istherefore the possibility of contaminated groundwater reaching the Limpopo River is “Likely”with the level of contamination being low and therefore the severity rated as “slightlyharmful”. The impacts are discussed briefly below and are specific for contaminationoriginating from the Mine including Acid Mine Drainage. The impacts include:Change in aquatic species composition. This impact has a LOW-MODERATEsignificance due to the “almost impossible” potential of Acid Mine Drainage andgroundwater contamination reaching the Limpopo River. The impact during Phase 1is also assessed as LOW-MODERATE.Change in vegetation structure and composition. The impact will have a LOWsignificance. The impact during Phase 1 is assessed as LOW-MODERATE.Potential impact on faunal health. The impact will have a LOW-MODERATEsignificance. The impact during Phase 1 is also assessed as LOW-MODERATE.9.1.8. Reduction in baseflow of the Limpopo RiverThe decrease in baseflow of the Limpopo River due to the de-watering of pits during Phase1, 2 and 3 of the mine is expected to be less than 1% (SRK, 2013b). The impact is assessedas having a LOW-MODERATE significance.9.1.9. Increased Low FlowsThe low flows will impact on biodiversity in the following ways:Change in available biotopes and an ultimate change in aquatic species composition.The impact will have a MODERATE-HIGH significance;Change in surface water availability and an ultimate change in floral speciescomposition. The impact will have a LOW significance; ANDLoss of faunal species dependant on temporary presence of water, for examplebullfrogs and a diversity of other frog species. The impact will have a LOWsignificance.9.1.10. Influx of PeopleThe influx of people will have general impacts from workers associated with the mine asdiscussed below: There will be an increase in hunting, poaching and the unnecessary killing of fauna.The impact from these activities will have a LOW significance and will include:• Loss of small/medium carnivores and medium/large ungulate species• Injury to faunal species due to snares and traps• Loss of snake species, specifically black mamba’sAn increase in littering will result in the death or injury to fauna, this impact will have aLOW significance.146

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThe harvesting of natural resources will have the following impacts:• Loss and/or damage to harvestable floral species, including medicinalspecies;• Loss of habitat for faunal species dependant on dry wood, for exampleOxpeckers and various reptile species;• Loss of habitat for faunal species dependant on large woodland treespecies.• The impact associated with the harvesting of natural resources has a LOWsignificance.9.1.11. Cumulative ImpactsSix main cumulative impacts have been identified for the proposed LWM and the numerousplanned coal mines within the area. These impacts are discussed below and the ratingsincluded in Table 9-2:Loss of a large percentage of the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld. Based on current lodgedmining applications, within the vicinity of the proposed Limpopo West Mine, greaterthan 8 % of the Sweet Limpopo Bushveld will be lost. This vegetation type is currentlylisted as Least Threatened, however this is based on the percentage of areatransformed, which was 5 % in 2006 (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Should thepercentage of area transformed increase, the status of the vegetation will change(Figure 9-1), and especially as only 1% is currently conserved (Mucina andRutherford, 2006).Figure 9-1 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Terrestrial Ecosystem Status(Driver et al., 2005)Disruption of natural dispersal/distribution corridors to and along the Limpopo River.All of the mining applications lodged are situated within the Limpopo Sweet Bushveldvegetation type between the Western Sandy Bushveld and the Waterberg MountainBushveld vegetation types and the Limpopo River.Loss of temporary water bodies. There are no drainage lines within the LWM andvery limited drainage lines and watercourses within the immediate vicinity of the Mine.The temporary pans therefore play a very important role in terms of the provision ofsurface water. The large number of mining developments will result in an extensiveloss of these systems.Disturbance to the Limpopo River. As mentioned previously the mining developmentswithin the region are located close to the Limpopo River with groundwater flow fromthe majority of mines being in the direction of the Limpopo River. The potential for147

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAcid Mine Drainage and the encroachment of people onto this system will have avery significant impact on an important system.Decrease in the baseflow to the Limpopo River. The combined impact of dewateringfrom many mines will impact on the volume of water available as baseflow to theLimpopo River and therefore may have a significant impact on this resource (SRK,2013b).Influx of people into the greater area and the resultant impact of this on the naturalresources.148

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 9-1Biodiversity Impacts associated with the MineEnvironmental Significance(before mitigation)Freq.TotalSeverity Extent Duration of Freq. of ImpsignificancePhase Activity Aspect ImpactAct.Loss or injury to fauna 5 3 5 5 3 104 (high)Phase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3and postclosurePhase 1,Phase 2,andPhase 3Phase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3and postclosurePhase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3and postclosureOpen pits, borrow pits, water storage facilities,stormwater facilities, storage of waste rock,ore and coal discardOpen pit mining, blasting, conveyors,operation of the beneficiation plantOpen pit mining, blasting, storage of topsoil,over-burden, inter-burden and beneficiationplant discard, construction or upgrading ofroads.Open pit mining; borrow pit, waste disposalsite, beneficiation plant, storage of topsoil,over-burden, inter-burden and beneficiationplant discard; construction or upgrading ofroads.Creation of artificial habitats, for example inwater bodies, in the pit high wall and waste rockdumps and on power linesIncrease in noise levels and vibration (blasting)Increase in erosion – wind erosion (dust) andsurface runoffRemoval of natural vegetation and topsoilChange in faunal distribution andbehaviourChange in floral species composition andstructureIncrease in aquatic pest species andassociated diseases particularly malariaDispersal or increased stress levels forfauna2 3 5 5 2 70 (lowmedium)2 1 5 5 4 72 ((lowmedium)4 3 5 5 2 84 (mediumhigh)3 3 4 4 5 90 (mediumhigh)Potential health impacts on fauna 2 3 4 4 2 54 (lowmedium)Decreased evapotranspiration and 2 2 4 4 2 48 (low)resultant decrease of productivity invegetationInability of the wetlands to supply theoriginal eco-services4 2 4 4 4 80 (mediumhigh)Loss of vegetation types with a Very Highsensitivity (wetlands) – All PhasesLoss of Highly sensitive vegetation types(Sclerocarya birrea Woodland;Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps;Combretum imberbe-Acacia eriolobaWoodland) – All PhasesLoss of vegetation types with a Mediumsensitivity (Acacia nigrescens Bushclumps; Mixed Acacia Bush; Terminaliasericea-Burkea africana Woodland;Combretum apiculatum-Terminalia sericeaWoodland; Boscia-Grewia-CommiphoraBushveld) – All PhasesLoss of vegetation type with a Lowsensitivity (old fields) – All PhasesThe destruction of available natural habitatfor faunal species, including fossorialspecies, and the resultant loss of speciesthat will not disperseIncrease in ruderal weeds and alien andinvasive speciesA loss of the seed bank in the topsoil andthe resultant loss of vegetationregeneration potential and geneticvariability.Dewatering activities Reduction in base flow of the Limpopo River Disturbance of an irreplaceable resourceand the eco-services provided and achange in aquatic species composition5 1 5 5 5 110 (high)5 1 5 5 5 110 (high)3 1 5 4 5 81 (mediumhigh)1 1 4 4 4 48 (low)5 1 5 5 5 110 (high)3 3 5 4 5 99 (mediumhigh)3 1 3 4 4 56 (lowmedium)1 4 4 4 4 72 (lowmedium)149

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPhase Activity Aspect ImpactPhase 1, Open pit mining; borrow pits, storage of waste Loss or disturbance of wetland habitatPhase 2, rock, coal discard and ore, surfacePhase 3 infrastructureand postclosurePhase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3Spills, housekeeping, blasting, equipmentmaintenance and washing, uncontrolledrelease of contaminated water, stormwater,dewatering, seepage from ore stockpiles,seepage from dirty water storage facilities,seepage from waste dumpsPhase 1 Decanting. Assumed only during Phase 1based on the groundwater report by SRK(2013b).Phase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3Phase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3and postclosurePhase 1,Phase 2,Phase 3Seepage from water storage facilities, leakagealong pipelines, uncontrolled and controlledrelease of contaminated water, dewatering,discharge of treated sewage effluentThe open pit mine and all associatedinfrastructureCreation of jobsDeterioration of surface and ground waterqualityDeterioration of surface and ground waterquality due to open pits becoming through flowsystems (AMD)Increased low flowsLoss or disturbance of an irreplaceableresource and the eco-services provided –All PhasesspeciesHabitat fragmentation Disruption in faunal species naturaldispersal/distribution patterns and geneticisolation for both faunal and floral speciesdue to disruption of dispersal patternsInflux of people:- Increased littering- Increased hunting/poaching and unnecessarykilling of faunal species- Harvesting of natural resources-Increase in trafficSeverity Extent DurationEnvironmental Significance(before mitigation)Freq.ofAct.Freq. of ImpTotalsignificance5 3 5 5 5 130 (veryhigh)Change in aquatic species composition 5 5 5 4 1 75 (lowmedium)Change in vegetation structure and 3 2 5 4 1 50 (low)compositionDeath or potential health impacts to fauna 4 2 5 4 1 55 (lowmedium)Change in aquatic species composition 2 3 4 4 4 72 (lowmedium)Change in vegetation structure and 1 2 4 4 4 56 (lowmedium)compositionDeath or potential health impacts to fauna 2 2 4 4 4 64 (lowmedium)Change in available biotopes and an 4 4 4 4 4 96 (mediumhigh)ultimate change in aquatic speciescompositionChange in surface water availability and 2 2 4 4 2 48 (low)an ultimate change in floral speciescompositionLoss of faunal species dependant on 2 2 4 4 2 48 (low)temporary presence of water, for examplebullfrogs and a diversity of other frogDecline in populations requiring largeterritories, for example large raptors andcarnivoresLoss or injury of faunal species throughroad kills3 (P1)4 (P2)5 (P3)3 (P1)4 (P2)4 (P3)v5 (P1)5 (P2)5 (P3)5 (P1)5 (P2)5 (P3)3 (P1)4 (P2)5 (P3)88 (mediumhigh)117 (High)140 (VeryHigh)3 3 5 4 4 88 (mediumhigh)4 1 4 4 4 72 (lowmedium)Death or injury to faunal species 2 3 2 4 4 48 (low)Loss and/or damage to harvestable floral 2 3 2 4 4 48 (low)speciesLoss of habitat for faunal species 1 2 2 4 2 30 (low)150

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 9-2Cumulative biodiversity impactsEnvironmental SignificanceAspectRemoval of natural vegetation andtopsoilReduction in base flow of theLimpopo RiverLoss or disturbance of wetlandhabitat (loss of pans and drainagelines)Deterioration of surface and groundwater quality due to groundwatercontamination plumes and AMDreaching the Limpopo River(before mitigation)FreqSev Ext Dura . Freq.erity ent tion of of ImpTotal significanceAcImpactt.Loss of the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld 5 5 5 5 5 150 (very high)Disturbance of an irreplaceable resource and theeco-services provided and a change in aquaticspecies compositionLoss or disturbance of an irreplaceable resource andthe eco-services provided5 5 4 5 5 140 (very high)5 4 5 5 5 140 (very high)Change in aquatic species composition 5 5 5 5 5 150 (very high)Change in vegetation structure and composition 5 3 5 5 5 130 (very high)Death or potential health impacts to fauna 5 4 5 5 5 140 (very high)Habitat fragmentation Disruption in faunal species naturaldispersal/distribution patterns and genetic isolationfor both faunal and floral species due to disruption ofdispersal patternsDecline in populations requiring large territories, forexample large raptors and carnivoresInflux of people:- Increased littering- Increased hunting/poaching andunnecessary killing of faunalspecies- Harvesting of natural resources-Increase in traffic5 4v 5 5 5 140 (very high)5 5 5 4 4 120 (high)Loss or injury of faunal species through road kills 4 1 4 4 4 72 (low-medium)Death or injury to faunal species 4 3 4 4 4 88 (medium-high)151

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment10. Mitigation and Management MeasuresMitigation and management measures are essential for reducing the impacts associated withthe mine. The general management and mitigation measures and the monitoringrequirements for the proposed LWM have been discussed below. Specific management andmitigations measures for the impacts raised in Table 9-1 have been detailed in Table 10-1,together with the impact significance post-mitigation.10.1. Biodiversity Offsets or Migration CorridorsOne of the main management and mitigation measures for the proposed LWM, in terms ofbiodiversity, is the establishment of biodiversity offsets. The establishment of offsets requiresfurther investigation. As aforementioned in the Impacts Section, one of the main cumulativeimpacts of the region is the loss of a large percentage of the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld, adisruption of natural migration/dispersal patterns and the loss of wetlands due to all the coalmining applications within the region. Many of these impacts cannot be mitigated, as is thecase for the proposed LWM where large expanses of land will be disturbed due to miningoperations and associated activities. Biodiversity offsets can be used to compensate forthe residual impact to biodiversity that cannot be mitigated onsite and thereforebalance the impact of the project (Figure 10-1) (http://bbop.forest-trends.org/). Developersshould however only pursue biodiversity offsets at the end of the mitigation hierarchy, afterthey have reduced and alleviated residual environmental harm as much as possible.Figure 10-1The Mitigation Hierarchy (http://bbop.forest-trends.org)152

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBiodiversity Offset OptionsWhile appropriate offset activities will vary from site to site, a range of different landmanagement interventions could typically be involved in biodiversity offsets for the proposedLWM, these include (http://bbop.forest-trends.org/):Safeguarding unprotected areas. The D’Nyala Nature Reserve which is locatedsoutheast of Lephalale Town includes a small portion of the Limpopo Sweetveldvegetation type. One possibility would be to increase the reserve in a westerlydirection so as to include a greater area of the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld. Theinitiative could involve either setting up a stewardship agreement in terms of theNEM: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 or the donation of the land to a legal provincialnature conservation agency or an accredited Public Benefit Organisation. The variousoptions available would need to be investigated in further detail.Establishing corridors: The establishment of corridors involves identifying andsecuring the conservation management of land that provides biological corridorsbetween protected areas. The formation of a “Mega-Corridor” from the WesternSandy Bushveld and Waterberg Mountain Bushveld vegetation types, through theLimpopo Sweet Bushveld and to the Limpopo River could be established. Theestablishment of such a corridor will allow protection of the existing sensitive habitatsdiscussed in this report and the continual migration of animal species. The “Mega-Corridors” should follow the two major river systems feeding the Limpopo River, theMatlabas and the Mokolo. The major disadvantage of this from a mining perspectiveis the loss of coal resources which are critical for the economy.Additional migration corridors or open space areas could be established within theLWM area. This will involve incorporating areas of remaining natural habitat, linked bycontinuous systems.Establishing buffer zones. Buffer zones need to be established around the areasidentified as having a Critically High sensitivity. Additional buffer zones should beestablished around all areas of Very High sensitivity that are not impacted on by thevarious phases, for example the pan systems.In the case of the Lephalale area it is recommended that a new government initiative beestablished that can manage and promote the safeguarding of unprotected land in the areaand encourage all the various parties (in particular all the mining houses within the area) toparticipate. The establishment of a Biodiversity Offset or “Mega-Corridor” or the expansion ofthe D’Nyala Nature Reserve will be a long-term project and will require the involvement of allstakeholders (e.g. developers, mining companies, environmental consultants, farmers andauthorities), involved in developmental and mining applications in the area, in order to be asuccess. The Lephalale Development Forum may be the correct forum in which theseconcepts can be discussed.The benefits, concerns and risks associated with Biodiversity offsets are briefly discussedbelow.153

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBenefits of Biodiversity OffsetsBoth conservation and the mining industry can benefit from biodiversity offsets. For theconservation sector, the benefits include (Matrix, 2007): More conservation: through agreements with large companies, conservation canpotentially obtain access to more land. Better conservation: potentially, offsets can provide a mechanism which allows forbetter planning of conservation areas. They can facilitate the creation of interlinkedareas big enough to harbour species sustainably, as well as the establishmentcorridors. Giving conservation a monetary value: giving conservation a value means that it cancompete on a more equal footing with alternate (money generating) uses such asdevelopment.For the mining industry, the potential benefits include (ten Kate et al., 2004): License to operate and access to land: an offset commitment may allow a companyto mine in an area that would otherwise be out of bounds. Access to capital: financial institutions which apply the Equator Principles will onlyprovide financing to projects which (amongst other requirements) can showperformance in compliance with the International Finance Corporation’s performancestandard on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural ResourceManagement.Lower cost of compliance: in some situations, the rehabilitation of an area to anacceptable state after mining (which is not the original state), and then compensatingfor the difference offsite, may be the preferred option both financially and from aconservation point of view. An example could be where a mine is located in an areawhich is surrounded by other mines, or other degraded areas, such as the proposedLWM. Even if the site was pristine prior to mining, rehabilitating it back to the samecondition at a high cost post mining may not have the desired conservation impact,due to the isolation of that area, and the external impacts caused by surroundingactivities, and then to compensate for the biodiversity loss in the area, where acontribution can be made to a larger intact, and more sustainable, area ofbiodiversity.Ethical environmental stewardship: by demonstrating corporate responsibility, acompany will have better relationships with government departments, the communityaround its operations and its own employees. This will not only improve the image ofthe company (and potentially improve business opportunities), but could also makedealing with government departments less onerous and bureaucratic due to mutualtrust, and result in less local problems and demands.Concerns or Risks of Biodiversity OffsetsConcerns have also been raised in regards to the potential risks inherent in implementingbiodiversity offsets. Some of these include (ten Kate et al., 2004): Offsets don’t deliver the intended biodiversity benefits.Causes potential disputes around the process of placing value on biodiversity.Can cause disagreements around conservation priorities.154

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSome of the identified potential risks for mining companies include: Undertaking biodiversity offsets may attract undue attention to the company. Althoughundertaking an initiative should be seen as positive, due to conflicting agendas andpriorities, the project may attract criticism.An offset project is a long – term commitment and companies may have concernsabout changing perceptions of management and personnel, as well as governmentofficials in the future. In addition, it requires the long – term buy in of a variety ofstakeholders.An offset adds new legal and/or moral liabilities and responsibilities to the company’sportfolio.10.1.1. Biodiversity Action PlanA Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is a mechanism by which the objectives and targets forbiodiversity conservation can be achieved (Johnson and Starke, 2006). NSS advises that themitigation measures discussed in the sections below be put into the format of an auditableBAP that lists the impacts, mitigation commitments, responsible persons and timing.10.1.2. Alien and Invasive Control ProgrammeA very limited number of alien invasive species were identified within the LWM area, howeverwith the level of disturbance expected and the influx of people, vehicles etc this will change.An Alien and Invasive Programme should be developed prior to the construction phase toensure the control of these species. As the number of alien and invasives species arecurrently very limited this programme will need to be updated as and when alien and invasivespecies occur on site. It is advisable to contact surrounding mines, for example Grootegeluk,to determine what the problem alien and invasive species are. This knowledge would enablethe various components of the proposed LWM to have a baseline Programme with thecontrol of those species already understood.Alien species, specifically invasive species, are a major threat to the ecological functioning ofnatural systems and to the productive use of land. In terms of the amendments to theregulations under the Conservation of Agriculture Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983),landowners are legally responsible for the control of alien species on their properties. Theprotection of our natural systems from invasive species is further strengthened withinSections 70-77 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of2004).10.1.3. Rehabilitation/landscaping PlanRehabilitation of natural vegetation and the maintenance thereof should proceed inaccordance with a rehabilitation plan compiled by a specialist registered in terms of theNatural Scientific Professions Act (No. 27 of 2003) in the field of Ecological Science. Anypost-development re-vegetation or landscaping exercise should use indigenous species. Asfar as possible, indigenous plants naturally growing in the area, which would have beendestroyed during construction, should be used for re-vegetation / landscaping purposes.10.1.4. Nursery Establishment and TranslocationThe large scale removal of Protected tree species on site, required the acquisition of a permitfrom the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) and the Limpopo155

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDepartment of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) for the removalor disturbance of species protected by the National Forests Act, 1998 (Act 84 of 1998) andthe Limpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 7, 2003). A permit will besubmitted to the relevant departments once the mining right has been secured. The permitshave been prepared separately for the various mine Phases and will be submitted prior toeach Phase commencing.Prior to Phase 1 and 2 of the project the harvesting of plant species should be opened to thelocal communities and to organizations such as Operation Wild Flower prior to the clearing ofvegetation. Conservation Important (including Protected and medicinal species) seedlingsand other transplantable CI plant species (e.g. geophytes, succulents) that can betransplanted should be. Before translocation of species is implemented, an assessmentshould be done in order to look at the known and potential impacts of translocation and thepossible success and failure of the project (Bullock et al. 1996). Translocations may influencethe amount of genetic variation among populations and the pattern of genetic differencesbetween them. The selective factors that influence animals and plants that are taken fromcaptive or cultivated populations are different from those that act on the wild populations ofthe same species, and thus the genetic make-up could be different. If out-breeding occursbetween the wild populations and the translocated individuals, the wild populations may be atrisk as the genes specific to the wild populations may be replaced by others. Although theseconsequences are often unavoidable, efforts should be made to translocate the CI species toareas that are as similar to their original habitat as possible.During Phase 3 of the project it is advised that a nursery be established. The nursery shouldbe established for the cultivation of indigenous plants to be used in the rehabilitationprogramme and as a holding facility to protect specific plants that are of conservation value,such that these can be returned to suitable habitats as restoration becomes possible.Conservation Important and medicinal tree seedlings and other transplantable plant species(e.g. geophytes, succulents) should be removed prior to Phase 3 of the project and plantedin bags using local soil and maintained in the nursery. Seeds of CI and Medicinal trees andother plants should be harvested and used in the nursery to cultivate local indigenous plants.It must be ensured that the seed is insect-free and stored under appropriate cool, dry, rodentand/or pest free conditions. It is best to store seeds at 6-15C at a relative humidity of 15-30%. At these conditions the seeds should stay viable for 10-20 years. It is important to notethat grass seeds are dormant for at least 1 year after harvesting. The seeds may not beuseful for Phase 3 of mining, but potentially can be used in a seed bank created for thegreater area to be mined. A nursery within the area could perhaps be tasked with creating aseed bank for the various mines.Mining environmental regulations require ongoing small-scale restoration projects forunnecessary roads or disturbed areas in the course of mining operations. Having a nurseryestablished at an early stage will ease the restoration task and avoid the unnecessary loss ofsome plant genetic material.156

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment10.1.5. Training and Awareness ProgrammeTraining and Awareness Programmes, with regards to the protection of natural systems andthe importance of biodiversity, should be implemented with all staff and contractors. Trainingof the surrounding communities (adjacent farmers and residents of the surrounding towns –in particular the school going children) is also essential for the protection of CI species, thereduction in the dispersal of alien invasive species and to increase awareness of river health.An Environmental Education Unit could be established within the LWM study area.Numerous farm houses, some built to a high standard are scattered throughout the area.With limited modification, one of these could be set up as an Environmental Education facilityto provide school / youth / culture groups the opportunity to enjoy a natural environment andreceive the necessary environmental awareness programmes.As part of the Training and Awareness Programme, Maritz (2007) highlighted that a ProblemAnimal Removal Protocol should be established. During the course of mining, human-animalconflicts are likely to arise. Of particular concern are human-snake encounters that oftenarise when snakes enter buildings. A snake removal protocol should be developed thatwould allow for snakes to be safely (for the snake and humans) removed from buildings andreleased in suitable nearby habitat. Long distance relocations (species specific thoughgenerally > 1 km) are not recommended as translocations can result in undesirable geneticmixing, the transfer of pathogens, and increased mortality in translocated animals. Removalsshould be performed by trained individuals who are familiar with local species and that areable to capture and transport snakes without causing them undue stress.10.1.6. Animal relocationIt is assumed that the majority of animal species, especially stocked game, will be relocatedprior to the mine commencing. In addition to these species, the study area supportsnumerous tortoises. These animals can be easily located after good rains and successfullytranslocated to adjacent areas prior to mining with minimal cost. The Kalahari Tent Tortoise(Psammobates oculiferus) is one of the tortoise species that exists in the Study area. Recentliterature suggests that little is known about the ecology this species (Alexander & Marias,2007). Similarly to the plant nursery, an extensive tortoise holding facility could beestablished specifically for individual Kalahari Tent Tortoises moved from areas about to bedisturbed. These could be protected within a large enclosure where their predators (primarilyman and vehicles) are minimised, and they are free to multiply.10.2. Monitoring and Reporting10.2.1. Water Monitoring ProgrammeA review of water quality in the Olifants River Catchment concluded that the National WaterQuality Monitoring Programme was unable to determine exactly why the ecosystem hasdeteriorated so badly (De Villiers and Mkwelo 2009). Several reasons for this failure wereidentified, including poor design of the monitoring programme, inadequate samplingfrequencies, inappropriate location of sampling sites, and not monitoring relevant variables.Key variables, such as aluminum, copper, and zinc, were not routinely monitored. Thecomposition and abundance of benthic diatoms recorded in the Limpopo during this study157

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentindicates that salinity levels in the region are naturally elevated. This highlights theimportance of collecting reliable baseline data, including variables that are not currentlyroutinely monitored.A comprehensive water monitoring programme, that includes surface and groundwater,sediment, and selected biota, is recommended. The programme should be developed andimplemented well in advance of any mining developments taking place (i.e. as soon aspossible). The water monitoring programme should consider the lessons learnt in theOlifants River Catchment (Heath et al. 2010). The programme should include: Persistent Organic Pollutants (water, sediments and fish) Sediment metal concentrations Bioaccumulation of heavy metals (selected species only) Benthic diatom species composition and abundance Composition and abundance of alien macrophytes Abundance of freshwater shrimp, Caridina nilotica. Aquatic invertebrates are notsuitable response indicators for monitoring impacts of the proposed LWM on theecological state of the Limpopo River.This is because the available instreamhabitats are for most of the time unsuitable for the application of the SASS method;the taxa that are present are highly tolerant to changes in water quality; and becauseof frequent and prolonged cessation of flow.However, the freshwater shrimpCaridina nilotica provides a suitable indicator taxon for long-term monitoring becauseit is moderately sensitive to water quality deterioration, is easy to identify, and wascommon in the Limpopo River at the three sites that were sampled. A suitable sitefor SASS5 biomonitoring is present at Site L3, but the biomonitoring results must beinterpreted with caution because the SASS5 method was developed specifically forperennial streams and rivers, and must be applied to seasonal systems with caution.Three sites in the Limpopo River are recommended for long-term monitoring:Control Site: Upstream of the Mine:• L1 (S23.68314 E27.03793)Impact Sites: Downstream of the Mine:• L2 (S23.49890 E27.19207)• L3 (S23.41495 E27.43204)Annual reporting of monitoring results is recommended after each field survey10.2.2. Malaria Monitoring ProgrammeMalaria cases within the LWM study area require monitoring. If necessary a Malaria ControlProgramme will need to be established, in consultation with the Department of Health.158

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTable 10-1Biodiversity impacts associated with the Mine post-mitigationAspect Impact Objective Performance Indicator Management and Mitigation MeasuresSignificancePremitigationCreation ofartificialhabitats,forexample inthe pit highwall andwaste rockdumps andin artificialwaterbodiesIncrease innoiselevels andvibration(blasting)Increase inerosion –winderosion(dust) andsurfacerunoffLandClearance:Removalof naturalvegetationand topsoilLoss or injury to faunaChange in faunal distribution andbehaviourChange in floral species compositionand structureIncrease in aquatic pest species andassociated diseases particularlymalariaDispersal or increased stress levelsfor faunaPotential health impacts on faunaDecreased evapotranspiration andresultant decrease of productivity invegetationInability of the wetlands to supply theoriginal eco-servicesLoss of vegetation types with a VeryHigh sensitivity (wetlands)Loss of Highly sensitive vegetationtypes (Sclerocarya birrea Woodland;Spirostachys africana Bush Clumps;Combretum imberbe-Acacia eriolobaWoodland)Loss of vegetation types with aMedium sensitivity (Acacianigrescens Bush clumps; MixedAcacia Bush; Terminalia sericea-Burkea africana Woodland;Combretum apiculatum-Terminaliasericea Woodland; Boscia-Grewia-Commiphora Bushveld) To limit the access of species tothe artificial habitats To prevent the unnecessary deathof fauna To prevent the introduction andspread of alien and invasivespecies To limit any artificial bodies ofstanding waterMaintain the diversity of faunalspecies within adjacent habitats To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and wetlands Maintain the diversity andcomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein, with special focuson CI speciesIn terms of the mine and associatedactivities there will be no naturalhabitat remaining within the mineboundary. The main objectives ofthis component will therefore be to: Maintain the diversity andcomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein, with special focuson CI species To control the spread of alien andinvasive plant species Ensure the successful reintroductionof indigenous floraand fauna to rehabilitated areas. No evidence of faunalspecies utilizing the artificialhabitat No evidence of faunal deathdue to collisions orelectrocutions with the powerlines or drowning in artificialwater bodies No evidence of alien andinvasive speciesNoise levels to not exceed theindustry Norms and Standards No net loss of topsoil No evidence of dust onvegetation within 10m of theroad verges No evidence of sedimenttransport outside of the dirtywater management zone No evidence of landclearance outside of thedemarcated Mine footprint No occurrence of anyCategory species within theMine boundary or immediatesurrounds No spread of alien andinvasive species in thehabitats immediatelyadjacent to the Mine Fencing to be installed around the open pits, mine dumps and surface water storagefacilities Implement an Alien Invasive Control Programme as discussed in Section 10.1.2 Concurrent rehabilitation during Phase 3 of the project. Engineer the final voids created by the open pits to reduce public safety risks; Backfill voids as much as possible; Reuse treated wastewaters; Monitor water distribution loses and maintain water distribution infrastructure; Minimise creation of temporary standing water bodies through adequate stormwatermanagement; Monitor malaria cases and if necessary, establish Malaria Control Programme, inconsultation with the Department of Health.Noise levels to be monitored and maintained within the Industry Norms and Standards Remove loose earth from the road sides; Periodic spraying of roads with water or dust inhibitor; Cover trucks to prevent dust emission during transport; Vegetate and wet topsoil stockpiles to limit erosion; Construct roads away from wetland areas to limit the erosion and sediment loadsreporting to wetlands; Make use of permeable materials for pavements and walkways; Ensure that stormwater management measures are adequately designed; Construction of erosion protection measures, for example low level berms, to be putin place around stockpiles to prevent erosion. The purpose of these berms would beto intercept flows containing suspended solids and create a depositional environment,inhibiting sediment introduction into the downslope wetland areas.General Keep the footprint of the disturbed area to a minimum and to within designated areasonly Further investigate the option of establishing biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsetscan be used to compensate for the residual impact to biodiversity that cannot bemitigated onsite and therefore balance the impact of the project This is discussedfurther in Section 10.1Removal or Disturbance to CI Floral Species Permits will be required by the DEA for the removal or disturbance of speciesprotected under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Actno. 10, 2004). Permits will be required by the Limpopo Department of Economic Development,Environment and Tourism for the removal or disturbance of species protected by theLimpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003 (Act No. 7, 2003). *HighModeratehighLow-ModerateLow-ModerateModerate-HighLow-ModerateLow-ModerateModerate-HighModerate-HighLow-ModerateLow In terms of the National Forests Act of 1998, a licence should be granted by DAFF (orLoss of vegetation type with a Low Low LowModerate-HighHighHighModerate-HighSignificancePostmitigationModerate-HighLowLowLow-ModerateHighHighModerate-High159

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAspect Impact Objective Performance Indicator Management and Mitigation MeasuresReductionin baseflow of theLimpopoRiverLoss ordisturbance ofwetlandhabitatDeterioration ofsurfacesensitivity (old fields)The destruction of available naturalhabitat for faunal species and theresultant loss of species or change inspecies distribution patternsIncrease in ruderal weeds and alienand invasive speciesA loss of the seed bank in the topsoiland the resultant loss of vegetationregeneration potential and geneticvariability.Disturbance of an irreplaceableresource and the eco-servicesprovided and a change in aquaticspecies compositionLoss or disturbance of anirreplaceable resource and the ecoservicesprovidedChange in aquatic speciescomposition To prevent a reduction in baseflowto the Limpopo River To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and wetlands Maintain the diversity andcomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein, with special focuson CI species To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and the aquatic biotaNo net change (greater than1%) in baseflow to the LimpopoRiverNo evidence of land clearanceor disturbance to wetlands Ensure that the pit lakes actas sinks and never becomea delegated authority) prior to the removal, damage or destruction of any protectedtree species. Phase 1 and 2: Allow for the harvesting of medicinal plants by local communities andremoval of species by organizations such as Operation Wild Flower; Phase 3: Removal of CI species (including Protected and medicinal) that can betransplanted and planting of these within a nursery (discussed further under Section10.1.4) Phase 3: Removal and replanting of larger trees (e.g. it is possible to replant quitelarge Marula (Sclerocarya birrea) trees.Top Soil Handling Topsoil is to be removed prior to construction and stockpiled separately. The topsoil is to be removed in a manner that minimizes compaction Ensure single handling of topsoil where possible Erosion protection measures, for example low level berms, to be put in place toprevent erosion of the topsoil stockpiles Ensure that topsoil stockpiles are not higher than 15m Rehabilitation Plan. More detail regarding the rehabilitation plan is given in Section10.1.3 Nursery Establishment. More detail regarding the establishment of a nursery inPhase 3 is given in Section 10.1.4 Alien and Invasives Control Programme. More detail regarding the programme isdiscussed in Section 10.1.2 Minimise surface footprint Return clean water to the catchment All pans within the Mine footprint will be destroyed (excluding the one FEPA Pan inthe south), there is no mitigation for this. The impact therefore remains of VERY-HIGH significance. Keep the footprint of the disturbed area to a minimum and to within designated areasonly Further investigate the option of establishing biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsetscan be used to compensate for the residual impact to biodiversity that cannot bemitigated onsite and therefore balance the impact of the project. This is discussedfurther in Section 10.1The following measures are recommended to mitigate for potential impacts of Acid MineDrainage (AMD) on aquatic ecosystems within and downstream of the proposed minearea:SignificancePremitigationHighSignificancePostmitigationModerate-HighLow-ModerateLow-ModerateVery HighLow-Moderate (AllPhases)HighLow-ModerateLowLow-ModerateVery HighLow-Moderate (AllPhases)160

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAspect Impact Objective Performance Indicator Management and Mitigation Measuresandgroundwaterquality(includingthepotentialfor AcidMineDrainage)Change in vegetation structure andcompositionDeath or potential impact on faunalhealththerein To maintain the integrity of thewetlands Maintain ground and surfacewater quality leaving the Studyarea Maintain the diversity andcomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein, with special focuson CI speciesthrough flow systems. Anygroundwater day lighting orentering the Limpopo Rivermust not exceed the DWAguidelines for aquaticecosystems (excluding theguidelines for AL, Cd, Cr,Cu, Hg, Se, and Zn as theseguidelines are unrealisticand largely unachievable) Ensure that there isseparation of clean and dirtywater systems Ensure that there is nodischarge of effluent to thereceiving environment Ensure that there is nodeterioration in ecologicalconditions (composition andabundance of diatoms andfish) at the pointsdownstream of the Studyarea, in relation to theupstream control point Ensure that the pit lakes remain acting as a sink and never become through flowsystems; Ensure that neighboring farms, utilizing groundwater for livestock or game, orprovided with clean water should they fall within the groundwater contaminationplume; Establish an effective mine dewatering system, whereby working and workedsurfaces should be kept dry as far as this is possible. Where this is not possible, thedewatering system should ensure that clean ground and surface water are separatedfrom contaminated or potentially contaminated surface and ground water; Monitor groundwater quality monthly for key variables, such as pH, sulphate andheavy metals, and establish early warning thresholds for key variables in accordancewith the DWA water quality guidelines for aquatic ecosystems (excluding theguidelines for AL, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Se, and Zn as these guidelines are unrealistic andlargely unachievable); Consider placing acid generating waste material below groundwater table to preventoxidation, or otherwise bury this material under a clay layer to prevent oxidation(Tiwary 2001); Develop and implement measures to control ingress by preventing the recharge ofthe shallow groundwater above the mine void by the canalisation of surfacestormwater (Council for Geoscience 2010). Furthermore, steps should be taken toensure that clean mine water abstracted as part of the dewatering programme is usedappropriately, and not discharged where it could potentially return to working areas.The dewatering programme must therefore be integrated into the mine plan. Thismeans, inter alia, that routing of water pipelines and electrical cables needed forwater pumping stations must be consistent with roads and other conveyanceroutings. Ensure that clean water is intercepted and diverted around the open pit workings; Consider pre-treatment of waste rock to remove sulphide minerals; Segregate sulphide bearing waste rock from non-sulphate bearing waste rock (Tiwary2001); Contain and treat runoff of blast residues to minimise elevated concentrations ofnitrates; Implement a biomonitoring programme that aims to monitor the impacts of the Mineon the receiving aquatic ecosystem. More information on the biomonitoringprogramme is given in Section 10.2.SignificancePremitigationLow (Phase2 and 3)Low-Moderate(Phase 1)Low-Moderate (AllPhases)SignificancePostmitigationLowPhases)(AllLow-Moderate (AllPhases)The following measures are recommended to mitigate for potential impacts of waterquality deterioration on aquatic ecosystems within and downstream of the Mine Studyarea: A Water Use Licence must be obtained for all discharge of effluent. Contain and treat runoff of blast residues to minimise elevated concentrations ofnitrates; Reuse all treated wastewaters, where this is feasible; Treat all polluted surface and groundwater to nationally acceptable standards; Ensure that all areas containing hazardous substances are lined, sealed, bunded orotherwise engineered to prevent pollution of surface or ground waters. Management161

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAspect Impact Objective Performance Indicator Management and Mitigation MeasuresIncreasedlow flowsHabitatfragmentationChange in available biotopes and anultimate change in aquatic speciescompositionChange in surface water availabilityand an ultimate change in floralspecies compositionLoss of faunal species dependant ontemporary presence of water, forexample bullfrogs and a diversity ofother frog speciesDisruption in faunal species naturaldispersal/distribution patterns andgenetic isolation for both faunal andfloral species as a resultDecline in populations requiring largeterritories, for example large raptorsand carnivoresLoss or injury of fauna through roadkills To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and wetlands Maintain the diversity andcomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein To prevent the unnecessary deathof fauna Encourage natural dispersalpatterns for fauna To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and wetlands No discharge of effluent tothe receiving environment There are no performanceindicators for habitatfragmentation for the mineas there are no mitigationmeasuresof these facilities must be ongoing with regular inspections to detect faults/issues; Establish and maintain clean stormwater diversions around all facilities where thereare risks of stormwater contamination; Provide appropriate facilities for washing equipment, including oil traps and othermechanisms for treating wastewaters; Establish and implement house-keeping rules, including procedures for temporarystorage of hazardous material; accidental spills; reporting of leaks and other factorsthat could lead to water quality deterioration; Ensure that all workers and sub-contractors are aware of the house-keeping rules; Ensure that spill kits are readily available for accidental spillage of hazardoussubstances; Ensure that all construction workers and sub-contractors know where the spill kit arelocated, and how they should be used; Ensure that all workers have adequate ablution facilities in the areas in which theyare working; Proper maintenance of operating vehicles and regular vehicle inspections; Establish comprehensive water monitoring programme as discussed in Section 10.2 Reuse all treated wastewaters, where this is feasible Establish comprehensive water quantity monitoring programme that aims to minimisewater use; minimise water losses; minimise water discharges; optimise water storage;and identify when wastewaters may be available for reuse Maintain water distribution infrastructure There are no mitigation measures for within the mine area in terms of habitatfragmentation, the investigation of establishing biodiversity offsets is therefore criticalto balance out the impact of this loss Where roads are associated with power lines and telephone lines (these provide anattraction for species that hunt from perches), road margins should be mowed and/orburned regularly to prevent the accumulation of grass cover that could provide refugefor small mammals. Make use of existing roads where possible and only roads designated for theproposed LWM area. Adhere to speed limits to minimise the death or injury to faunaSignificancePremitigationModerate -HighLowLowSignificancePostmitigationModerate-High (P1)High (P2)Very High(P3)Moderate-HighLow-ModerateModerate -HighLowLowModerate-High (P1)High (P2)Very High(P3)Moderate-HighLow-ModerateInfluxpeople:ofDeath or injury to faunal species Maintain the diversity and No evidence of snares or Implement a Training and Awareness Programme as discussed in Section 10.1.5. LowLowLoss and/or damage to harvestablefloral speciesLoss of habitat for faunal speciescomposition of adjacent habitats,and the indigenous plants andanimals therein, with special focuson CI speciestraps No evidence of harvesting offloral species Limit access to areas outside of the footprint Establish a nursery during Phase 3 as discussed in Section 10.1.4LowLowLowLow To prevent the unnecessary deathof fauna162

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAspect Impact Objective Performance Indicator Management and Mitigation Measures To maintain the integrity of aquaticecosystems and wetlandsSignificancePremitigationSignificancePostmitigation163

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment11. REFERENCESACOCKS, J. P. H. 1953, Veld Types of South Africa. Mem. Bot. Surv. S. Afr. No. 40: 1-128.ACOCKS, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey ofSouth Africa. 57: 1–146.AGIS, 2010 & 2011. Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System – land type data.www.agis.agric.za . Accessed August 2010 & January 2011.ALEXANDER, G.J & J. MARAIS 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. StruikPublishers, Cape Town.ALLAN DG, SEAMAN MT & KALETJA B 1995. The endorheic pans of South Africa. In Wetlandsof South Africa, ed GI Cowan, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,Pretoria,75.101.ALI A., AKTHA N., KHAN B.A., KHAN M.S., RASUL A., ZAMAN S.U., WASEEM K., MAHMOODT. and ALI. 2011. Acacia nilotica: A plant of multipurpose medicinal uses. Journal ofMedicinal Plants Research 6: 1492-1496.AVIAN DEMOGRAPHY UNIT. 2010. Department of Statistical Science, University of Cape Town.Available at http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/qdgc.htm (visited October 2010).BARBOUR, M.T., J. GERRITSEN, B.D. SNYDER, & STRIBLING, J. B. 1999. RapidBioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, BenthicMacroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.BARNES, K.N. (Ed). 2000. The Eskom Red data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho &Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg.BATHUSI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING. 2009. Terrestrial Biodiversity & Ecology EIA Reportfor the proposed Masa (Delta) – Selomo (Epsilon) 765kV Lines.BATTARBEE, RW 1986. Diatom Analysis. In Berglund BE (ed) Handbook of HolocenePaleoecology and Paleohydrology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester. pp 527-570.BAYLIS, M., MEISWINKEL, R. & VENTER, G. J. 1998. A preliminary attempt to use climate dataand satellite imagery to model the abundance and distribution of Culicoides imicola(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in southern Africa. Journal of the South African VeterinaryAssociation, 70: 80-89.BESTER, M. & VERMEULEN, P. D. 2010. Investigation of potential water quality and quantityimpacts associated with mining of the shallow Waterberg coal reserves, west of the DaarbyFault, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Water SA 36(5): 531-542.BILLS, R., ENGELBRECHT, J. & MARSHALL, B.E. 2007. Marcusenius pongolensis. In: IUCN2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. .Downloaded on 14 January 2011.164

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBIRDLIFE SA. 2010. Check list of Birds in South Africa 2010. Produced for Birdlife South Africaby Africa Geographic (Pty) Ltd. www.africageographic.comBLAINE, C. 2008. Mafutha desktop study: surface water quality and users. Report prepared onbehalf of Environmental Resources Management for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.BLAINE, C. 2009. Mafutha EBA: Detailed surface water users and quality study. Report preparedon behalf of Environmental Resources Management for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.BOSCH, O.J.H. 1971. ‘n Ekologiese ondersoek van die plantegroei van ‘n gedeelte van die laerkrokodilvallei noordwes van Thabazimbi, met besondere aandag aan die bodemkundigeaspek. MSc thesis, Potchefstroom University for CHE, Potchefstroom.BRANCH, B. 1998. Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa. 3rd edition. StruikPublishers, Cape Town.BRANCH WR & HARRISON JA 2004. Chapter 8: Conservation status and threats. In Minter, L.R.,Burger, M. Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. & Kloepfer, D. Eds. Atlas and RedData Book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9.Simthsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 360ppBREDENKAMP, G.J. 2010. An evaluation of the vegetation and flora of the area proposed forMixed Use Development on the parts of the Farms Oxford and Zetland, Limpopo Province.Interdesign Landscape Architects, PretoriaBREDENKAMP, G.J. & BROWN, L.R. 2001. Vegetation – A reliable ecological basis forenvironmental planning. Urban Greenfile Nov-Dec 2001: 38-39.BREDIN, I. 2009. Mafutha EBA: Surface Water Resource Assessment. Prepared by NaturalScientific Services, for Environmental Resources Management. Reference No 0080425.BULLOCK J.M., HODDER K.M., MANCHESTER S.J. and STEVENSON M.J. 1996. Review ofInformation policy and legislation on species translocation. Review literature and arts of theAmericas. Dorset: 295 pp.CAMBRAY, J. & SWARTZ, E. 2007. Oreochromis mossambicus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on 14 January2011.CAMPBELL, H.W. & CHRISTMAN, S.P. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal communityanalysis. In SCOTT, N.J. Jr. (Ed.). Wildlife Research Report 13, US Dept. of the Interior andWildlife Services.CARRUTHERS, V.C. 2001. Frogs and Frogging. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.CEMAGREF 1982. Etude des methodes biologiques quantitatives d'appreciation de la qualite deseaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Lyon - Agence Financiere de Bassin Rhône-Méditerranée- Corse. Pierre-Benite.CGIAR, 2003. Limpopo Basin Profile, Available online: http://www.arc.agric.za/limpopo/profile.htm(visited 30 June 2008).CHOLNOKY, B.J. 1968. Die Okologie der Diatomeen in Ninnengewassern. J. Cramer. Lehre,Germany165

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentCOMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION (CEN) 2003. Water quality – Guidance standard forthe routine sampling and pre-treatment of benthic diatoms from rivers. European Standard.EN 13946:2003.CORN, P.S. 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods foramphibians. In: Heyer, W.R., Donnelly, M.A., McDiarimid, R.W., Hayek, L.C. & Foster, M.F.(Ed). Smithsonian Institution Press.COWLING, R.M., RICHARDSON, D.M. & PIERCE, S.M. (EDS). 1997. Vegetation of SouthernAfrica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CROCODILE SPECIALIST GROUP 1996. Crocodylus niloticus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on 17 January2011.DE VILLIERS, S & MKWELO, S.T. 2009. Has monitoring failed the Olifants River, Mpumalanga?WaterSA 35(5): 671-676.DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS (DWA), 2010a. Mokolo and Crocodile (West) WaterAugmentation Project (MCWAP) Feasibility Study: Technical Module: Report 1. WaterRequirements Report Pre-Feasibility Stage. prepared by Africon, in association with KV3,and Vela VKE, for Department of Water Affairs, Chief Directorate: Integrated WaterResources Planning: Directorate: Options Analysis. Project No WP9528, Report No P RSAA000/00/8809.DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS (DWA), 2010b. Mokolo and Crocodile (West) WaterAugmentation Project (MCWAP) Feasibility Study: Technical Module: Report 2. WaterResources Report Pre-Feasibility Stage. Prepared by Africon, in association with KV3, VelaVKE and WRP, for Department of Water Affairs, Chief Directorate: Integrated WaterResources Planning: Directorate: Options Analysis. Project No WP9528, Report No P RSAA000/00/8909.DIATOMS FOR ASSESSING RIVER ECOLOGICAL STATUS (DARES) 2004. Sampling protocol.Version 1. http://craticula.ncl.ac.uk/dares/methods.htm.DICKENS, C.W.S., & GRAHAM, P.M. 2002. The South African Scoring System (SASS), Version5, Rapid bioassessment method for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science. 27(1): 1 –10.DIGBY WELLS & ASSOCIATES. 2009. Environmental Impact Statement and EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Report. The Mmamabula Energy Project Parr’s Halt/Stockpoort BorderCrossing. Prepared for CIC Energy Corporation (CIC).DIGBY WELLS & ASSOCIATES. 2010. Wetlands and aquatic ecosystems associated with theBoikarabelo Coal Mine in the Waterberg. In: Appendix D. Environmental ImpactAssessment and Environmental Management Plan for Boikarabelo Coal Mine. SpecialistReport prepared for Ledjadja Coal (Pty) Ltd.DIPPENAAR-SCHOEMAN, A.S 2002. Baboon and Trapdoor Spiders of Southern Africa: AnIdentification Manual. Plant Protection Research Institute handbook No. 13. AgriculturalResearch Council, Pretoria.166

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDRIVER, A., MAZE K., ROUGET M., LOMBARD A.T., NEL J., TURPIE, J.K., COWLING R.M.,DESMET P., GOODMAN P., HARRIS J., JONAS Z., REYERS B., SINK K., & STRAUSS T.2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for BiodiversityConservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute,PretoriaDU PREEZ, L. & CARRUTHERS, V. 2009. A complete guide to the frogs of Southern Africa.Struik Nature, Cape Town.DWAF, 1999. Appendix W4: IER (Floodplain Wetlands) Present Ecological Status (PES) Method.Appendix to Report: Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources:Wetland Ecosystems. Compiled by Duthie, A. Oryx Environmental.DWAF, 2003. Strategic catchment report. Overview of water resources and utilization. Reportnumber: P WMA 04/000/00/0203.DWAF, 2005a. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland riparianareas. DWAF, Pretoria.DWAF, 2007. Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South Africanfloodplain and channelled valley bottom wetland types by M. ROUNTREE (ed); C.P. TODD,C.J. KLEYNHANS, A.L. BATCHELOR, M.D. LOUW, D. KOTZE, D. WALTERS, S.SCHROEDER, P. ILLGNER, M. UYS AND G.C. MARNEWECK. Report no.N/0000/00/WEI/0407. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,South Africa.DWAF, 2008. Quaternary Catchments of South Africa.ENSLIN, J. 2009. Mafutha desktop study: Detailed Hydrology Report. Report prepared for andbehalf of Environmental Resources Management. Report No 0080425.ENVIRONOMICS, 2010. Environmental Management Framework for the Waterberg District.Desired State Report. Draft Report No 2010/014/PC019.EVERETT, M. 2008. Mafutha desktop study: Hydrology Report. Report prepared on behalf ofEnvironmental Resources Management for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.FILMER, M.R. 1991. Southern African spiders. Struik Publishers. Cape Town.FRESHWATER ECOREGIONS OF THE WORLD (FEOW). 2011.downloaded 17 September 2010.http://www.feow.org,FRIEDMANN, Y. & DALY, B. (eds). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: aconservation assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group(SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.GAIGHER, I. G. & FOUCHE, P. S. O. 2001. A rapid method for habitat integrity assessment ofsmall perennial streams in the Northern Province, South Africa, based on rheophilic fish.Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 27: 3455–3458. Stuttgart, September 2001.GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 2012.GDARD Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. DirectorateNature Conservation, Johannesburg167

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentGELDENHUYS, C.J. 1992a. Richness, Composition and Relationships of the Floras of SelectedForests in Southern Africa. Bothalia 22:205-233.GIBBS RUSSELL, G.E. 1987. Preliminary Floristic Analysis of the Major Biomes in SouthernAfrica. Bothalia 17:213-227GROBLER, R., USHER, B., CRUYWAGEN,L-M., DE NECKER, E. & HODGSON, F. D. I. 2004.Long-term impact of intermine flow from collieries in the Mpumalanga coal fields. WaterResearch Commission Report No. 1056/01/04. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.HAMER, M. 1999. Anostraca. Chapter 2 In: Day, J. A., Stewart, B. A., de Moor, I. J. and Louw, A.E. (Eds). Crustacea I. Notostraca, Anostraca, Conchostraca and Cladocera. Guides to theFreshwater Invertebrates of southern Africa. Water Research Commission Report No TT.121/00. Pp 14-58. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.HAMER, M.L. & BREDENDOCK, L. 1997. Distribution, diversity and conservation of Anostraca(Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in southern Africa. Hydrobiologia 359: 1-12.HARRISON, A. D. 1958. The effects of sulphuric acid pollution on the biology of streams in theTransvaal, South Africa. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 13: 603-610.HARRISON, A. D. 1965. Some environmental effects of coal and gold mining on the aquaticbiota. In: The relation of land use to the aquatic environment. Biological problems in waterpollution, Third Seminar. Pp 270-274.HARRISON J.A., BURGER M., MINTER L.R., DE VILLIERS A.L., BAARD E., BISHOP P. &ELLIS, S. (eds) 2001. Conservation assessment and management plan for southernAfrican frogs. Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: AppleValley, MN.HEATH, R., COLEMAN, T. & ENGELBRECHT, J. 2010. Water quality overview and literaturereview of the ecology of the Olifants River. Water Research Commission Report No. TT452/10. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.HENDERSON, L. 2001. Alien weeds and invasive plants. ATC, Pretoria.HENNING, G.A., TERBLANCHE, R.F. & BALL, J.B. (Eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book:Butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute,Pretoria.HERBST, 1973. M.J. ‘n Ekologiese ondersoek van die plantgemeenskappe tussen die KrokodilenMatlabasrivier, met spesiale aandag aan die invloed van edafiese faktore op dieverspreiding van houtagtige spesies. MSc thesis, Potchefstroom University for CHE,Potchefstroom.HILL, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN. A Fortran program for arranging multivariate data in an orderedtwo-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca,NY.HILTON-TAYLOR, C. 1996. Red Data List of southern African plants. Strelitzia 4. NationalBotanical Institute, Pretoria.HILTON-TAYLOR, C. 2000. The IUCN/SSC Red List Program: Toward the 2000 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Species 33: 21-29.168

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentHURFORD, C. & SCHNEIDER, M. 2007. Monitoring nature conservation in cultural habitats: Aguide and case studies. Springer-VerlagINTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE (IUCN) 2001. IUCN Red ListCategories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN. Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge,UK. ii + 30 p.JACOBSEN, N.H.G. 1989. A Herpetological Survey of the Transvaal. Unpubl. Thesis. Universityof Natal. p. 1621.JOHNSON, S. & STARKE, L. (EDS). 2006. Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity.International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), London, UK.JONES, I. 2009. Mafutha EBA: Detailed Soils Report. Report prepared on behalf ofEnvironmental Resources Management for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.KELLY, M. G. & WHITTON, B. A. 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoringeutrophication in rivers. J. Appl. Phycol. 7: 433-444.KELLY, MG, ADAMS, C, GRAVES, AC, JAMIESON, J, KROKOWSKI, J, LYCETT, EB, MURRAY-BLIGH, J, PRITCHARD, S, & WILKINS, C. 2001. The Trophic Diatom Index: A User’sManual. Revised edition. R&D Technical Report E2/TR2.KING, L.C. 1951. South African Scenery. Oliver and Boyd London. 259-320.KLEYNHANS C. J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of habitat integrity status ofthe Levuvhu River (Limpopo system South Africa). Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health , 5,41- 54.KLEYNHANS, C. J. 1999. The development of a fish index to assess the biological integrity ofSouth African rivers. Water SA 25(3): 265-278.KLEYNHANS, C. J. 2006. River EcoClassification. Manual for Ecostatus determination (Version2). Module D: Fish Response Assessment Index (FRAI).KLEYNHANS, C., THIRION, C., & MOOLMAN, J. 2005. A Level I River Ecoregional classificationsystem for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Report No. N/0000/00/REQ0104.Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, SouthAfrica.KLEYNHANS, C.J. 1999. Comprehensive Habitat Integrity Assessment. Institute for Water QualityStudies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.KLEYNHANS, C.J., LOUW, M.D. & MOOLMAN, J. 2007. Reference frequency of occurrence offish species in South Africa. Report produced for the Department of Water Affairs andForestry (Resource Quality Services) and the Water Research CommissionKLEYNHANS, C.J.; MACKENZIE J. & LOUW, M.D. 2007. Module F: Riparian VegetationResponse Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatusDetermination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry report.KOTZE, D.C., MARNEWECK, G.C., BATCHELOR, A.L., LINDLEY, D.S. AND COLLINS, N.B.,2008. WET-EcoServices: A technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services suppliedby wetlands. WRC Report No TT 339/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.169

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentKOTZE, P. 2001. The ecological integrity of the Klip River (Gauteng). PhD thesis, unpublished.Rand Afrikaans University. Johannesburg. South Africa.KUNTONEN-VAN’T RIET, 2007. Strategic Review of the Status of Biodiversity Management in theSouth African Mining Industry. This report was prepared at the request of the South AfricanMining and Biodiversity Forum, the Chamber of Mines of South Africa and the WorldConservation Union (IUCN) South African Office. Matrix+ Consulting (Pty) Ltd.LECOINTE, C., COSTE, M. & PRYGIEL, J. 1993. “Omnidia”: Software for taxonomy, calculationof diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269/270: 509-513.LEDET. 2003a. Limpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003 (Act 7 of 2003)LEDET. 2003b. Limpopo State of the Environment Report, 2003. Limpopo Department of Financeand Economic Development.LEEMING, J. 2003. Scorpions of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.LOW, A.B. & REBELO, A.G. (EDS) 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.Dept Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.MACEWAN, K. 2008. Mafutha desktop study: Wetlands Report. Coal-to-Liquid Facility. Reportprepared by Natural Scientific Services, on behalf of Environmental ResourcesManagement for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.MALAN, H. L., APPLETON, C. C., DAY, J. A. & DINI, J. 2009. Wetlands and invertebrate diseasehosts: are we asking for trouble? WaterSA 35(5): 753-767.MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES (M&DS) 2009. Lephalale spatial developmentframework. Prepared for Lephalale Municipality. June 2009.MANDER, M. 1998. The marketing of medicinal plants in South Africa: a case study in KwaZulu-Natal. FAO of the UN, Rome.MARAIS, H. & KOTZE J 2008. Mafutha Desktop study. Hydrogeological Report. Prepared forand on behalf of Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Reference No 0080425.MARAIS, H. 2009. Mafutha Desktop study. Groundwater report. Prepared by Hugo Marais forand on behalf of Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Reference No 0080425.MARAIS, J. 2004. A complete guide to the snakes of southern africa. Struik Publishers. CapeTown.MARSHALL, B. E. 2000. Fishes of the Zambezi Basin. In Timberlake, J. (Ed.). Biodiversity of theZambezi Basin wetlands. (pp. 393-460) Harare, Zimbabwe: Biodiversity Foundation forAfrica, Bulawayo. The Zambezi Society.MARTENS, K. 2001. Ostracoda. Chapter 1 In: Day, de Moor, I. J., Stewart, B. A. and Louw, A. E.(Eds). Crustacea II. Ostracoda, Copepoda & Branchiura. Guides to the FreshwaterInvertebrates of southern Africa. Water Research Commission Report No TT. 148/01. Pp1-77. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.MEISWINKEL, R., LABUSCHAGNE, K., BAYLIS, M. & MELLOR, P.S. 2004. Multiple vectors andtheir differing ecologies: observations on two bluetongue and African horse sickness vectorCulicoides species in South Africa. Veterinaria Italiana, 40, 296-302.170

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentMCVICAR C.N. (Ed.) 1991. Soil Classification. A taxonomic system for South Africa. By the SoilClassification Working Group. Memoirs of the Agricultural Natural Resources of South AfricaNo. 15. Department of Agricultural Development. Pretoria.MEISWINKEL, R., LABUSCHAGNE, K., BAYLIS, M. & MELLOR, P.S. 2004. Multiple vectors andtheir differing ecologies: observations on two bluetongue and African horse sickness vectorCulicoides species in South Africa. Veterinaria Italiana, 40, 296-302.MIDDLETON, B.J & BAILEY, A.K. 2009. Water Resources of South Africa, 2005 WRC reportVolume 2 of Water Resources of South Africa, 2005 Study,MIDGLEY, D.C., PITMAN, W.V. & MIDDLETON, B.J. 1994. Surface water resources of SouthAfrica 1990: Appendices. Vol. 1. Water Resources Commission, WRC Report No.298/1.1/94.MINTER, L. R., BURGER, M., HARRISON, J. A., BRAACK, H. H., BISHOP, P. J. & KLOEPFER,D. EDS. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho andSwaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C. 360pp.MUCINA, L & RUTHERFORD, M.C. (EDS). 2006. The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesothoand Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute.MUCINA, L., BREDENKAMP, G.J., HOARE, D.B. & MCDONALD, D.J. 2000. A Nationalvegetation database for South Africa. South Africa Journal of Science 96:497-498.MUELLER-DOMBOIS, D. & ELLENBERG, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.Wiley, New York.NAIDOO, S. 2009. Mafutha EBA: Detailed Surface Topography Report. Report prepared onbehalf of Environmental Resources Management for SASOL. Reference No 0080425.NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004):Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable And ProtectedSpecies. Government Notice 2007.NATURAL SCIENTIFIC SERVICES (NSS) 2010a. Mafutha Project. Biodiversity assessment ofthe potential no-go areas. Specialist report compiled for Sasol Mafutha (Pty) Ltd.NATURAL SCIENTIFIC SERVICES (NSS) 2010b. Wetlands. Specialist report prepared by KateMacEwan and Andrew Cauldwell for the Mafutha Project Environmental ImpactAssessment. Draft.NATURAL SCIENTIFIC SERVICES. 2009. Mafutha EBA: Detailed Flora and Fauna ReportNBI, 2004. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, Strelizia 17. NBI. Kirstenbosch.NEL J., MAREE G., ROUX D., MOOLMAN D., KLEYNHANS N., SILBERBAUER N., DRIVER A.2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment. Technical report, Volume 1.Pretoria: SANBI.NEWMAN, K. 1983. SAPPI Newman’s birds of Southern Africa. Southern Book Publishers,Midrand171

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentO”BRIEN, E. M., FIELD, R. & WHITTAKKER, R.J. 2000. Climatic Gradients in Woody Plant (Treeand Shrub) Diversity: Water-Energy Dynamics, Residual variation, and Topography. Oikos89: 588-600.PALMER, R. W. & DE MOOR, F. C. 1998. Annotated records of blackfly (Diptera: Simuliidae)distribution in southern Africa. African Entomology 6(2): 223-251.PANAGOS, M.D., WESTFALL, R.H. & SCHEEPERS, J.C. 1986. Baseline data for the vegetationof two protected plots at the Matimba power station, Ellisras, NW Transvaal. Bothalia: 16:89-91.PAUW, J.C. 1988. Riglyne vir die bestuur van die natuurlewe in die bosvaldgemeenskappe vandie Atherstone natuurreservaat in die noordwes Transvaal. MSc thesis, University ofPretoria, Pretoria.PEEL, M.J.S. 1990. Determinants of veld composition of a number ranches in the north-westTransvaal. MSc thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.PEEL, M.J.S., GROSSMAN, D. & VAN ROOYEN. N. 1991. Determinants of herbaceous plantspecies composition on a number ranches in the north-west Transvaal. J. Grassl. Soc. S.Afr. 8: 99-102.PHRAGMITES EMC. 2006. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment:Legislation Review. September 2006.PICKER, M., GRIFFITHS, C., & WEAVING, A. 2002. Field guide to insects of South Africa. StruikPublishers, Cape Town.PRESTON-WHYTE, R.A. & TYSON, P.D., 1988, The Atmosphere and Weather of SouthernAfrica, Oxford University Press, Cape Town, 384, 1989: Second impressionPRYGIEL J, CARPENTIER P, ALMEIDA S, COSTE M, DRUART JC, ECTOR L, GUILLARD D,HONORÉ MA, ISERENTANT R, LEDEGANCK P, LALANNE-CASSOU C, LESNIAK C,MERCIER I, MONCAUT P, NAZART M, NOUCHET N, PERES F, PEETERS V, RIMET F,RUMEAU A, SABATER S, STRAUB F, TORRISI M, TUDESQUE L, VAN DER VIJVER B,VIDAL H, VIZINET J & ZYDEK N 2002. Determination of the biological diatom index (IBDNF T 90-354): results of an inter-comparison exercise. Journal of Applied Phycology 14:27-39.PRYGIEL, J. & COSTE, M. 2000. Guide méthodologique pour la mise en oeuvre de l'IndiceBiologique Diatomées. NF T 90-354. Agence de l'eau Artois Picardie, Douai.RAIMONDO, D., VON STADEN, L., FODEN, W., VICTOR, J.E., HELME, N.A., TURNER, R.C.KAMUNDI, D.A. & MANYAMA, P.A. (EDS.). 2009. Red list of South African plants 2009.Strelitzia 25:1-668.RAND WATER (1998) Scientific Services Division. Report On The Water Quality Status Of TheKlip River Catchment To The Klip River Forum. Report No 1/98. Rietvlei, Johannesburg,South Africa.SADC 2000. Protocol on shared watercourse systems in the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) Region.172

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSAMWAYS, M.J. 1999. Diversity and Conservation Status of South African Dragon Flies(Odonata). Ordonatologica 28: 13-62.SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. DRAFTfor Comment. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.SARCA VIRTUAL MUSEUM, 2009. South African Reptile Conservation Assessment. AnimalDemography Unit, University of Cape Town. Website: http://sarca.adu.org.za/index.php.Site accessed 7 April 2009.SCHMIDT, E, LOTTER, M & MCCLELAND, W. 2002. Trees and Shrubs of Mpumalanga and theKruger National Park. Jacana, Johannesburg.SCHOEMAN, F. R. 1973. A systematical and ecological study of the diatom flora of Lesotho withspecial reference to water quality. V&R Printers, Pretoria, South Africa.SCHULZE, R.E. 2006. Rainfall: Background. In: Schulze, R.E. (Ed). 2006. South African Atlas ofClimatology and Agrohydrology. Water Research Commission Report No 1489/1/06,Section 6.1. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.SCOTT, L.E.P., SKELTON, P.H., BOOTH, A.J., VERHEUST, L., HARRIS, R. & DOOLEY, J.2006. Atlas of Southern African Freshwater Fishes. Smithiana Publication, Monograph 2.The South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Grahamstown, South Africa.SIMMONS, J.E. 2002. Herpetological Collecting and Collection Management (Revised Edition).Herpetological Circular No. 31. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Kansas.SINCLAIR, I., HOCKEY, P. & TARBOTON, W. 2002. Sasol birds of Southern Africa. ThirdEdition. Struik Publishers. Cape Town.SKELTON, P. 1993. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Southern BookPublishers. Halfway House.SKINNER, J.D. & CHIMIMBA, C.T. 2005. Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, 3rdEdition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.SOUTH AFRICAN BIRD ATLAS PROJECT (SABAP1) Data Extraction. 2007. Website:http://birds.sanbi.org/sabap/sabap_select1.php Site accessed 6 April 2009.SOUTH AFRICAN BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION ATLAS. Available athttp://web.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/qdgc.htmSOUTH AFRICAN WEATHER SERVICE. www.weathersa.co.za. Accessed 2010.SRK CONSULTING. 2011. Sasol Mafutha MEAP: Baseline Hydrological Report for Town andMine EIA.SRK Consulting (2013a). 1:100 year floddlinesSRK Consulting (2013b). Ground water Impact Assessment for Mining Operations. Ref:447493/GWSTEYNBERG MC, HEATH R and VILJOEN FC (1996) Raw Water Quality Guidelines for RandWater, Version 1. Internal Report. Rietvlei, Johannesburg, South Africa.173

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSTUART, C. & STUART, T. 2003. A Field Guide to the Tracks and Signs of Southern and EastAfrican Wildlife. Struik Publishers, Cape Town.TAYLOR. 2009 Durban Natural Sciences Museum revised mammal names.TAYLOR, J. C. 2004. The Application of Diatom-Based Pollution Indices in The Vaal Catchment.Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom.TAYLOR, J.C., HARDING, W.R. & ARCHIBALD, C.G.M. 2007a. A methods manual for thecollection, preparation and analysis of diatom samples. Water Research CommissionReport No. TT281/07. Water Research Commission. Pretoria.TAYLOR, J. C., HARDING, W. R. & ARCHIBALD, C. G. M, 2007b. An illustrated guide to somecommon diatom species from South Africa. Water Research Commission Report No.TT282/07. Water Research Commission. Pretoria.TAYLOR, J.C., DE LA REY, P.A. & VAN RENSBURG, L. 2005. Recommendations for thecollection, preparation and enumeration of diatoms from riverine habitats for water qualitymonitoring in South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 30(1): 65–75.THEO A., MESEBE T., SUZUKI Y., KIKUCHI H., Wada S., Obi C.L. Bessong P.O., USUZAWAM., OSHIMA Y., HATTORI T. 2009. Peltophorum africanum, a traditional South Africanmedicinal plant, contains an anti HIV01 constituent, betulinic acid. Tohoku Journal ofExperimental Medicine 217: 93-99.The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983)The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989)The National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). GovernmentGazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004.The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 of 2004). Draft List ofThreatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov2009.The National Forests Act, 2006 (Act 84 of 1998 as amended). Government Gazette RSA Vol. 897,29062, Cape Town, 8 Sept 2006.VAN DAM, H., MERTENS, A., & SINKELDAM, J. 1994. A coded checklist and ecologicalindicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands. Aquatic Ecology 28(1): 117-133.VAN ROOYEN, N. & VAN ROOYEN, M.W.1998. Vegetation of the South-Western Arid Kalahari:An Overview. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr. 53: 113-1140.VAN STADEN, J.M. 1991. Die fitososiologie van die Steenbokpan omgewing, in die noord-wesTransvaal. MSc thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.VAN WYK, B.E., VAN OUDTSHOORN, B. & GERICKE, N. 1997. Medicinal plants of South Africa.Briza, Pretoria.174

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentWALMSLEY, RD, WALMSLEY JJ & SILBERBAUER, M 1999. National State of the EnvironmentReport. Prepared by Mzuri Consultants and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,for the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.WARD, J.C. & LAMBIE, J.S. 1999. Monitoring changes in wetland extent: An environmentalperformance indicator for wetlands. Lincoln Environmental, Lincoln University, Canterbury,New Zealand. In: EEG (Exigent Engineering Consultants) 2006. Upper Olifants RiverCatchment Wetland Inventory, Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces. December 2006.WATERBERG BIOSPHERE. www.waterbergbiosphere.org. Accessed 2010.WEATHER UNDERGROUND. www.wunderground.comWESTHOFF, V. & VAN DER MAAREL, E. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker,R.H. (ed.) Classification of plant communities. W. Junk, The Hague.WIKUM, D. & G. SHANHOLTZER. 1978. Application of the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundancescale for vegetation analysis in land development studies. Environmental Management2:323-329.WOODHALL, S. 2005. Field guide to the butterflies of South Africa. Struik Publishers, CapeTown.www.ifc.org. Accessed January 2011.175

12.1. Floral AppendicesLimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12. APPENDICES12.1.1. Floral species identified on siteFAMILY SPECIES STATUSACANTHACEAE Barleria prionitis L.ACANTHACEAE Asystasia atriplicifolia Bremek. LCACANTHACEAE Barleria virgula C.B.Clarke LCACANTHACEAE Blepharis diversispina (Nees) C.B.Clarke LCACANTHACEAE Blepharis subvolubilis C.B.Clarke LCACANTHACEAE Justicia flava (Vahl) Vahl LCACANTHACEAE Justicia odora (Forssk.) Vahl LCACANTHACEAE Pupalia lappacea (L.) A.Juss. LCACANTHACEAE Ruellia patula Jacq. LCAMARANTHACEAE Kyphocarpa angustifolia (Moq.) Lopr. LCAMARANTHACEAE Achyranthes aspera L. AlienAMARANTHACEAE Hermbstaedtia odorata (Burch.) T.Cooke odorata LCAMARANTHACEAE Kyphocarpa angustifolia (Moq.) Lopr. LCAMARANTHACEAE Pupalia lappacea (L.) A.Juss. LCAMARYLLIDACEAE Ammocharis coranica (Ker Gawl.) Herb. LCAMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum sp.AMARYLLIDACEAE Pancratium tenuifolium Hochst. ex A.Rich. LCANACARDIACEAE Ozoroa paniculosa (Sond.) R.& A.Fern. LCANACARDIACEAE Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst. LCANACARDIACEAE Searsia tenuinervis (Engl.) Moffett LCANNONACEAE Hexalobus monopetalus (A.Rich.) Engl. & Diels LCAPOCYNACEAE Adenium oleifolium Stapf LCAPOCYNACEAE Carissa bispinosa (L.) Desf. ex Brenan LCAPOCYNACEAE Pergularia daemia (Forssk.) Chiov. LCAPOCYNACEAE Raphionacme speciesAPOCYNACEAE Sarcostemma viminale (L.) R.Br. LCASPARAGACEAE Asparagus africanus Lam. LCASPARAGACEAE Asparagus bechuanicus Baker LCASPARAGACEAE Asparagus cooperi Baker LCASPARAGACEAE Asparagus exuvialis Burch.ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus nelsii Schinz LCASPARAGACEAE Asparagus suaveolens Burch. LCASPHODELACEAE Aloe littoralis BakerASTERACEAE Litogyne gariepina (DC.) Anderb. LCASTERACEAE Nidorella resedifolia DC. LCASTERACEAE Bidens bipinnata L. AlienASTERACEAE Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronquist AlienASTERACEAE Dicoma schinzii O.Hoffm. LCASTERACEAE Dicoma tomentosa Cass. LCASTERACEAE Felicia mossamedensis (Hiern) Mendon LC176

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentASTERACEAE Geigeria burkei Harv. LCASTERACEAE Helichrysum argyrosphaerum DC. LCASTERACEAE Hirpicium bechuanense (S.Moore) Roessler LCASTERACEAE Nidorella resedifolia DC. LCASTERACEAE Schkuhria pinnata (Lam.) Kuntze ex Thell. AlienASTERACEAEVernonia poskeana Vatke & Hildebr.BIGNONIACEAE Rhigozum brevispinosum Kuntze LCBORAGINACEAE Ehretia obtusifolia Hochst. ex A.DC. LCBORAGINACEAE Ehretia rigida (Thunb.) Druce LCBORAGINACEAE Heliotropium lineare (A.DC.) G?rke LCBORAGINACEAE Heliotropium ovalifolium Forssk.BORAGINACEAE Heliotropium steudneriBURSERACEAE Commiphora angolensis Engl LCBURSERACEAE Commiphora mollis (Oliv.) Engl. LCBURSERACEAE Commiphora pyracanthoides Engl. LCCACTACEAEOpuntia sp.CAPPARACEAE Boscia albitrunca (Burch.) Gilg & Gilg-Ben. LCCAPPARACEAE Boscia foetida Schinz LCCAPPARACEAE Cadaba aphylla (Thunb.) Wild LCCAPPARACEAE Cadaba termitaria N.E.Br. LCCAPPARACEAE Maerua juncea Pax LCCARYOPHYLLACEAE Pollichia campestris Aiton LCCELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia buxifolia (L.) Szyszyl. LCCELASTRACEAE Gymnosporia tenuispina (Sond.) Szyszyl. LCCELASTRACEAE Maytenus heterophylla (Eckl. & Zeyh.) N.RobsonCELASTRACEAE Maytenus senegalensis (Lam.) ExellCELASTRACEAE Maytenus tenuispina (Sond.) Marais LCCHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium album L. AlienCOLCHICACEAE Camptorrhiza strumosa (Baker) Oberm. LCCOMBRETACEAE Combretum apiculatum Sond. LCCOMBRETACEAE Combretum hereroense SchinzCOMBRETACEAE Combretum imberbe Wawra LCCOMBRETACEAE Combretum zeyheri Sond. LCCOMBRETACEAE Terminalia sericea Burch. ex DC. LCCOMMELINACEAE Commelina africana L.COMMELINACEAE Commelina benghalensis L. LCCOMMELINACEAE Commelina livingstonii C.B.Clarke LCCONVOLVULACEAE Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L. LCCONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea bolusiana Schinz LCCONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea coptica (L.) Roth ex Roem. & Schult. LCCONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea hackeliana (Schinz) Hallier f. LCCONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea magnusiana Schinz LCCONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker Gawl. LCCONVOLVULACEAE Xenostegia tridentata (L.) D.F.Austin & Staples LCCRASSULACEAE Crassula muscosa L. LCCRASSULACEAE Kalanchoe paniculata Harv LCCRASSULACEAE Kalanchoe rotundifolia (Haw.) Haw. LC177

CUCRBITACEAELimpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAcanthosicyos naudinianus (Sond.) C.JeffreynaudinianusCUCURBITACEAE Coccinia sessilifolia (Sond.) Cogn. LCCUCURBITACEAECUCURBITACEAECorallocarpus sp.Cucumis sp.CUCURBITACEAE Momordica balsamina L. LCCUCURBITACEAEZehneria sp.CYPERACEAE Cyperus margaritaceus Vahl LCCYPERACEAECyperus sp.CYPERACEAE Kyllinga alba Nees LCDICHAPETALACEAE Dichapetalum cymosum (Hook.) Engl. LCDRACAENACEAE Sansevieria aethiopica Thunb. LCEBENACEAE Euclea undulata Thunb. LCERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum flagelliforme (Baker) J.C.Manning LCERIOSPERMACEAE Eriospermum porphyrovalve Baker LCEUPHORBIACEAE Acalypha indica L. LCEUPHORBIACEAEChamaesyce inaequilatera (Sond.) SojEUPHORBIACEAE Jatropha erythropoda Pax & K.Hoffm. LCEUPHORBIACEAE Spirostachys africana Sond. LCEUPHORBIACEAE Tragia dioica Sond. LCFABACEAE Tylosema esculentum (Burch.) A.Schreib. LCFABACEAE Acacia burkei Benth. LCFABACEAE Acacia erioloba E.Mey. DecliningFABACEAE Acacia erubescens Welw. ex Oliv. LCFABACEAE Acacia fleckii Schinz LCFABACEAEAcacia grandicornuta GerstnerFABACEAE Acacia karroo Hayne LCFABACEAE Acacia mellifera (Vahl) Benth. LCFABACEAE Acacia nigrescens Oliv. LCFABACEAEFABACEAEAcacia senegal (L.) Willd.Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) HayneFABACEAE Albizia anthelmintica (A.Rich.) Brongn. LCFABACEAE Alistilus bechuanicus N.E.Br. LCFABACEAEBauhinia petersiana BolleFABACEAE Burkea africana Hook. LCFABACEAE Chamaecrista absus (L.) H.S.Irwin & Barneby LCFABACEAE Chamaecrista mimosoides (L.) Greene LCFABACEAE Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn. LCFABACEAE Dolichos junodii (Harms) Verdc. LCFABACEAE Elephantorrhiza elephantina (Burch.) Skeels LCFABACEAE Hoffmannseggia burchellii (DC.) Benth. ex Oliv. LCFABACEAE Indigofera auricoma E.Mey. LCFABACEAE Indigofera bainesii Baker LCFABACEAEIndigofera daleoides Benth. ex Harv.FABACEAE Indigofera filipes Benth. ex Harv. LCFABACEAE Indigofera flavicans LCFABACEAE Indigofera heterotricha DC LCFABACEAE Indigofera schimperi Jaub. & Spach LCLC178

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFABACEAE Indigofera sordida Benth. ex Harv. LCFABACEAE Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. LCFABACEAE Mundulea sericea (Willd.) A.Chev. LCFABACEAENeorautanenia amboensis SchinzFABACEAE Otoptera burchellii DC. LCFABACEAE Peltophorum africanum Sond. LCFABACEAE Requienia pseudosphaerosperma (Schinz) Brummitt LCFABACEAE Rhynchosia totta (Thunb.) DC. LCFABACEAE Stylosanthes fruticosa (Retz.) Alston LCFABACEAE Tephrosia dregeana E.Mey. LCFABACEAE Tephrosia longipes Meisn. LCFABACEAE Tephrosia lupinifolia DC. LCFABACEAE Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers AlienFABACEAE Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. LCFABACEAE Zornia milneana Mohlenbr LCGERANIACEAE Monsonia glauca R.Knuth LCHYACINTHACEAE Albuca sp.HYACINTHACEAE Dipcadi sp.HYACINTHACEAE Dipcadi viride (L.) Moench LCHYACINTHACEAE Ledebouria sp.HYACINTHACEAE Ornithogalum sp.LAMIACEAE Leucas glabrata (Vahl) Sm. LCLAMIACEAE Acrotome inflata LCLAMIACEAEBecium filamentosum (Forssk.) Chiov.LAMIACEAE Clerodendrum ternatum Schinz LCLAMIACEAEHemizygia elliottii (Baker) M.AshbyLAMIACEAE Hemizygia petrensis (Hiern) M.Ashby LCLAMIACEAE Leucas sexdentata Skan LCMALPHIGIACEAE Triaspis speciesMALPHIIACEAE Sphedamnocarpus pruriens (A.Juss.) Szyszyl. pruriens LCMALVACEAE Pavonia dentata Burtt Davy LCMALVACEAE Abutilon austro-africanum Hochr. LCMALVACEAE Abutilon pycnodon Hochr. LCMALVACEAE Cienfuegosia digitata Cav. LCMALVACEAE Corchorus asplenifolius Burch. LCMALVACEAE Dombeya rotundifolia (Hochst.) Planch. LCMALVACEAE Gossypium herbaceum L. LCMALVACEAE Grewia bicolor Juss. LCMALVACEAE Grewia flava DC. LCMALVACEAE Grewia flavescens Juss. LCMALVACEAE Grewia monticola Sond. LCMALVACEAE Grewia retinervis Burret LCMALVACEAE Grewia villosa Willd. LCMALVACEAE Hermannia boraginiflora Hook. LCMALVACEAE Hermannia grisea Schinz LCMALVACEAE Hermannia quartiniana A.Rich. LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus calyphyllus Cav. LC179

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentMALVACEAE Hibiscus dongolensis Delile LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus meyeri Harv. LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus micranthus L.f. LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus physaloides Guill. & Perr. LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus schinzii Gürke LCMALVACEAE Hibiscus vitifolius L. LCMALVACEAE Melhania acuminata Mast. LCMALVACEAE Melhania prostrata DC. LCMALVACEAE Melhania rehmannii Szyszyl. LCMALVACEAE Pavonia burchellii (DC.) R.A.Dyer LCMALVACEAE Sida alba L LCMALVACEAE Sida cordifolia L. LCMALVACEAE Sida dregei Burtt Davy LCMALVACEAE Sida ovata Forssk. LCMALVACEAE Waltheria indica L. LCMENISPERMACEAE Antizoma angustifolia (Burch.) Miers ex Harv. LCMOLLUGINACEAE Hypertelis bowkeriana Sond. LCMOLLUGINACEAE Limeum dinteri G.Schellenb. LCMOLLUGINACEAE Limeum fenestratum (Fenzl) Heimer LCMOLLUGINACEAE Mollugo nudicaulis Lam. AlienNYCTAGINACEAE Commicarpus pentandrus (Burch.) Heimerl LCNYTAHINACEAE Boerhavia repens L. LCOCHNACEAE Ochna inermis (Forssk.) Schweinf. LCOCHNACEAE Ochna pulchra Hook.f. LCOLACEAE Ximenia americana L.OPHIOGLOSSACEAE Ophioglossum polyphyllum A.Braun LCORCHIDACEAEEulophia sp.PEDALIACEAE Harpagophytum procumbens (Burch.) DC. ex Meisn LCPEDALIACEAE Pterodiscus ngamicus N.E.Br. ex Stapf LCPHYLLANTHACEAE Flueggea virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Voigt LCPHYLLANTHACEAE Phyllanthus incurvus Thunb. LCPHYLLANTHACEAE Phyllanthus maderaspatensis L. LCPHYLLANTHACEAE Phyllanthus pentandrus Schumach. & Thonn. LCPOACEAE Andropogon appendiculatus Nees LCPOACEAE Aristida adscensionis L. LCPOACEAE Aristida congesta Roem. & Schult. LCPOACEAE Aristida stipitata Hack. LCPOACEAE Aristida transvaalensis Henrard LCPOACEAE Cenchrus ciliaris L. LCPOACEAE Chloris virgata Sw. LCPOACEAE Digitaria eriantha Steud. LCPOACEAEDiplachne eleusine NeesPOACEAE Echinochloa holubii (Stapf) Stapf LCEnneapogon cenchroides (Licht. ex Roem. & Schult.)POACEAEC.E.Hubb.LCPOACEAE Enneapogon scoparius Stapf LCPOACEAE Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees LCPOACEAE Eragrostis pallens Hack. LC180

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPOACEAE Eragrostis rigidior Pilg. LCPOACEAE Eragrostis rotifer Rendle LCPOACEAE Eriochloa meyeriana (Nees) Pilg. LCPOACEAE Melinis repens subsp. repens LCPOACEAE Oropetium capense Stapf LCPOACEAE Panicum maximum Jacq. LCPOACEAE Perotis patens Gand. LCPOACEAE Pogonarthria squarrosa (Roem. & Schult.) Pilg. LCPOACEAE Schmidtia pappophoroides Steud. LCPOACEAE Setaria incrassata (Hochst.) Hack. LCPOACEAE Sporobolus ioclados (Trin.) Nees LCPOACEAE Stipagrostis uniplumis (Licht.) De Winter LCPOACEAE Urochloa mosambicensis (Hack.) Dandy LCPOACEAE Urochloa trichopus (Hochst.) Stapf LCPOLYGONACEAE Oxygonum dregeanum Meisn. LCPORTULACACEAE Portulaca kermesina N.E.Br. LCPORTULACACEAE Talinum arnotii Hook.f. LCPORTULACACEAE Talinum caffrum (Thunb.) Eckl. & Zeyh. LCPORTULACACEAE Talinum crispatulum Dinter LCPORTULACEAE Portulaca collina Dinter LCPORTULACEAE Portulaca hereroensis LCPORTULACEAE Portulaca kermesina N.E.Br LCRHAMNACEAE Scutia myrtina (Burm.f.) Kurz LCRHAMNACEAE Ziziphus mucronata Willd. LCRUBIACEAE Kohautia cynanchica DC. LCRUBIACEAE Gardenia volkensii K.Schum. LCRUBIACEAE Kohautia caespitosa Schnizl. LCRUBIACEAE Kohautia virgata (Willd.) Bremek LCRUBIACEAE Pavetta zeyheri Sond. LCRUBIACEAE Pentanisia angustifolia (Hochst.) Hochst. LCRUBIACEAE Pygmaeothamnus zeyheri (Sond.) Robyns LCSCROPHULARIACEAE Aptosimum lineare Marloth & Engl. LCAptosimum lugardiae (N.E.Br. ex Hemsl. & Skan)SCROPHULARIACEAE E.PhillipsLCSCROPHULARIACEAE Selago densiflora Rolfe LCSOLANACEAE Lycium cinereum Thunb. LCSOLANACEAE Lycium schizocalyx C.H.Wright LCSOLANACEAE Solanum catombelense Peyr LCSOLANACEAE Solanum incanum auct. AlienSOLANACEAESolanum kwebense N.E.Br. ex C.H.WrighSOLANACEAE Solanum panduriforme E.Mey. LCSOLANACEAE Solanum supinum Dunal LCSTRYCHNACEAE Strychnos madagascariensis Poir. LCTURNERACEAE Piriqueta capensis (Harv.) Urb. LCVELLOZIACEAE Xerophyta humilis (Baker) T.Durand & Schinz LCVERBENACEAE Chascanum incisum LCVERBENACEAE Lantana rugosa Thunb. LCVITACEAE Cyphostemma cirrhosum (Thunb.) Desc. ex Wild & LC181

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentR.B.Drumm.12.1.2. Plant species found on site of ethnobotanical importance and theirmedicinal usesAcacia karrooBark and leaves are a Cape remedy for diarrhoea and dysentery. Gum, bark and leaves are usedas an emolient and astringent for colds, conjunctivitis and haemorrhage.Acacia niloticaThis tree has multiple medicinal properties including: anticancer, antimutagenic, spasmogenic,vasoconstrictor, anti-pyretic, antifungal and antioxidant activities.Combretum hereroenseRoots are used for the treatment of coughs, infertility, venereal diseases, stomach ailments anddiarrhoea. Also applied topically to sores and wounds.Crinum spAlkaloids that are extracted from Crinum species are reported to have analgesic, antiviral andantifungal properties.Dichrostachys cinereaUsed for the treatment of body pain, toothache, elephantiasis, syphilis, leprosy and as a syptic,diuretic, purgative and aphrodisiac.Diospyros lycioidesUsed traditionally in ointments to relieve body pains.Dombeya rotundifoliaInfusions taken orally to treat internal ulcers. Also used to treat haemorrhoids, diarrhoea andstomach problems. Also reported to delay labour.Elephantorrhiza elephantinaUsed traditionally to treat diarrhoea, dysentery, stomach disorders, haemorrhoids and perforatedpeptic ulcers. Also used an emetic.Euclea undulataRemedy for headache and toothache and also used traditionally to treat heart diseases.Harpagophytum procumbensUsed to treat rheumatism and arthritis. In Germany, it is used in supportive therapy for locomotorsystem degenerative disorders and also for appetite and dyspeptic problems.Jatropha spUsed as a purgative, a blood purifier and for the treatment wounds and boils.Peltophorum africanumBark and stem used traditionally to treat diarrhoea, dysentery, sore throat, wounds and for thetreatment of symptoms of the human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immune deficiencysyndrome (HIV /AIDS).Sclerocarya birreaUsed traditionally for the treatment of stomach ailments, diarrhoea, dysentery and also to combatmalaria. Indigestion is reported to be treated by chewing the leaves and swallowing the astringentjuice.Terminalia sericeaDecoctions and root infusions used as eye lotions and to treat pneumonia. The bark is taken fortreatment of diabetes and is applied topically to treat wounds. Can be used for the treatmentdiarrhoea and dysentery.Ziziphus mucronataWarm bark infusions of bark and leaves are used as expectorants in cough and chest problems.Decoctions of roots and leaves are applied to boils, sores and glandular swellings in order to182

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessmentrelieve pain.12.2. Faunal Appendices12.2.1. Mammal species present and potentially occurring in the study areaSTATUSSPECIESCOMMON NAMEMACROSCELIDEA (ElephantShrews)Short-snouted elephantshrewElephantulus brachyrhynchusDD 2Elephantulus intufi Bushveld elephant-shrew DD 2Elephantulus myurus Eastern rock elephant-shrew LC 2TUBILIDENTATA (Aardvark)Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC 1 xHYRACOIDEA (Dassies)Procavia capensis Rock dassie LC 4LAGOMORPHA (Hares & Rabbits)Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare LC 1 xPronolagus randensis Jameson's red rock rabbit LC 4RODENTIA (Rodents)Cryptomys hottentotus African mole-rat LC 1 xHystrix africaeaustralis Porcupine LC 1 xPedetes capensis Springhare LC 1 xThryonomus swinderianus Greater canerat LC 2Xerus inauris South African ground squirrel LC 1 xParaxerus cepapi Tree squirrel LC 1 xGraphiurus murinus Woodland dormouse LC 2Acomys spinosissimus Spiny mouse LC 2Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped grass mouse DD 2Mus indutus Desert pygmy mouse LC 3Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse LC 4Southern multimammateMastomys couchamouse LC 2Thallomys paedulcus Acacia rat LC 2Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse LC 3Aethomys ineptus Tete Veld Rat LC 2Otomys angoniensis Angoni vlei rat LC 2Otomys irroratus Vlei rat LC 2Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed gerbil LC 2Tatera leucogaster* Bushveld gerbil DD 2Tatera brantsii Highveld gerbil LC 3Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse LC 2Dendromus melanotis Grey climbing mouse LC 1 xSteatomys pratensis Fat mouse LC 2PRIMATES (Bush Babies, Monkeys& Baboon)LoONSS183

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentGalago moholi South African galago LC 2Papio hamadryas Chacma baboon LC 2Cercopithecus pygerythrus Vervet monkey LC 1 xINSECTOVORA(Insectivores)Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew DD 2Crocidura hirta Lesser red musk shrew DD 2Atelerix frontalis Southern African hedgehog NT 2CHIROPTERA (Bats)Rhinolophus hildebrandtii Hildebrandt's horseshoe bat NT 3Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's horseshoe bat NT 3Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's horseshoe bat NT 3Rhinolophus simulator Bushveld horseshoe bat LC 3Cloeotis percivali Short-eared trident bat CR 3Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian tomb bat LC 2Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat LC 2Miniopterus natalensis Natal clinging bat NT 3Pipistrellus hesperidus African pipistrelle LC 2Pipistrellus rusticus Rusty pipistrelle NT 2Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat LC 2Neoromicia zuluensis Aloe serotine bat LC 3Myotis tricolor Temminck's hairy bat NT 3Laephotis botswanae Botswana long-eared bat VU 4Scotophilus dinganii African yellow bat LC 2Nycteris thebaica Egyptian slit-faced bat LC 2PHOLIDOTA (Pangolin)Manis temminckii Ground pangolin VU 2CARNIVORA (Carnivores)Proteles cristatus Aardwolf LC 2Parahyaena brunne Brown hyaena NT 1 xCrocuta crocuta Spotted hyaena NT 5Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah VU 2Panthera pardus Leopard LC 2Panthera leo Lion VU 5Caracal caracal Caracal LC 2Felis silvestris African wild cat LC 2Felis nigripes Black-footed cat LC 3Leptailurus serval Serval NT 2Civettictis civetta African civet LC 2Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet LC 2Genetta tigrinaSouth African large-spottedgenet LC 2Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose LC 4Galerella sanguinea Slender mongoose LC 1 xAtilax paludinosus Marsh mongoose LC 2Mungos mungo* Banded mongoose LC 1 xHelogale parvula Dwarf mongoose LC 2Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox LC 2Lycaon pictus African wild dog EN 5Vulpes chama Cape fox LC 2Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal LC 1 x184

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentAonyx capensis African clawless otter LC 4Mellivora capensis Honey badger NT 1 xPoecilogale albinucha African striped weasel DD 2Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat LC 2PERISSODACTYLA (Odd toedUngulates)Ceratotherium simum White rhinoceros LC 1 xBlack rhinoceros - northeasternDiceros bicornisrace VU 5Equus burchellii Plains zebra LC 1 xARTIODACTYLA (Even-toedUngulates)Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig LC 2Phacochoerus africanus Common warthog LC 1 xHippopotamus amphibious Hippopotamus LC 5Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe LC 1 xSyncerus caffer African buffalo LC 1 xTragelaphus strepsiceros Greater kudu LC 1 xTragelaphus angasii Nyala LC 1 xTragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck LC 5Tragelaphus oryx Eland LC 1 xConnochaetes gnou Black wildebeest LC 5Connochaetes taurinus Blue wildebeest LC 1 xAlcelaphus buselaphus Red hartebeest LC 1 xDamaliscus pygargus phillipsi Blesbok LC 1 xDamaliscus lunatus Tsessebe EN 5Hippotragus equinus Roan VU 5Hippotragus niger Sable VU 1 xOryx gazelle Gemsbok LC 1 xSylvicapra grimmia Common duiker LC 1 xRedunca arundinum Southern reedbuck LC 5Redunca fulvorufula Mountain reedbuck LC 4Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck LC 1 xPelea capreolus Grey rhebok LC 5Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC 1 xAepyceros melampus Impala LC 1 xOreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer LC 4Total 31* Species recorded within the QDGS 2627BDLoO: 1=present, 2=highly likely to occur, 3=moderately likely to occur, 4= unlikely to occurStatus: VU=Vulnerable, NT=Near-threatened, LC=Least Concern, PS=Protected Species, AL=AlienSource: Friedman & Daly (2004)12.2.2. Avian species present and potentially occurring in the study areaSPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS SABAP NSS2. Inland water birdsArdea cinerea Grey Heron LC xArdea melanocephala Black-headed Heron LC xBubulcus ibis Cattle Egret LC x x185

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentIxobrychus sturmii Dwarf Bittern LC (B) xNycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron LC xScopus umbretta Hamerkop LC xCiconia ciconia White Stork LC (NB) xGlareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole NT (NB) x3. Ducks & wading birdsAlopochen aegyptiacus Egyptian Goose LC x xSarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck LC xSarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck LC xDendrocygna viduata White-faced Duck LC xCharadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover LC xVanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing LC x xVanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing LC x xVanellus senegallus African Wattled Lapwing LC x xGallinago nigripennis African Snipe LC xTringa glareola Wood Sandpiper LC (NB) x x4. Large terrestrial birdsStruthio camelus Common Ostrich LC xSagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird NT xPeliperdix coqui Coqui Francolin LC xDendroperdix sephaena Crested Francolin LC x xPternistis swainsonii Swainson's Spurfowl LC x xNumida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl LC x xTurnix sylvaticus Kurrichane Buttonquail LC xArdeotis kori Kori Bustard VU xLophotis ruficrista Red-crested Korhaan LC x xBurhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee LC x xRhinoptilus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Courser LC x5. RaptorsGyps coprotheres Cape Vulture VU xGyps africanus White-backed Vulture VU x xTorgos tracheliotus Lappet-faced Vulture VU xFalco rupicolus Rock Kestrel LC xMilvus parasitus = M aegyptius Yellow-billed Kite LC xElanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite LC xAquila rapax Tawny Eagle VU xAquila nipalensis Steppe Eagle LC (B) xAquila wahlbergi Wahlberg's Eagle LC (B) xAquila pennatus Booted Eagle LC (NB) xPolemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle VU xCircaetus cinereus Brown Snake-eagle LC x xCircaetus pectoralis Black-chested Snake-eagle LC x xTerathopius ecaudatus Bateleur VU xButeo vulpinus Steppe Buzzard LC (NB) x xAccipiter badius Shikra LC x xMelierax gabar Gabar Goshawk LC x xSouthern Pale ChantingMelierax canorusGoshawk LC x x6. Owls & nightjarsTyto alba Barn Owl LC x x186

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPtilopsus granti Southern White-faced Owl LC xPtilopsus granti Southern White-faced Owl LC xGlaucidium perlatum Pearl-spotted Owlet LC x xBubo africanus Spotted Eagle-owl LC x xCaprimulgus rufigena Rufous-cheeked Nightjar LC xCaprimulgus rufigena Rufous-cheeked Nightjar LC (B) x7. Sandgrouse, doves etcPterocles burchelli Burchell's Sandgrouse LC x xColumba guinea Speckled Pigeon LC xStreptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove LC x xStreptopelia capicola Cape Turtle Dove LC x xStreptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove LC x xOena capensis Namaqua Dove LC x xTurtur chalcospilos Emerald-spotted Wood-dove LC x xCorythaixoides concolor Grey Go-away-bird LC x xCuculus gularis African Cuckoo LC (B) xCuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo LC (B) xCuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo LC (B) x xClamator levaillantii Levaillant's Cuckoo LC xClamator jacobinus Jacobin Cuckoo LC (B) x xChrysococcyx klaas Klaas's Cuckoo LC x xChrysococcyx caprius Dideric Cuckoo LC (B) x xCentropus burchelli Burchell's Coucal LC x8. Aerial feeders, etcApus apus Common Swift LC (NB) x xApus affinis Little Swift LC xColius striatus Speckled Mousebird LC x xUrocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird LC x xHalcyon albiventris Brown-hooded Kingfisher LC x xMerops apiasterEuropean Bee-eaterLC(B/NB) x xMerops nubicoides Southern Carmine Bee-eater LC x xMerops bullockoides White-fronted Bee-eater LC xMerops pusillus Little Bee-eater LC x xMerops hirundineus Swallow-tailed Bee-eater LC x xCoracias garrulus European Roller LC xCoracias garrulus European Roller LC (NB) xCoracias caudatus Lilac-breasted Roller LC x xCoracias naevius Purple Roller LC x xUpupa africana African Hoopoe LC xPhoeniculus purpureus Green Wood-hoopoe LC xRhinopomastus cyanomelas Common Scimitarbill LC x xTockus nasutus African Grey Hornbill LC x xTockus leucomelas Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill LC x xTockus erythrorhynchus Red-billed Hornbill LC x xLybius torquatus Black-collared Barbet LC xTricholaema leucomelas Acacia Pied Barbet LC x xTrachyphonus vaillantii Crested Barbet LC xIndicator indicator Greater Honeyguide LC xCampethera abingoni Golden-tailed Woodpecker LC x x187

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentDendropicos fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker LC x xHirundo rustica Barn Swallow LC (NB) x xHirundo dimidiata Pearl-breasted Swallow LC xHirundo semirufa Red-breasted Swallow LC xDelichon urbicum Common House-martin LC x x9. Cryptic & elusive insecteatersMirafra africana Rufous-naped Lark LC x xCalendulauda africanoides Fawn-coloured Lark LC x xCalendulauda sabota Sabota Lark LC x xPinarocorys nigricans Dusky Lark LC (NB) xEremopterix leucotis Chestnut-backed Sparrowlark LC xCalandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark LC xParus cinerascens Ashy Tit LC x xDicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo LC x xOriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden-oriole LC xOriolus larvatus Black-headed Oriole LC x xParus niger Southern Black Tit LC x xAnthoscopus minutus Cape Penduline-tit LC x xTurdoides jardineii Arrow-marked Babbler LC xTurdoides bicolor Southern Pied-babbler LC x xPycnonotus nigricans African Red-eyed Bulbul LC x xPycnonotus tricolor Dark-capped Bulbul LC x xTurdus libonyanus Kurrichane Thrush LC xPsophocichla litsipsirupa Groundscraper Thrush LC xOenanthe pileata Capped Wheatear LC (B) xMyrmecocichla formicivora Anteating Chat LC xCercotrichas paena Kalahari Scrub-robin LC x xCercotrichas leucophrys White-browed Scrub-robin LC xAnthus cinnamomeus African Pipit LC xAnthus leucophrys Plain-backed Pipit LC x10. Regular insect-eatersPhylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler LC (NB) xEremomela icteropygialis Yellow-bellied Eremomela LC xEremomela usticollis Burnt-necked Eremomela LC xCalamonastes fasciolatus Barred Wren-warbler LC xSylvietta rufescens Long-billed Crombec LC x xCamaroptera brevicaudata Grey-backed Camaroptera LC x xCisticola juncidis Zitting Cisticola LC xCisticola aridulus Desert Cisticola LC xCisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky LC xCisticola rufilatus Tinkling Cisticola LC xCisticola chiniana Rattling Cisticola LC x xPrinia subflava Tawny-flanked Prinia LC xPrinia flavicans Black-chested Prinia LC xMuscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher LC (NB) x xParisoma subcaeruleum Chestnut-vented Tit-babbler LC x xBradornis mariquensis Marico Flycatcher LC x xBradornis pallidus Pale Flycatcher LC xBatis molitor Chinspot Batis LC x x188

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentTerpsiphone viridis African Paradise-flycatcher LC xLanius minor Lesser Grey Shrike LC (NB) x xLanius collaris Common Fiscal LC x xLanius collurio Red-backed Shrike LC (NB) x xLaniarius atrococcineus Crimson-breasted Shrike LC x xDryoscopus cubla Black-backed Puffback LC xTchagra australis Brown-crowned Tchagra LC x xTchagra senegalus Black-crowned Tchagra LC xTelophorus sulfureopectus Orange-breasted Bush-shrike LC xMalaconotus blanchoti Grey-headed Bush-shrike LC xCorvinella melanoleuca Magpie Shrike LC x xEurocephalus anguitimens Southern White-crowned Shrike LC xEurocephalus anguitimens Southern White-crowned Shrike LC xNilaus afer Brubru LC x xAcridotheres tristis Common Myna Alien xCreatophora cinerea Wattled Starling LC x xCinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-backed Starling LC xLamprotornis nitens Cape Glossy Starling LC x xLamprotornis chalybaeus Greater Blue-eared Starling LC xLamprotornis australis Burchell's Starling LC x11. Oxpeckers & nectar feedersBuphagus erythrorhynchus Red-billed Oxpecker NT x xCinnyris mariquensis Marico Sunbird LC x xCinnyris talatala White-bellied Sunbird LC x xQuelea quelea Red-billed Quelea LC x x12. SeedeatersBubalornis niger Red-billed Buffalo-weaver LC x xPlocepasser mahali White-browed Sparrow-weaver LC x xPasser domesticus House Sparrow Alien x xPasser motitensis Great Sparrow LC x xPasser melanurus Cape Sparrow LC xPasser diffusus Southern Grey-Headed Sparrow LC x xPetronia superciliaris Yellow-throated Petronia LC xSporopipes squamifrons Scaly-feathered Finch LC x xPloceus cucullatus Village Weaver LC xPloceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver LC x xEuplectes afer Yellow-crowned Bishop LC xAmadina erythrocephala Red-headed Finch LC xAmadina fasciata Cut-throat Finch LC xPytilia melba Green-winged Pytilia LC x xLagonosticta senegala Red-billed Firefinch LC xLagonosticta senegala Red-billed Firefinch LC xUraeginthus angolensis Blue Waxbill LC x xGranatina granatina Violet-eared Waxbill LC x xGranatina granatina Violet-eared Waxbill LC xEstrilda erythronotos Black-faced Waxbill LC xOrtygospiza atricollis African Quailfinch LC xVidua regia Shaft-tailed Whydah LC x xVidua paradisaea Long-tailed Paradise-whydah LC x xCrithagra atrogularis Black-throated Canary LC x x189

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentCrithagra flaviventris Yellow Canary LC x xEmberiza tahapisi Cinnamon-breasted Bunting LC x xEmberiza flaviventris Golden-breasted Bunting LC x xTotal 173 119Status: VU=Vulnerable, NT=Near-threatened, LC=Least Concern, AL=AlienSource: SABAP 2 website (2012)12.2.3. Reptile species present and potentially occurring in the study areaSPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LoOTYPHLOPIDAE (Blind Snakes)Rhinotyphlops lalandii Delalande's beaked blind snake LC 2Afrotyphlops bibroni Bibron’s blind snake LC 2LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE (Thread Snakes)Leptotyphlops scutifrons conjunctus* Peter's thread snake LC 2BOIDAE (Boas and Pythons)Python natalensis African rock python LC 2ATRACTASPIDIDAE (Burrowing Snakes)Atractaspis bibronii Bibron’s burrowing asp LC 3Aparallactus capensis* Cape centipede-eater LC 2Amblyodipsas polylepis Common purple-glossed snake LC 3Xenocalamus bicolor bicolour Bicoloured quill-snouted snake LC 2COLUBRIDAE (Typical Snakes)Lamprophis capensis* Brown house snake LC 2Lamprophis inornatus Olive house snake LC 3Lycophidion capense Common wolf snake LC 2Mehelya nyassae Black file snake LC 3Pseudaspis cana* Mole snake LC 2Hemirhagerrhis nototaenia Bark / Mopane snake LC 3Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped skaapsteker LC 3Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted grass snake LC 2Psammophis jallae* Jalla’s sand snake LC 2Psammophis subtaeniatus Western Stripe-bellied sand snake LC 2Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted bush snake LC 1Dasypeltis scabra* Common egg-eater LC 2Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped herald snake LC 3Telescopus semiannulatus semiannulatus Eastern tiger snake LC 2Dispholidus typus* Boomslang LC 2Thelotornis capensis capensis Vine snake LC 1ELAPIDAE (Mambas, Cobras and Relatives)Elapsoidea boulengeri Zambezi garter snake LC 4Elapsoidea sundevallii media Sundevall’s garter snake LC 1Aspidelaps scutatus scutatus* Shield-nosed snake LC 2Naja annulifera Snouted cobra LC 2Naja mossambica Mozambique spitting cobra LC 2Dendroaspis polylepis Black mamba LC 1VIPERIDAE (Adders and Vipers)Causus defilippii Snouted night adder LC 3Causus rhombeatus Common night adder LC 3Bitis arietans* Puff adder LC 2190

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBitis caudalis Horned adder LC 2AGAMIDAE (Agamas)Acanthocercus atricollis* Tree agama LC 1Agama aculeata distanti* Ground agama LC 1Agama armata Peter's ground agama LC 1Agama atra Southern rock agama LC 4CHAMAELEONIDAE (Chameleons)Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-necked chamaeleon LC 1VARANIDAE (Monitors)Varanus albigularis Rock leguaan LC 2Varanus niloticus Water leguaan / Nile monitor lizard LC 1LACERTIDAE (Lacertids)Heliobolus lugubris* Bushveld lizard LC 1Nucras holubi Holub’s sandveld lizard LC 2Nucras intertexta Spotted sandveld lizard LC 2Nucras ornata Ornate sandveld lizard LC 3Pedioplanis lineoocellata* Spotted sand lizard LC 2Pedioplanis pulchella - LC 2Ichnotropis capensis Cape rough-scaled lizard LC 2Ichnotropis squamulosa Common rough-scaled lizard LC 1AMPHISBAENIDAE (Worm Lizards)Zygaspis quadrifrons* Kalahari round-headed worm lizard LC 1Zygaspis vandami vandami Violet round-headed worm lizard LC 4Monopeltis capensis Cape spade-snouted worm lizard LC 3SCINCIDAE (Skinks)Acontias percivali occidentalis Percival’s legless skink LC 2Panaspis maculicollis Spotted-neck snake-eyed skink LC 2Panaspis walbergii Wahlberg's snake-eyed skink LC 2Mochlus sundevallii* Sundevall’s writhing skink LC 1Trachylepis capensis* Cape skink LC 2Trachylepis margaritifera* Rainbow skink LC 3Trachylepis punctatissima* Montane speckled skink LC 2Trachylepis punctulata Speckled sand skink LC 2Trachylepis striata Peters’ striped skink LC 2Trachylepis varia* Variable skink LC 1Trachylepis variegata Variegated skink LC 2CORDYLIDAE (Girdled Lizards)Cordylus breyeri Waterberg girdled lizard LC 3Cordylus jonesii* Limpopo girdled lizard LC 2Cordylus vandami Van Dam’s girdled lizard LC 4GERRHOSAURIDAE (Plated lizards)Gerrhosaurus flavigularis* Yellow-throated plated lizard LC 2Gerrhosaurus major Rough-scaled Plated Lizard LC 1Platysaurus minor Waterberg flat lizard LC 4GEKKONIDAE (Geckos)Afroedura nov sp. 10 [waterbergensis] Flat gecko LC 4Hemidactylus mabouia* Moreau’s tropical house gecko LC 1Homopholis walbergii Wahlberg’s velvet gecko LC 2Lygodactylus capensis* Cape dwarf gecko LC 1Lygodactylus ocellatus ocellatus Spotted dwarf gecko LC 4191

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentChondrodactylus turneri* Turner’s tubercled gecko LC 1Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal gecko LC 2Pachydactylus capensis* Cape gecko LC 2Ptenopus garrulous garrulous Common barking gecko LC 1CROCODYLIDAE (Crocodiles)Crocodylus niloticus Nile crocodile LC 5PELOMEDUSIDAE (Terrapins)Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh terrapin LC 1Pelusios sinuatus Serrated hinged terrapin LC 3TESTUDINIDAE (Tortoises)Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard tortoise LC 1Psammobates oculifer Kalahari tent tortoise LC 1Kinixys spekii Speke’s hinged tortoise LC 3Total* Species recorded within the QDGS 2627BDLoO: 1=present, 2=highly likely to occur, 3=moderately likely to occur, 4= unlikely to occurStatus: LC=Least ConcernSource: SARCA website (2009)12.2.4. Amphibian species present and potentially occurring in the study areaSPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LoOBREVICIPITIDAE (Rain Frogs)Breviceps adspersus adspersus* Bushveld Rain Frog LC 1BUFONIDAE (Toads)Amietophrynus garmani* Eastern Olive Toad LC 1Amietophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad LC 2Amietophrynus maculatus Flat-backed Toad LC 3Amietophrynus poweri Western Olive Toad LC 4Amietophrynus rangeri* Raucous Toad LC 1Poyntonophrynus fenoulheti Northern Pygmy Toad LC 4Schismaderma carens Red Toad LC 2HEMISOTIDAE (Shovel-nosed Frogs)Hemisus marmoratus Mottled Shovel-nosed Frog LC 2HYPEROLIIDAE (Kassinas, Rattling Frogs & Reed Frogs)Kassina senegalensis* Bubbling Kassina LC 1MICROHYLIDAE (Rubberfrogs)Phrynomantis bifasciatus* Banded Rubber Frog LC 1PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE (Puddle Frogs)Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog LC 3PTYCHADENIDAE (Grass & Ornate Frogs)Hildebrantia ornate* Ornate Frog LC 2Ptychadena anchietae* Plain Grass Frog LC 2Ptychadena mossambica Broad-banded Grass Frog LC 2PIPIDAE (Platannas)Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC 2PYXICEPHALIDAE (African Common Frogs)Cacosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco LC 2Amieta angolensis Common River Frog LC 3192

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentPyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog NT 3Pyxicephalus edulis African Bullfrog LC 2Tomopterna cryptotis* Tremolo Sand Frog LC 2Tomopterna krugerensis* Knocking Sand Frog LC 2Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog LC 4RHACOPHORIDAE (Foam Nest Frogs)Chiromantis xerampelina Southern Foam Nest Frog LC 1Total 6* Species recorded within the QDGS 2327CBLoO: 2=highly likely to occur, 3=moderately likely to occur, 4= unlikely to occurStatus: LC=Least Concern, NT= Near-ThreatenedSource: Minter et al. (2004)12.2.5. Butterfly species present and potentially occurring in the study areaSPECIES COMMON NAME STATUS LoODANAINAE (Monarchs & Browns)Danaus chrysippus orientis African Monarch LC 1Melanitis lead helena Evening (Twilight) Brown LC 3Physcaeneura panda Dark-webbed Ringlet LC 1Ypthima asterope hereroica African Ringlet LC 3HELICONIINAE (Acraeas)Acraea neobule neobule Wandering Donkey Acraea LC 2Acraea natalica Natal Acraea LC 3Acraea cladarena caldarena Black-tipped Acraea LC 3Acraea axina Little Acraea LC 2Telchinia rahira rahira Marsh Acraea LC 2Telchinia serena Dancing (Small Orange) Acraea LC 2Phalanta phalantha aethiopica African (Common) Leopard LC 2Charaxes varanes varanes Pearl Emperor LC 3Charaxes candiope candiope Green-veined Emperor LC 3Charaxes jasius saturnus Foxy Emperor LC 2Charaxes brutus natalensis White-barred Emperor LC 3Charaxes jahlusa rex King Pearl-spotted Emperor LC 2Charaxes achaemenes achaemenes Bushveld Emperor LC 2BIBLIDINAE (Nymphs, Jokers & Pipers)Hamanumida daedalus Guineafowl LC 1Byblia anvatara acheloia Common Joker LC 2Byblia ilithyia Spotted Joker LC 1NYMPHALINAE(Diadems,Commodores, Pansies & Admirals)Hypolimnas misippus Common Diadem LC 2Catacroptera cloanthe cloanthe Pirate LC 3Precis antilope Darker Commodore LC 3Precis ceryne ceryne Marsh Commodore LC 3Precis archesia archesia Garden Inspector (Commodore) LC 2Junonia hierta cebrene Yellow Pansy LC 2Junonia oenone oenone Blue Pansy LC 2Junonia orithya madagascariensis Eyed Pansy LC 3Vanessa cardui Painted Lady LC 1193

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentLYCAENINAE (Saphires, Playboys, Coppers, Opals, Hairtails & Blues)Stugeta bowkeri bowkeri Bowker's Sapphire LC 2Stugeta bowkeri tearei Teare’s Sapphire LC 2Iolaus silarus silarus Straight-line Sapphire LC 2Iolaus trimeni Trimen's Sapphire LC 4Deodorix antalus Brown Playboy LC 2Cigaritis natalensis Natal Bar LC 2Cigaritis mozambica Mozambique Bar LC 3Axiocerses tjoane tjoane Common Scarlet LC 2Axiocerses amanga amanga Bush Scarlet LC 2Aloeides pallida pallida Giant Copper LC 3Aloeides damarensis mashona Mashona Copper LC 3Aloeides taikosama Dusky Copper LC 3Crudaria leroma Silver-spotted Grey LC 4Anthene definita definite Common Hairtail LC 3Anthene amarah amarah Black-striped Hairtail LC 2Anthene butleri livida Pale Hairtail LC 3Anthene princeps princeps Cupreous Hairtail LC 3Zintha hintza hintza Hintza Blue LC 3Tuxentius calice calice White Pie LC 2Tuxentius melaena melaena Black Pie LC 2Leptotes pirithous pirithous Common Blue LC 2Lampides boeticus Long-tailed Blue LC 3Tarucus sybaris sybaris Dotted Blue LC 2Psuedonacaduba sichela sichela Dusky Blue LC 23Lepidochrysops irvingi Irving's Blue VU 3Lepidochrysops patricia Patrician Blue LC 3Lepidochrysops glauca glauca Silvery Blue LC 3Euchrysops osiris osiris Osiris Smokey Blue LC 3Euchrysops malathana Common Smokey Blue LC 3Zizeeria knysna Sooty Blue LC 2Azanus jesous jesous Topaz-spotted Blue LC 2Azanus moriqua Thorn-tree Blue LC 2Chilades trochylus Grass Jewel Blue LC 1Zizula hylax Gaika Blue LC 2PIERINAE (Vagrants, Orange tips, Whites & Borders)Pinacopteryx eriphia eriphia Zebra White LC 2Colotis vesta argillaceus Veined Orange (Tip) LC 2Colotis ione Bushveld (Common) Purple Tip LC 3Colotis regina Queen Purple Tip LC 2Colotis danae annae Scarlet Tip LC 2Colotis auxo Sulphur Orange Tip LC 2Colotis evenina evenina Common Orange Tip LC 2Colotis euippe omphale Smokey Orange Tip LC 2Colotis pallene Bushveld Orange Tip LC 2Colotis antevippe gavisa Red Tip LC 1Colotis agoye agoye Speckled Sulphur Tip LC 3Colotis evagore antigone Small Orange Tip LC 2Colotis eris eris Banded Gold Tip LC 2Colotis subfasciatus subfasciatus Lemon Traveller (Tip) LC 2194

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentBelenois aurota aurota Brown-veined White LC 1Belenois creona severina African Common White LC 2Belenois gidica abyssinica African Veined White LC 3Pontia helice helice Meadow White LC 3Mylothris rueppellii haemus Twin Dotted Border LC 3Mylothris agathina agathina Common Dotted Border LC 2COLIADINAE (Yellows, Migrants & Policemen)Colias electo electo African Clouded Yellow LC 3Catopsilia florella African Migrant (Common Vagrant) LC 2Eurema hecabe solifera Common Grass Yellow LC 3Eurema brigitta brigitta Broad-bordered Grass Yellow LC 1Coeliades forestan forestan Striped Policeman LC 3Coeliades pisistratus Two-tip Policeman LC 2PAPILIONINAE (Swallowtails & Swordtails)Papilio demodocus demodocus Citrus Swallowtail LC 1Papilio nireus lyaeus Green-banded Swallowtail LC 2Graphium morania White Lady LC 3Graphium antheus Large Striped Swordtail LC 3PYRGINAE (Flats, Skippers, Elfins & Sandmen)Sarangesa phidyle Small Elfin LC 2Sarangesa motozi Forest Elfin LC 3HETEROPTERINAE (Sylphs & Skippers)Caprona pillaana Ragged Skipper LC 3Abantis tettensis Spotted Velvet Skipper LC 3Abantis venosa Veined Skipper LC 3PYRGINAE (Flats, Skippers, Elfins & Sandmen)Spialia delagoae Delagoa Sandman LC 3Spialia colotes transvaaliae Bushveld Sandman LC 2Spialia mafa mafa Mafa Sandman LC 1Spialia dromus Forest Sandman ( LC 3Spialia diomus ferax Common Sandman LC 3Spialia spio Mountain Sandman LC 2Gromalia elma elma Green-marbled Sandman LC 2HESPERIINAE (Rangers, Darts, Hoppers & Swifts)Platylesches neba Flower-girl Hopper LC 3Pelopidas mathias Black-banded Swift LC 4Pelopidas thrax inconspicua White-banded Swift LC 3Total 11LoO: 1=present, 2=highly likely to occur, 3=moderately likely to occur, 4= unlikely to occurStatus: VU=Vulnerable, LC=Least ConcernSource: Henning et al. (2009)12.2.6. Invertebrate list for the study areaFAMILY SPECIES NAME COMMON NAMEISOPTERA (Termites)Large Fungus-growingTermitidaeMacrotermes natalensis TermiteORTHOPTERA (Crickets, Locusts and Grasshopers)195

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentGryllidae Gryllus bimaculatus Garden cricketCOLEOPTERA (Beetles)Carabidae Manticora sp. Monster tiger beetlesCurculionidaeWeavilScarabaeidaeDung BeetleCarabidae Passalidius fortipes Burowing Ground BeetleScarabaeidae Garreta nitens Green Dung BeetleScarabaeidae Anachalcos convexus Plum Dung BeetleScarabaeidae Pachylomerus femoralis Flattened Giant Dung BeetleCarabidae Tefflus sp. Peaceful Giant Ground BeetleLarge Armoured DarklingTenebrionidaeAnomalipus elephasBeetleTenebrionidaeToktokkie beetlesHEMIPTERA (Bugs)ReduviidaeAssassin bugLEPIDOPTERA (Butterflies and Moths)PapiliodemodocusPapilionidaedemodocusCitrus swallowtailNymphalidae Danaus chrysippus aegyptius African MonarchHesperiidae Spialia mafa mafa Mafa SandmanLycaenidae Chilades trochylus Grass Jewel BlueNymphalidae Byblia ilithyia Spotted jokerNymphalidae Physcaeneura panda Dark-webbed RingletPieridae Belonois aurota aurota Brown-veined WhitePieridae Colotis antevippe gavisa Red TipPieridae Eurema brigitta brigitta Broad-boardered grass yellowNymphalidae Hamanumida daedalus GuineafowlNymphalidaePainted ladyHYMENOPTERA (Wasps and Ants)Formicidae Pachycondyla African Stink AntFormicidae Anoplolepis custodiens Pugnacious AntMutillidaeVelvet antsARANEAE (Spiders)Eresidae Stegodyphus sp Community SpiderTheraphosidaeBaboon spiderTheraphosidae Ceratogyrus bechuanicus Horned Baboon SpiderTROMBIDIFORMES (Velvet Mites)Trombidiidae Trombidium sp. Red Velvet MiteSOLIFUGAE (Sunspider)SolifugaeSun spiderSCORPIONES(Scorpions)ButhidaeParabuthus transvaalicusButhidae Uroplectes sp ?Buthidae Uroplectes triangulifer Orange stinger scorpionScorpionidae Opistophthalmus wahlbergii Burrowing scorpionSCOLOPENDROMORPHA (Milipede)MillipedeGiant Milipede196

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3. Aquatic Appendices12.3.1. Photographs12.3.1.1.MineA. Site P8, artificially recharged from groundwater.(13-08-2010).B. Groenfontein Pan (Site P9). (13-08-2010).C. Site P9 (13-08-2010) D. Site P12 (13-08-2010).197

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.1.2.Limpopo River – Site L1A. Google Earth TM satellite image of theLimpopo River at Site L1 (05.10.2003).B. Google Earth TM satellite image of the LimpopoRiver at Site L1 (01.01.2008).C. Limpopo River at Site L1 (23.11.2010). D. Limpopo River at Site L1, facing downstream(23.11.2010).198

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.1.3.Limpopo River – Site L2A. Google Earth TM satellite image of theLimpopo River at Site L2 (04.18.2003).B. Limpopo River at Site L2, showing left bankdenuded of marginal vegetation (22.11.2010).C. Limpopo River at Site L2, facing upstream(22.11.2010).D. Limpopo River at Site L2, showing shallow areawith extensive marginal vegetation (22.11.2010).199

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.1.4.Limpopo River – Site L3A. Google Earth TM satellite image of theLimpopo River at Site L3 (04.18.2003).B. Google Earth satellite image of the Limpopo Riverat Site L3 (01.01.2008).C. Limpopo River at Site L3, facing upstream,showing exposed gravel bar (24-11-2010).D. Limpopo River at Site L3, facing downstream (24-11-2010).200

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.1.5.Selected FaunaA. African bullfrog, Pyxicephalus edulis,recorded in the lower reaches of theMatlabas River, Matlabas Game Lodge, inNovember 2010.B. Fairy shrimp (Anostraca: Streptocephalus sp),recorded in Brakpan (Site P1). (Photograph fromwww.arizonafairyshrimp.com)12.3.2. Detailed Water Quality ResultsSite Date Flow WaterTemp ( o C)pHDO(mg/l)Conductivity(mS/m)L1 23/11/2010 Trickle 32.9 8.3 8.9 85L2 22/11/2010 Zero 29.7 7.6 10.3 100L3 24/11/2010 Zero 26.0 7.5 5.6 74WaterColour201

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.3. Detailed Habitat Assessment ResultsRIVER NAME:SITE NO.:LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:ASSESSOR(S):LimpopoPROJECT:MafuthaL1SITE LOCATION:Upstream Control-23.68314 CATCHMENT:A41E27.03793LAND-USER:Rob Palmer DATE:2010-11-23Habitat ParameterExpectedObservedCondition CategoryOptimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor1. Epifaunal Substrate/AvailableCoverGreater than 50% of substratefavorable for epifaunalcolonization and fish cover; mixof snags, submerged logs,undercut banks, cobble orother stable habitat and atstage to allow full colonizationpotential (i.e., logs/snags thatare not new fall and nottransient).30-50% mix of stable habitat;well-suited forfull colonization potential;adequate habitat formaintenance of populations;presence of additionalsubstrate in the form of newfall,but notyet prepared for colonization(may rate at high end of scale).10-30% mix of stable habitat;habitat availability less thandesirable; substrate frequentlydisturbed or removed.Less than 10% stable habitat;lack of habitat is obvious;substrate unstable or lacking.SCORE 11 8 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 02. Pool SubstrateMixture of substrate materials, Mixture of soft sand, mud, or All mud or clay or sand bottom; Hard-pan clay or bedrock;with gravel and firm sand clay; mud may be dominant; little or no root mat; no no root mat or vegetation.prevalent; root mats andsubmerged vegetationcommon.some root mats andsubmerged vegetation present.submerged vegetation.SCORE 15 12 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 03. Pool VariabilityEven mix of large- shallow,large-deep,small-shallow, small-deeppools present.Majority of pools large- deep;very few shallow.Shallow pools much moreprevalent than deep pools.Majority of pools small- shallowor pools absent.SCORE 17 16 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 04. Sediment DepositionLittle or no enlargement ofislands or point bars and lessthan 75% of theavailable channel; orWater fills 25-75% of theavailable channel, and/or riffleVery little water in channel andmostly present as standingamount of channel substrate is

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentRIVER NAME: LimpopoPROJECT: MafuthaSITE NO.: L2SITE LOCATION: Upstream ControlLATITUDE: -23.4989CATCHMENT: A41ELONGITUDE:ASSESSOR(S):27.19207Rob PalmerDATE: 2010-11-22Habitat ParameterExpectedObservedCondition CategoryOptimal Suboptimal Marginal Poor1. Epifaunal Substrate/AvailableCoverGreater than 50% of substratefavorable for epifaunalcolonization and fish cover; mixof snags, submerged logs,undercut banks, cobble orother stable habitat and atstage to allow full colonizationpotential (i.e., logs/snags thatare not new fall and not30-50% mix of stable habitat;well-suited forfull colonization potential;adequate habitat formaintenance of populations;presence of additionalsubstrate in the form of newfall,but notyet prepared for colonization10-30% mix of stable habitat;habitat availability less thandesirable; substrate frequentlydisturbed or removed.Less than 10% stable habitat;lack of habitat is obvious;substrate unstable or lacking.SCORE 4 3 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 02. Pool SubstrateMixture of substrate materials, Mixture of soft sand, mud, or All mud or clay or sand bottom; Hard-pan clay or bedrock;with gravel and firm sandprevalent; root mats andsubmerged vegetationcommon.clay; mud may be dominant;some root mats andsubmerged vegetation present.little or no root mat; nosubmerged vegetation.no root mat or vegetation.SCORE 7 6 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 03. Pool VariabilityEven mix of large- shallow,large-deep,small-shallow, small-deeppools present.Majority of pools large- deep;very few shallow.Shallow pools much moreprevalent than deep pools.Majority of pools small- shallowor pools absent.SCORE 14 13 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 04. Sediment DepositionLittle or no enlargement ofislands or point bars and lessthan 75% of theavailable channel; orWater fills 25-75% of theavailable channel, and/or riffleVery little water in channel andmostly present as standingamount of channel substrate is

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentRIVER NAME:SITE NO.:LATITUDE:LONGITUDE:ASSESSOR(S):LimpopoPROJECT:MafuthaL3SITE LOCATION:Upstream Control-23.41495 CATCHMENT:A41E27.43204Rob Palmer DATE:2010-11-24Habitat Parameter1. Epifaunal Substrate/AvailableCoverExpectedObservedCondition CategoryOptimal Suboptimal Marginal PoorGreater than 50% of substratefavorable for epifaunalcolonization and fish cover; mixof snags, submerged logs,undercut banks, cobble orother stable habitat and atstage to allow full colonizationpotential (i.e., logs/snags thatare not new fall and nottransient).30-50% mix of stable habitat;well-suited forfull colonization potential;adequate habitat formaintenance of populations;presence of additionalsubstrate in the form of newfall,but notyet prepared for colonization(may rate at high end of scale).10-30% mix of stable habitat;habitat availability less thandesirable; substrate frequentlydisturbed or removed.Less than 10% stable habitat;lack of habitat is obvious;substrate unstable or lacking.SCORE 11 10 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 02. Pool SubstrateMixture of substrate materials, Mixture of soft sand, mud, or All mud or clay or sand bottom; Hard-pan clay or bedrock;with gravel and firm sand clay; mud may be dominant; little or no root mat; no no root mat or vegetation.prevalent; root mats and submerged vegetation common.some root mats andsubmerged vegetation present.submerged vegetation.SCORE 17 16 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 03. Pool VariabilityEven mix of large- shallow, large-deep,small-shallow, small-deeppools present.Majority of pools large- deep; very few shallow.Shallow pools much more prevalent than deep pools. Majority of pools small- shallowor pools absent.SCORE 10 9 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 04. Sediment DepositionLittle or no enlargement of islands or point bars and less than 75% of the available channel; orWater fills 25-75% of the available channel, and/or riffle Very little water in channel andmostly present as standingamount of channel substrate is

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.4. Detailed Diatom ResultsSpecies Abbr. L1 L2 L3Aulacoseira ambigua (Grunow) Simonsen AAMB 15 3 0Achnanthes species ACHS 0 8 3Achnanthidium biasolettianum (Grunow) Lange-Bertalot ADBI 0 2 0Achnanthes exigua Grunow AEXG 0 0 1Planothidium frequentissima (Lange-Bertalot) Round &BukhityarovaALFR 0 0 2Achnanthes linearis (W Smith) Grunow ALIN 0 3 0Amphora species AMPS 0 0 1Aulacoseira muzzanensis (Meister) Krammer AMUZ 6 0 0Amphora pediculus (Kützing) Grunow APED 0 2 0Anomoeoneis sphaerophora (Ehrenberg) Pfitzer ASPH 0 0 2Aulacoseira granulata var. angustissima (O Müller) Simonsen AUGA 4 4 19Aulacoseira granulata (Ehrenberg) Simonsen AUGR 5 0 17Cyclotella meneghiniana Kützing CMEN 4 0 0Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg CPLA 10 19 5Cocconeis placentula var. euglypta (Ehrenberg) Grunow CPLE 4 11 30Cocconeis placentula var. lineata (Ehrenberg) Van Heurck CPLI 0 19 1Cymbella tumida (Brébisson) Van Heurck CTUM 1 0 0Eolimna minima (Grunow) Lange-Bertalot EOMI 1 7 0Eolimna species EOSP 0 1 0Eolimna subminuscula (Manguin) Lange-Bertalot ESBM 0 0 1Epithemia sorex Kützing ESOR 111 4 102Fragilaria elliptica (Schumann) Williams & Round FELL 9 0 0Fragilaria tenera (WM Smith) Lange-Bertalot FTEN 2 0 0Gomphonema species GOMS 0 0 5Gomphonema parvulum (Kützing) Kützing GPAR 0 0 0Gomphonema pseudoaugur Krammer GPSA 1 0 1Hippodonta capitata (Ehrenberg) Lange-Bertalot Metzeltin &WitkowskiHCAP 0 0 1Mayamaea atomus var. permitis (Hustedt) Lange-Bertalot MAPE 0 2 0Nitzschia acidoclinata Lange-Bertalot NACD 1 0 0Nitzschia agnewii Cholnoky NAGW 0 2 4Navicula antonii Lange-Bertalot NANT 1 0 0Navicula species NASP 15 0 0Nitzschia aurariae Cholnoky NAUR 0 0 1Nitzschia clausii Hantzsch NCLA 0 1 3Navicula capitatoradiata Germain NCPR 2 0 0Navicula cryptotenella Lange-Bertalot NCTE 12 3 2Nitzschia dissipata (Kützing) Grunow NDIS 3 0 0Nitzschia draveillensis Coste & Ricard NDRA 2 1 0Navicula erifuga Lange-Bertalot NERI 17 0 1Nitzschia filiformis (WM Smith) Van Heurck NFIL 0 0 5Navicula gregaria Donkin NGRE 0 0 2Nitzschia hantzschiana Rabenhorst NHAN 1 0 0Nitzschia frustulum (Kützing) Grunow NIFR 84 281 107Nitzschia liebetruthii Rabenhorst NLBT 0 0 1Nitzschia linearisvar. subtilis(Grunow) NLSU 2 0 0Navicula microcari Lange-Bertalot NMCA 6 0 1Nitzschia microcephala Grunow NMIC 0 0 4Nitzschia palea (Kützing) W. Smith NPAL 0 1 4Nitzschia recta Hantzsch NREC 0 3 0Navicula rostellata Kützing NROS 10 0 0Navicula subrhynchocephala Hustedt NSRH 5 0 0Nitzschia umbonata (Ehrenberg) Lange-Bertalot NUMB 5 0 0Navicula vandamii Schoeman & Archibald NVDA 4 0 7Navicula veneta Kützing NVEN 6 0 5205

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentSpecies Abbr. L1 L2 L3Navicula zanoni Hustedt NZAN 1 0 3Nitzschia radicula Hustedt NZRA 0 0 3Nitzschia species NZSS 15 15 22Nitzschia supralitorea Lange-Bertalot NZSU 0 1 0Placoneis dicephala (W Smith) Mereschkowsky PDIC 0 1 2Planothidium engelbrechtii (Cholnoky) Round & Bukhtiyarova PLEN 0 0 1Pleurosigma salinarum (Grunow) PSAL 20 5 8Reimeria uniseriata Sala Guerrero & Ferrario RUNI 0 0 1Stephanodiscus agassizensis Håkansson & Kling SAGA 2 0 0Stephanodiscus hantzschii Grunow SHAN 10 1 12Simonsenia delognei Lange-Bertalot SIDE 0 0 1Seminavis strigosa (Hustedt) Danieledis & Economou-Amilli SMST 0 0 1Sellaphora pupula (Kützing) Mereschkowksy SPUP 0 0 1Tryblionella apiculata Gregory TAPI 1 0 3Tryblionella calida DG Mann TCAL 0 0 1Tryblionella gracilis W Smith TGRL 1 0 0Tryblionella hungarica (Grunow) DG Mann THUN 0 0 3Thalassiosira pseudonana Hasle & Heimdal TPSN 1 0 0Total count 400 400 400206

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment12.3.5. Detailed Aquatic Macro Invertebrate ResultsList of SASS5 taxa recorded in the Limpopo River during this and previous studies.Abundance rating per sample:1 = 1, A = 2-10, B = 10-100, C = 100-1000, D = >1000, p = present (unrated)207

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment208This Study Digby Wells & Associates 2009Digby Wells2010Stockpoor Downstr. 1 2Taxon L1 L2 L3 UpstreamPORIFERA (Sponge)COELENTERATA (Cnidaria)TURBELLARIA (Flatworms)ANNELIDAOligochaeta (Earthworms) p p pHirudinea (Leeches) 1 p p pCRUSTACEAPotamonautidae* (Crabs) 1 p p p p pAtyidae (Freshwater Shrimps) B B C p pHYDRACARINA (Mites)AEPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)Baetidae 1sp B B p p p p pBaetidae 2 spBaetidae > 2 spBCaenidae (Squaregills/Cainfles) 1 1 p pHeptageniidae (Flatheaded mayflies)Leptophlebiidae (Prongills)Oligoneuridae (Brushlegged mayflies)Polymitarcyidae (Pale Burrowers)Prosopistomatidae (Water specs)Tricorythidae (Stout Crawlers)ODONATA (Dragonflies & Damselflies)Calopterygidae ST,T (Demoiselles)Chlorocyphidae (Jewels)Synlestidae (Chlorolestidae)(Sylphs) 1Coenagrionidae (Sprites and blues) B B B p p p pLestidae (EmeraldDamselflies/Spreadwings)Platycnemidae (Stream Damselflies)Protoneuridae (Threadwings)Aeshnidae (Hawkers & Emperors) A 1 1 p p p p pCorduliidae (Cruisers)Gomphidae (Clubtails) 1Libellulidae (Darters/Skimmers) 1 1 1 p p p p p

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact Assessment209This Study Digby Wells & Associates 2009Digby Wells2010Stockpoor Downstr. 1 2Taxon L1 L2 L3 UpstreamHEMIPTERA (Bugs)Belostomatidae* (Giant water bugs) p p p p pCorixidae* (Water boatmen) A C A p p p p pGerridae* (Pond skaters/Water striders) B B p p p p pHydrometridae* (Water measurers) 1 1Naucoridae* (Creeping water bugs) 1 1 1Nepidae* (Water scorpions) 1 p pNotonectidae* (Backswimmers) B A B p p p p pPleidae* (Pygmy backswimmers) 1 1Veliidae/M...veliidae* (Ripple bugs) A A C p pTRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies)EcnomidaeHydropsychidaeHydropsychidae 2 spHydropsychidae > 2 spPhilopotamidaePolycentropodidaePsychomyiidae/XiphocentronidaeCased caddis:Calamoceratidae STHydroptilidaeLepidostomatidaeLeptoceridaePisuliidaeCOLEOPTERA (Beetles)Dytiscidae/Noteridae* (Diving beetles) 1 A p p p p pElmidae/Dryopidae* (Riffle beetles)Gyrinidae* (Whirligig beetles) p p p p pHaliplidae* (Crawling water beetles)Helodidae (Marsh beetles)Hydraenidae* (Minute moss beetles) p pHydrophilidae* (Water scavenger beetles) 1 p p p p pLimnichidae (Marsh-Loving Beetles)DIPTERA (Flies)Ceratopogonidae (Biting midges) 1 p p

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentThis Study Digby Wells & Associates 2009Digby Wells2010Stockpoor Downstr. 1 2Taxon L1 L2 L3 UpstreamChironomidae (Midges) A A A p p p p pCulicidae* (Mosquitoes) B ADixidae* (Dixid midge)Empididae (Dance flies)Ephydridae (Shore flies)Muscidae (House flies, Stable flies)Psychodidae (Moth flies)Simuliidae (Blackflies) p p pSyrphidae* (Rat tailed maggots)Tabanidae (Horse flies)Tipulidae (Crane flies)GASTROPODA (Snails)Ancylidae (Limpets)Bulininae* 1Hydrobiidae*Lymnaeidae* (Pond snails)Physidae* (Pouch snails) 1 p p pPlanorbinae* (Orb snails)Thiaridae* (=Melanidae) 1 p p pViviparidae* STPELECYPODA (Bivalvles)Corbiculidae (Clams) 1 B p p p p pSphaeriidae (Pill clams)Unionidae (Perly mussels) p p p pNumber of Taxa 18 20 17 22 24 21 18 1812.3.6. Detailed Fish ResultsThe expected Frequency of Occurrence (FROC) and observed species of fish at three sites in the Limpopo River in November 2010, listed in order ofdecreasing overall intolerance (sensitivity). The observed abundance is expressed as a percentage of sample size (total catch) at each site. FAII = FishAssemblage Integrity Index (Kleynhans 1999); Biotic Integrity Index based on (Gaigher and Fouche 2001).210

Limpopo West Mine: Biodiversity and Impact AssessmentFamily/Species Common English Name IntoleranceRating 8 L1Exp FROC Obs (%)L2Exp FROC Obs (%)L3Exp FROVC Obs (%)Chiloglanis pretoriae Shortspine suckermouth 4.5Marcusenius pongolensis Southern bulldog 3.6 2Chiloglanis paratus Sawfin Suckermouth 3.5 1.6*Chiloglanis swierstrai Lowveld suckermouth 3.3Labeo molybdinus Leaden labeo 3.2Labeo cylindricus Redeye labeo 3.1 2 3.2Barbus rapaz Southern papermouth 3.0 2 2 2 1.7 2 0.7Barbus annectens Broadstriped barb 2.9 2 2 6.8* 2 2.6*Labeobarbus marequensis Largescale yellowfish 2.6Barbus cf viviparus Bowstripe barb 2.4 2 2 2 1.3*Labeo rosae Rednose labeo 2.4 1 1 1Barbus radiatus Beira barb 2.3 2 2 2 0.7*Mesobola brevianalis River sardine 2.3 2 2 2 0.7*Micralestes acutidensSilver robber/Sharptooth2.3 2 2 2 0.7*Synodontis zambezensis Tetra Brown squeaker 2.3 1 1 1Barbus trimaculatus Threespot barb 2.2 3 3 8.5 3 17*Chetia flaviventris Canary Kurper 2.0Barbus paludinosus Straightfin barb 1.8 2 9.5* 2 3.4 2 8.5*Tilapia rendalli Redbreast tilapia 1.8 1 28.6* 1 42.4 1 10.5Barbus unitaeniatus Longbeard barb 1.7 3 3.2* 3 11.9 3 13.7*Schilbe intermedius Silver catfish 1.7 2 2 2Pseudocrenilabrus philander Southern mouthbrooder 1.4 3 44.4* 3 1.7 3Tilapia sparrmanii Banded tilapia 1.3 2 2 2Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth catfish 1.2 1 1 1.7 1Alien speciesGambusia affinis Mosquito fish 2.0 0.7*Cyprinus carpio Carp 1.4 1.6 5.1 2.6Oreochromis mossambicus ** Mozambique tilapia 1.3 2 7.9 2 16.9 2 40.5*Sample size (n) 63 59 153Effort (min) 25 24 18Catch per Unit Effort (Number/hr) 151 148 510Number of Species 18 8 17 10 18 13Biotic Integrity (%) 34 42 51FAII (%) 47 50 63PES Category (A-F) D D CExp = Expected Frequency of Occurrence at Site A4Limp-Stockpoort, where 1 = rare (10-25%); 3=common (>25-50 %); 4=0- 75%); 5= (>75%) (Kleynhans 2007).* = Identification confirmed by SAIAB; ** = O. mossambicus/Tilapia niloticus hybrid.8 Overall intolerance ratings from Kleynhans unpublished list (1999).211