Biodiversity (1 - SRK Consulting

A vegetation and vertebrate fauna diversity 

assessment for a photovoltaic power (PV) energy 

generation facility on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 

62, near Aggeneys, Northern Cape Province 

July 2011

July 2011 

A vegetation and vertebrate fauna diversity 

assessment for a photovoltaic power (PV) energy 

generation facility on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 

62, near Aggeneys, Northern Cape Province 

Commissioned by: 

SRK Consulting Engineers and Scientists 

Conducted by 

EcoAgent CC 

PO Box 23355 

Monument Park 

0181 

Tel 012 4602525 

Fax 012 460 2525 

Cell 082 5767046 

Contributors: 

G.J. Bredenkamp D.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat., Botanist 

I.L. Rautenbach Ph.D., Pr.Sci.Nat., Mammalogist 

A. Kemp Ph.D., Pr.Sci.Nat., Ornithologist 

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

July 2011 

SATO Aggeneys July 2011 2

Some of the rare or beautiful succulent plants found on the Farm Zuurberg 62 

near Aggeneys, Northern Cape Province 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ................................................................... 12 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 13 

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 16 

2. ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 19 

2.1. Initial preparations: .................................................................................... 19 

2.2. Vegetation and habitat survey: .................................................................. 19 

2.3. Plant community delimitation and description ............................................ 19 

2.4. Faunal assessment ................................................................................... 20 

2.5. General ..................................................................................................... 20 

3. RATIONALE .................................................................................................... 21 

4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.................................................. 23 

5. STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................... 24 

5.1 Regional setting ............................................................................................. 24 

5.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................... 26 

5.3 Vegetation Types ........................................................................................... 27 

5.4 The Study Site for the Proposed Development .............................................. 28 

6. METHODS .......................................................................................................... 31 

6.1. Flora.......................................................................................................... 31 

6.1.1 Vegetation and flora ................................................................................ 31 

6.1.2 Plant Conservation Priority ................................................................. 32 

6.1.3 Sensitivity ........................................................................................... 33 

6.2. Mammals .................................................................................................. 33 

6.2.1. Field Survey ....................................................................................... 34 

6.2.2. Desktop Survey .................................................................................. 34 

6.2.3. Specific Requirements ....................................................................... 35 

6.3. Birds.......................................................................................................... 35 

6.3.1 Bird Habitats ...................................................................................... 36 

6.3.2 Bird Species ....................................................................................... 38 


6.3.3 Field Survey ....................................................................................... 38 

6.3.4 Desktop Survey .................................................................................. 39 

6.4. Herpetofauna ............................................................................................ 41 

6.4.1. Field Surveys ..................................................................................... 41 

6.4.2. Desktop Surveys ............................................................................... 41 

6.4.3. Specific Requirements ....................................................................... 42 

7. RESULTS: VEGETATION AND FLORA ............................................................ 44 

7.1 Classification of the vegetation ...................................................................... 44 

7.2 Description of the plant communities ............................................................. 45 

1 Bushmanland Sandy Grassland .................................................................... 45 

2 Bushmanland Arid Grassland ........................................................................ 48 

2.1. Grassland on sandy hummocky plains ...................................................... 50 

2.2. Grassland on flat sandy plains................................................................... 51 

3. Gravelly calcrete plains (=Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld) ................................ 52 

4. Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubveld ............................................................... 53 

4.1 Shrubveld on mountains, hills, slopes and crests ....................................... 54 

4.2 South facing slopes .................................................................................... 55 

4.2.1 South-facing scree slopes ....................................................................... 55 

4.2.2 Steep south-facing slopes ....................................................................... 57 

4.3 Rocky north-facing foot slopes ................................................................... 58 

5. Azonal vegetation ......................................................................................... 60 

5.1 Pans ........................................................................................................... 60 

5.2 Washes ...................................................................................................... 63 

7.3 Biodiversity Areas .......................................................................................... 64 

7.4 Fine Scale Biodiversity ................................................................................... 67 

7.5 Zuurberg Important Biodiversity Areas ........................................................... 67 

7.6 Sensitive Vegetation ...................................................................................... 69 

7.7 Species of Conservation Concern .................................................................. 70 

7.7.1 Protected species .................................................................................... 71 

7.7.2 Threatened species ................................................................................. 71 

7.8 Land Use in the Zuurwater Area .................................................................... 72 

7.9. Discussion .................................................................................................... 74 


7.10 References .................................................................................................. 75 

8. RESULTS: MAMMALS ....................................................................................... 78 

8.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment ................................................................... 78 

8.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species Richness ................................ 82 

8.3 Red Listed Mammals ................................................................................ 85 

8.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 86 

8.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 87 

8.6 References .................................................................................................... 87 

9. RESULTS: AVIFAUNA ....................................................................................... 90 

9.1 General .......................................................................................................... 90 

9.2 On-site Bird Habitat Assessment ............................................................... 90 

9.3. Expected and Observed Bird Species Diversity ...................................... 100 

9.4. Threatened and Red-Listed Bird Species ................................................ 106 

9.5. General Conclusions................................................................................... 108 

9.6 Limitations, Assumptions and Gaps in Knowledge ...................................... 109 

9.7 References .................................................................................................. 109 

10. RESULTS: HERPETOFAUNA ........................................................................ 112 

10.1. Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment ............................................................ 112 

10.2. Observed and Expected Herpetofauna Species Richness ................... 119 

10.3. Red Data Listed Reptiles .......................................................................... 120 

10.4. Red Data Listed Amphibians ..................................................................... 121 

10.5 Discussion ................................................................................................. 126 

10.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 128 

10.7. References ............................................................................................... 128 

11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR BIODIVERSITY ............... 130 

11.1 The ecological importance of the study site ............................................ 130 

11.2 General impacts associated with PV arrays ............................................ 130 

12 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................. 139 


12.1 Specific mitigation measures ..................................................................... 139 

12.2 Generic Mitigation measures ..................................................................... 142 

13. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................... 143 

Fauna and Flora ............................................................................................. 144 

Decommissioning phase ................................................................................ 145 

Flora ............................................................................................................... 146 

Fauna ............................................................................................................. 146 

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 147 

APPENDIX 1: EIA METHODS ........................................................................... 147 

APPENDIX 2: CURRICULII VITAE .................................................................... 152 

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: George Johannes Bredenkamp .............................. 152 

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach ................................. 158 

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Alan Charles Kemp ................................................. 160 

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk ........................ 164 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of solar radiation, showing the high levels of radiation expected in 

western South Africa (www.slc-group.net) ............................................................... 16 

Figure 2. The locality of the SATO/SHE property, Portion 3 of the Farm Zuurwater 

63, in relation to Aggeneys, the N14 National Road and the Koa River drainage 

system..................................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 3. Satellite image showing the location of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 63 

(purple line), in relation to the N14 National Road and the currently dominant 

drainage line of the Koa River wash. Aggeneys mines and villages are situated in 

and below the hills just above the N14 sign. ............................................................ 25 

Figure 4. Satellite image of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 (purple lines), in 

relation to the general area around Aggeneys and the route of the N14 National 

Road. ...................................................................................................................... 25 

Figure 5. Satellite image of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 (purple lines), showing 

the principal features of and names for the topography, habitats and relevant 

neighbouring features. ............................................................................................. 26 

Figure 6. Close-up satellite image of the east-central section of Portion 3 of the farm 

Zuurwater 62 (cf. Figures 2-4), showing the principal habitat and topographical 

features influencing the identification of this site as ecologically of low sensitivity but 

still technologically and socially suitable. The least ecologically sensitive sector of the 

development (1, thick dark blue line) is proposed for west of the N14 (yellow line), 


with adjacent slightly more sensitive extensions, including east of the N14 (2, shaded 

pale blue), and an even less preferable north-western extension (3, thin dark blue 

line).The route of a high-voltage transmission line and pylons (green lines) is also 

shown, from the Eskom substation to the east to Springbok in the west. The eastern 

boundary of Zuurwater is also shown (purple line). Engineers will present a final 

footprint, outline and spacing for how to fit the 5-panel table arrays into minimum 

non-sensitive space available and as close as possible to the Eskom substation. 

Access to a water pipeline between Zuurwater farmhouse and Aggeneys also has to 

be accommodated. .................................................................................................. 29 

Figure 7. Impression of how solar panel tables are arranged and spaced, but note 

this is only a 2-deep panel array, supported on a single leg/foot line embedded in the 

ground and with only a narrow space between tables (from www.slc-group.net). The 

Zuurwater design calls for a 5-deep array, supported on a 2-feet line and bolted to a 

concrete slab resting on the ground surface, and with an 8 m shade gap between 

tables. ..................................................................................................................... 30 

Figure 8. View of power connection and distribution cables housed under the solar 

panel tables. The design allows small livestock to graze under and around the tables 

(sheep, but not goats, cattle or horses on Zuurwater). The upper surfaces of the solar 

panels are washed automatically with water at appropriate intervals, and the waste 

runs into collection channels for recycling (from www.slc-group.net). ...................... 30 

Figure 9. Vegetation map of the study site .............................................................. 45 

Figure 10. Typical Bushmanland Sandy Grassland with mobile sand dunes ........... 46 

Figure 11. Bushmanland Sandy Grassland on the sands dunes. ............................ 46 

Figure 12. Stipagrostis namaquensis typical of dune crests. ................................... 47 

Figure 12: Figure 13. Typical Bushmanland Arid Grassland. Note the Inselberg on 

the right. .................................................................................................................. 49 

Figure 14. Grassland on sandy hummocky plains ................................................... 51 

Figure 15. Grassland on flat sandy plains ................................................................ 52 

Figure 16. Typical mountains and hills – the habitat of Bushmanland Inselberg 

Shrubveld. ............................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 17. A scree slope ......................................................................................... 57 

Figure 18 Steep south-facing slopes and cliffs ........................................................ 58 

Figure 19. Rocky north-facing slopes ...................................................................... 59 

Figure 20. Two examples of Pans – above dry during the survey period, below still 

with water. ............................................................................................................... 62 

Figure 21. Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s) in the Namakwa District Municipality. 

Note the presence of CBA1 north of Aggeneys, with CBA2 in the vicinity, while an 

Ecological Support Area (ESA) forms a corridor south of Aggeneys (from Marsh et al. 

2009) ....................................................................................................................... 65 

Figure 22. Map indicating biodiversity areas (Image provided by SRK Consulting) . 67 

Figure 23. Map indicating Zuurwater Important Biodiversity Areas (SKEP 2005) 

(Image provided by SRK Consulting) ...................................................................... 68 

Figure 24. Sensitive vegetation types (Image provided by SRK Consulting) ............ 69 


Figure 25. The vegetation sensitivity map compiled for the site during this survey. . 70 

Figure 26. A map indicating the Black Mountain Land Use Plan (SKEP 2008) with the 

Zuurwater area immediately west of the mining area (Image provided by SRK 

Consulting) .............................................................................................................. 73 

Figure 27. A south-westerly view over the gravelly plain earmarked for the proposed 

development. Note the sparse basal cover. ............................................................ 80 

Figure 28. The dammed water in the Koa River wash and pan. This water body 

appears to be a permanent feature and as such probably support insects which can 

be expected to rise during summer sunsets and serve as feeding patches for 

hawking bats commuting from roosting sites in the various mountains on the 

property. .................................................................................................................. 80 

Figure 29. An aardvark burrow in the Kalahari duneveld. ........................................ 81 

Figure 30. The Bobbejaansgat Mountain. The many boulder overhangs and deep 

crevices are likely to offer suitable daytime roosting sites for bats. .......................... 81 

Figure 31. View north down the Koa River drainage where the deepest part passes 

under the N14, about where the eastern boundary of Zuurwater meets the road. Note 

the good but patchy stands of grasses, few woody plants, and the mountains, 

Hoedkop (left) around Aggeneys in the background (right). ..................................... 91 

Figure 32. View west from the east boundary of Zuurwater, with Hoedkop on the 

centre and Skelemberg on the left horizon, showing the open flats of the Koa wash 

with the Springbok powerline on the right side of the proposed northeast end of the 

PV arrays. ............................................................................................................... 91 

Figure 33. View east from the Zuurwater farmhouse, showing a Karoo Korhaan in the 

overgrazed plains on a calcrete substrate with shallow soils and some Rhigozum 

trichotomum shrubs, the sort of habitat at the south end of the PV array. ................ 92 

Figure 34. View east from a dune crest in the northern dune fields, looking across a 

dune street with a lone Acacia karroo to the Springbok power lines coming from the 

Eskom substation behind the Aggeneys hills on the left. ......................................... 93 

Figure 35. View south west from rocky outcrop at crest of the northern dune field on 

Zuurwater, showing the tussocky grass, few trees/bushes and the Koa wash behind, 

with the Skelemberg on the left and Hoedkop on the right. ...................................... 93 

Figure 36. View north from the southern sandy area with mainly Centropodia grass, 

looking north of the eastern half of the Windhoekberg (with the N14 passing at the 

extreme left of the picture. ....................................................................................... 94 

Figure 37. View west from northeast corner of Zuurwater, showing the pan just inside 

the fenceline that forms the downstream end and overflow of water from the mine 

dam/vlei just outside the farm. Hoedkop ison the horizon. ....................................... 95 

Figure 38. View west down the main Koa River wash where it would flow into the 

wide expanese of Pan 1, looking along the fence line that marks the approximate 

northern edge of the PV array and also the ecotone between the open plains (left) 

and the start (right) of the northern dune fields. Hoedkop is in the background, with 

Pan 2 near its base. ................................................................................................ 95 


Figure 39. View west towards Hoedkop, looking across Pan 2 and the water that 

accumulated in the ditch dug across its centre from the unexpected 30 mm of rain 

that fell the fortnight before. ..................................................................................... 96 

Figure 40. Panoramic view along the south side of Windhoekberg W, showing the 

steep, shaded southern slope, the collections of rocks and gravels forming a skirt 

around its base, and the small drainage lines formed by previous runoff. Note the 

lack of mountains to the west towards Springbok and the Namaqualand habitats. .. 97 

Figure 41. Panoramic view over the north side of Skelemberg, showing the less 

steep, sunny northern slope, with fewer rocks and gravels forming less of a skirt 

around its base, but many small drainage lines from previous runoff and denser 

bushes around the 'gutter'. Hoedkop is on the left and the Aggeneys mountains on 

the centre horizon. .................................................................................................. 97 

Figure 42. Patch of green vegetation formed on the gravel skirt below the north slope 

of the western Windhoekberg, from runoff and seepage after the 30 mm of rain that 

fell a fortnight previously. ......................................................................................... 98 

Figure 43. Flowers blooming and succulents growing on the gravel skirt below the 

north slope of the western Windhoekberg, after the 30 mm of rain that fell a fortnight 

previously. ............................................................................................................... 98 

Figure 44. A patch of succulent mesembryanthemums/vygies flowering on a patch of 

rocks and gravels at the crest of red dunes just south of Aggeneys, after the 30 mm 

of rain that fell a fortnight previously. Hoedkop on the left and Skelemberg on the 

right horizon. ........................................................................................................... 99 

Figure 45. A north-easterly view from Windhoekberg towards Springbok. Note the 

two main habitat types of the study: terrestrial to the left and rupiculous towards the 

right. ...................................................................................................................... 113 

Figure 46. A view of red dunes and their vegetation in the foreground. Skelemberg is 

on the right-hand side and in the distance Windhoekberg lies on the left-hand side. 

.............................................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 47. Typical natural rupiculous habitat on the unnamed hill near the farmhouse. 

.............................................................................................................................. 114 

Figure 48. Habitat on Skelemberg. Note the rupiculous habitat on the left and the red 

sand and dunes to the left. .................................................................................... 115 

Figure 49. Man-made rupiculous habitat in natural terrestrial habitat. Often many 

species use these structures for refuge. ................................................................ 115 

Figure 50. Man-made quarry on the western side of the study site. In the 

background is Windhoekberg. ............................................................................... 116 

Figure 51. A dry pan in the Koa River drainage line with Skelemberg on the left. .. 116 

Figure 52. A man-made dam in the Koa River drainage line, with Hoedkopberg in the 

background. .......................................................................................................... 117 

Figure 53. A view west from the man-made dam in the northeast corner of the study 

site. Note Hoedkopberg in the background. .......................................................... 117 


Figure 54. An easterly view from Bobbejaansgat towards Windhoekberg. Note the 

cement weir and the pool of water in the foreground. Such artificial aquatic sources 

can create habitat for the Namaqua stream frog and other frog species. ............... 118 

Figure 55. A view to the west from Windhoekberg. Note the few quiver trees. The 

farmhouse is in the centre of the picture with flat terrestrial habitat surrounding it. On 

the left is Skelemberg and in the distance on the right lies Ghaamsberg. .............. 119 

Figure 56. Bibron’s tubercled gecko found on the study site. ................................. 127 

Figure 57. A giant ground gecko found on the study site. ...................................... 127 


DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

I, George Johannes Bredenkamp, Id 4602105019086, declare that I am the owner of 

Eco-Agent CC, CK 95/37116/23, and we (George Johannes Bredenkamp 

Id4602105019086, Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach Id4212015012005, Alan Charles 

Kemp Id4405075033081, Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk Id6808045041084) and 

Lukas Jurie Niemand Id 7403125004084 furthermore declare that we 

• Are committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognize the need 

for economic development. Whereas we appreciate the opportunity to also learn 

through the processes of constructive criticism and debate, we reserve the right 

to form and hold our own opinions and therefore will not willingly submit to the 

interests of other parties, be it the client or the relevant competent authorities, or 

change our statements to appease them; 

• Abide by the Code of Ethics of the S.A. Council for Natural Scientific Profession; 

• Act as independent specialist consultants respectively in the fields of ecology, 

vegetation science and botany, as well as in mammalogy, ornithology, 

herpetology and as well as invertebrates; 

• Are assigned as specialist consultants by the SRK Group for the proposed 

project “A vegetation and vertebrate fauna diversity assessment for a 

photovoltaic power (PV) energy generation facility on Portion 3 of the farm 

Zuurwater 62, near Aggeneys, Northern Cape Province ” described in this report; 

• Do not have or will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity 

other than remuneration for work performed; 

• Have or will not have any vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; 

• Have no and will not engage in conflicting interests in the undertaking of the 

activity; 

• Undertake to disclose to the client and the competent authority any material 

information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the 

competent authority required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment 

Regulations 2006; 

• Will provide the client and competent authority with access to all information at 

our disposal, regarding this project, whether favourable or not. 

GJ Bredenkamp 

I. L. Rautenbach 

A. C. Kemp JCP van Wyk 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Vegetation 

Although there are no statutory conservation area within this vegetation type, very 

little of the area has been transformed. A local exception is in the mine area close to 

Aggeneys, where mining infrastructure and mine dumps, and also residential areas, 

transformed some land. 

All the results indicate that the area is of biodiversity importance. However, the most 

important areas are the Inselbergs including their quartz gravel plateaus and foot 

slopes. The dry grassy plains are of relatively less biodiversity importance. Although 

the proposed development site is not located on the Inselbergs or quartz plains, it is 

still emphasized that these are considered as No-Go areas and should be protected. 

Any development on the property should be in accordance with the conservation 

policies of the relevant authorities. 

It is suggested that the proposed the development of proposed photovoltaic power 

generation facility be supported with the condition that the lay-out as shown in this 

document be strictly followed and no changes be done to the lay-out without 

consultation of the biodiversity specialists. 

Mammals 

Four pertinent matters emerge from the list of mammals compiled during the site visit 

and the subsequent desktop study: 

1. the species assemblage is typical of a western semi-arid region (particularly 

species such as the elephants shrew species, the ground squirrel, the spectacled 

dormouse, the various gerbil species, the dassie rat, whistling rats, the blackfooted 

cat, the bat-eared fox, the Cape fox, the gemsbok, the springbok etc.); 

2. the species richness of 56 is typical of an extensive area such as the property 

(5000 ha) and of adjoining areas, with a near-natural degree of connectivity; 

3. land-use practices and civilization pressures are geared to low-key grazing with a 

focus on concomitant floral conservation to benefit year-round grazing, which are 

conducive to species richness; and 

4. field observations suggested that population levels were low during the site visit. 


Population fluctuations are not uncommon, and often have a domino effect (for 

instance when prey population densities decrease in numbers, this will have an 

adverse effect on carnivore and raptor numbers). 

The rest of the species richness is made up from common and robust mammals with 

wide distributional ranges such as aardvarks, springhares, four-striped grass mouse, 

porcupines, the caracal, the genet, the two mongoose species, the black-backed 

jackal etc. 

The role of insectivorous bats in an ecosystem is often under-estimated, whereas 

their susceptibility to reigning environmental conditions is under-appreciated. Bats 

are sensitive to adverse daytime environmental conditions and predation, and 

suitable daytime roosting sites are of cardinal importance. Especially the 

Bobbejaansgat Mountain has many boulders and rock faces forming many 

overhangs and deep crevices suitable for daytime roosts. The dammed water and 

marshland conditions in the Koa River Wash to the north-east of the site are likely to 

support insect populations for hawking bats. 

The intended development will result in a progressive loss of ecological sensitive and 

important habitat units, ecosystem function e.g. reduction in water quality, loss of 

faunal habitat, and of loss/displacement of threatened or protected fauna. The main 

conservation objectives for mammals on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 are to 

retain untransformed the mountains and their gravel skirts, the deep red sands and 

dunes, and as much as possible of the Koa River washes and pans, and the 

untransformed adjacent grassy plains. The mountains, pans and dunes should be 

designated sensitive areas and excluded from any development, apart from low 

densities of livestock grazing. 

Birds 

The main conservation objectives for birds on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 63 are 

to retain untransformed the mountains and their gravel skirts, the deep red sands 

and dunes, and as much as possible of the Koa River washes and pans, together 

with whatever of the adjacent grassy plains is not transformed by the proposed solar 

PV electricity generation facility. The mountains, pans and dunes should be 



densities of livestock grazing. Of 169 bird species recorded and/or expected on 

Zuurwater, nine are threatened species, of which the resident, near-endemic, habitatspecific 

and range-restricted Ludwig's Bustard and Red Lark are both considered 

Vulnerable by IUCN criteria. The PV array is not considered a direct threat to any 

bird species, given its limited impact in space (

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND 

South Africa, along with many other parts of the world, is experiencing a rising 

demand for various forms of energy, especially electricity. Traditionally, the country's 

electricity has been generated mainly by coal-fired power stations, plus a single 

nuclear energy plant. Coal is a non-renewable resource, and burning coal also adds 

to the rising threat of global warming, so South Africa is joining the worldwide trend to 

develop additional and renewable sources of energy. The arid western region of 

South Africa enjoys many days of clear unpolluted skies and hence one of the higher 

incidences of solar radiation in the world, making it an ideal area to invest in solar 

power generation. 

Figure 1. Map of solar radiation, showing the high levels of radiation expected in western 

South Africa (www.slc-group.net) 

The mining and mineral beneficiation industries are among the major consumers of 

electricity in South Africa, so placement of energy generation facilities as close as 

possible to such activities makes sense for both economic and power-distribution 

reasons. The farm Zuurwater 63 borders the property of the Aggeneys mining 

complex, in particular the Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd zinc-lead-copper mines. 

These mines currently receive their electricity from the Eskom grid via an on-site 

transformer substation, and from here it is distributed to their shafts at Broken Hill, 

Swartberg, Big Syncline and Gamsberg. 

The proposed development is to generate 500MW of electricity daily using 

photovoltaic (PV, solar panel) power generation and is planned by Sato Energy 


Holdings (SHE, Pty Ltd). The main components would be shipped to South Africa 

from Germany in containers before being transported to and erected on the site. SHE 

will use local contractors to produce the 'feet' of concrete slabs for the units, and to 

assist with erection and maintenance of the units and the terrain. SHE will purchase 

the property for the duration of the project, estimated at 30-40 years. The property is 

currently being used for low-density livestock grazing (sheep, goats, cattle, horses), 

typical of such a semi-arid area, and such activities will continue on the property 

alongside re-zoning of all or part of the land from agricultural to a different use. 

The c. 5,000 ha Portion 3 of the Farm Zuurwater 62 straddles the National N14 Road 

about 10 km east of the mining village of Aggeneys, 60 km west of Pofadder and 100 

km east of Springbok, in the Khai Ma Local Municipality of the Northern Cape 

Province. Most of the farm lies north of the road on flat to undulating terrain classified 

as part of the Bushmanland Sandy Grassland vegetation unit (NKb 4), with isolated 

mountains that create conditions for the Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld (SKr 19, Mucina 

& Rutherford 2006). 

The proposed development is for 26 generation units, with each site capable of 

producing 19.5 MWp (megawatts of power), that all together would cover a total area 

of about 884 ha (18% of the farm's area) and produce about 500MWp of electricity 

daily. Each unit consists of 820 5-solar-panel-deep 'tables', with each table statically 

supported on metal legs and beams with the feet anchored on concrete slabs that 

rest on the ground surface. Each table is orientated to face due north, at an 

appropriate angle (25 o ) to capture as much sunlight as possible throughout the year, 

but with a gap between tables of 8.5 m (minimum 7.7 m) to ensure that one table 

does not cast shade on another in any of the sun's positions during its annual 

passage between the tropical meridians. Each generation unit covers a site of total 

area 33,83 ha. 

Each solar panel is 1,956 x 992 x 50 mm, can produce 280Wp and weighs 27 kg, 

with a total of 1,812,200 panels with a payload mass of almost 50 metric tons 

required for the whole development. The panels will be shipped from Germany in 

3,596 40' high-cube containers, each with a tare mass of c. 3,800 kg. The concrete 

'foot' slabs will be manufactured locally, and possibly the metal frameworks to 

support the panels. 


The original plan was for all units/sites/tables to be placed in one section of 

Zuurwater, ideal for connectivity and management, but during our assessments we 

detected various biodiversity sensitivities that suggested where possible alternative 

sites were needed for some of the tables. 

This report combines a 2-day site visit by the EcoAgent team (Vegetation Scientist 

mammalogist, ornithologist and herpetologist), on 27-28 June 2011; accompanied by 

the SRK Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) to assess the vegetation 

and vertebrate fauna and possible impacts of the development and to suggest 

possible mitigation options should it be approved. 


2. ASSIGNMENT 

Eco-Agent Ecological Consultants CC was appointed by SRK Consulting Engineers 

and Scientists to assess the vegetation and undertake a mammal, bird, reptile and 

amphibian study for the relevant portion of the Farm Zuurwater 62. This assignment 

is in accordance with the EIA Regulations (No. R.385, Department of Environmental 

Affairs and Tourism, 21 April 2006) emanating from Chapter 5 of the National 

Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as well as according to 

the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA, Act No. of 2002) 

The assignment is interpreted as follows: Compile a study of the vegetation, flora and 

vertebrate fauna of the site, with emphasis on Red Data plant and vertebrate species 

that occur or may occur on the site. In order to compile this, the following had to be 

done: 

2.1. Initial preparations: 

 

 

Obtain all relevant maps and information on the natural environment of the 

concerned area. 

This includes information on Red Data plant and vertebrate species that may 

occur in the area. 

2.2. Vegetation and habitat survey: 

 

 

List the plant species (trees, shrubs, grasses and herbaceous species) 

present for plant community and ecosystem delimitation. 

Identify potential red data plant species, alien plant species, and medicinal 

plants. 

2.3. Plant community delimitation and description 

 

 

 

 

 

Process data (vegetation and habitat classification) to determine vegetation 

types (= plant communities) on an ecological basis. 

Describe the habitat and vegetation. 

Determine the sensitivity of the site for biodiversity, veld condition and 

presence of rare or protected species. 

Prepare a vegetation map of the area. 

Prepare a sensitivity map of the plant communities present, if relevant. 


2.4. Faunal assessment 

 

 

 

 

Obtain lists of the Red Data vertebrates that can be expected in the area. 

Assess the quantitative and qualitative condition of suitable habitat for the 

Red Listed vertebrates that may occur in the area. 

Assess the possibility of Red Listed fauna being present on the study site. 

Compile a list of occurrences. 

2.5. General 

 

 

 

Identify and describe particular ecologically sensitive areas. 

Identify problem areas in need of special treatment or management, e.g. bush 

encroachment, erosion, water pollution, degraded areas, reclamation areas. 

Make recommendations on aspects that should be monitored during 

development. 


3. RATIONALE 

It is widely recognised that to conserve natural resources it is of the utmost 

importance to maintain ecological processes and life support systems for plants, 

animals and humans. To ensure that sustainable development takes place, it is 

therefore important that possible impacts on the environment are considered before 

relevant authorities approve any development. This led to legislation protecting the 

natural environment. In 1992, the Convention of Biological Diversity, a landmark 

convention, was signed by more than 90 % of all members of the United Nations. In 

South Africa, the Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), the National 

Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998) and the National 

Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 0f 2004) ensure the 

protection of ecological processes, natural systems and natural beauty, as well as 

the preservation of biotic diversity within the natural environment. They also ensure 

the protection of the environment against disturbance, deterioration, defacement or 

destruction as a result of man-made structures, installations, processes, products or 

activities. In support of these Acts, a draft list of Threatened Ecosystems was 

published (Government Gazette 2009), as part of the National Environmental 

Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004), and these Threatened 

Ecosystems are described by SANBI & DEAT (2009). International and national Red 

Data lists have also been produced for various plant and animal taxa. 

All components of the ecosystems (physical environment, vegetation, animals) at a 

site are interrelated and interdependent. A holistic approach is therefore imperative 

to include effectively the development, utilisation and, where necessary, conservation 

of the given natural resources into an integrated development plan, which will 

address all the needs of the modern human population (Bredenkamp & Brown 2001). 

It is therefore necessary to make a thorough inventory of the plant communities and 

other biodiversity on the site, in order to evaluate the biodiversity and possible rare 

species. This inventory should then serve as a scientific and ecological basis for the 

planning exercises and the subsequent development. 


This development of a PV generation facility close to the mining complex of 

Aggeneys is obviously optimal for SATO/SEH essential for the facility to proceed. If 

the development can proceed without any significant addition to the environmental 

impacts on the least sensitive grazing areas of the livestock farm, then it is also 

strategically important for the adjacent mine(s) in the light of national energy planning 

and concerns. 


4. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 

• To identify and map the vegetation units as ecosystems that occur on the 

site, 

• To assess the ecological sensitivity of these ecosystems comment on 

ecologically sensitive areas, in term of their biodiversity and where needed 

ecosystem function 

• To assess qualitatively and quantitatively the significance of the habitat 

components and current general conservation status of the site, 

• To comment on connectivity with natural vegetation and habitats on adjacent 

sites, 

• To recommend suitable buffer zones, if relevant, 

• To provide a list of plant and vertebrate fauna species that do or might occur 

on site and that may be affected by the development, and to identify species 

of conservation concern, 

• To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on vegetation, 

fauna and flora of the study site, and 

• To provide management recommendations that might mitigate negative and 

enhance positive impacts, should the proposed development be approved. 


5. STUDY AREA 

5.1 Regional setting 

Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 is situated in the flat, open habitats of the 

Bushmanland area of the Northern Cape Province (Figures 2-4). Most of the farm is 

situated just north of the N14 National Road, and about 10 km southwest of the 

mining complex of Aggeneys (Fig. 5). Its drainage systems, red sand dunes and 

scattered rocky mountains forms the south-western edge of the Gariep (Orange) 

River catchment, Kalahari semi-desert, and Bushmanland granite topography, and its 

climate is at the eastern edge of the winter rainfall areas. 

Figure 2. The locality of the SATO/SHE property, Portion 3 of the Farm Zuurwater 63, in 

relation to Aggeneys, the N14 National Road and the Koa River drainage system. 


Figure 3. Satellite image showing the location of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 63 (purple 

line), in relation to the N14 National Road and the currently dominant drainage line of the Koa 

River wash. Aggeneys mines and villages are situated in and below the hills just above the 

N14 sign. 

Figure 4. Satellite image of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 (purple lines), in relation to the 

general area around Aggeneys and the route of the N14 National Road. 


Figure 5. Satellite image of Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 (purple lines), showing the 

principal features of and names for the topography, habitats and relevant neighbouring 

features. 

5.2 Physical Environment 

Regional Climate 

The mean annual precipitation is 99 mm, with a high annual coefficient of variation 

(40%). Rain can fall in any month but is mainly in the later austral summer, peaking 

in February-April. However, mean annual evaporation potential exceeds rainfall 

almost 30-fold, so mean annual soil moisture stress is high (87%). Mean annual 

temperature is 17.3 o C, but mean monthly temperatures exceed 30 o C in mid-summer 

and drop close to zero in mid-winter, with 21 mean frost days annually. 

Geology 

The general area is formed mainly of eroded Quaternary sediments, sands and 

calcretes, overlain in some areas with aeolian red Kalahari sands. The harder 

igneous intrusions of the Bushmanland quartzites protrude at scattered localities, 

eroded into the gravel patches found around their bases and spread along drainage 

lines. 


Topography and drainage 

The topography is generally flat and open, except for the few quartzite mountains 

and, given the low rainfall, recent drainage lines that are relatively lightly incised and 

shallow. The area does form part of the palaeo-drainage system of the Gariep River 

basin, evident on and around the site as the rather ill-defined Koa River wash(es) 

and some of their pans (Figs 2-5). The mountains on site generally have their 

steepest and coolest sides facing southwest, into the prevailing wind, and their 

warmest and less steep sides facing northeast, with associated effects on the 

biodiversity on either side. 

Soil 

Much of the area is covered in deep (up to 30 cm) red sands, forming scattered 

and/or fields of red dunes in places most subject to the prevailing southwest wind 

and with structures that impede their movement (Fig. 5). The quartzite gravels occur 

in three main forms, small fine-grained patches on the tops and foothills of the 

mountains, more variable and widespread sizes around the erosion zones below the 

mountains, and small feldspar patches (with pink Hoogoor Suite gneiss evident), with 

calcrete gravels also emerging in a few patches where exposed by erosion on the 

flats. The effects of the mountains, plus the prevailing winds, result in sand and 

dunes accumulating mainly on their southern foothills, or in channels between them, 

with more exposed and gravelly plains forming in their northeast lee. 

Land Use 

The only agricultural land use is livestock grazing at low densities (?about 4 large 

stock units (LSU)/100 ha), with sheep, cattle and goats currently present on site. A 

few game animals (springbok, ostrich) also occur. 

5.3 Vegetation Types 

The main vegetation type on site is classified as the Bushmanland Sandy Grassland 

vegetation unit (NKb 4), with the isolated mountains creating conditions for the 

Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld (SKr 19, Mucina & Rutherford 2006). 

The Khai Ma local municipality (KMLM) lies to the east of the Richtersveld and 

contains virtually the entire extent of the Bushmanland Inselberg priority area - one of 

the nine zones identified through the SKEP process as important conservation areas 


in the Succulent Karoo (Marsh et al. 2009). It comprises the eastern part of the 

Gariep Centre of Plant Endemism, which includes the Koa river valley to the north 

and the mountainous terrain to the south east. The area experiences summer rainfall 

patterns, and is characterized by an expansive, undulating landscape. The area is 

dominated by a plain of dry grasslands with scattered ancient rocky outcrops, named 

Inselbergs. These Inselbergs are important refugia for plants and animals and act as 

steppingstones for rock-loving species migrating east west across the sand-covered 

plains of Bushmanland. The isolation of populations has led to diversification within 

the dwarf succulent shrublands, creating remarkable local populations of plant life 

(Marsh et al. 2009). The KMLM spans across practically the entire extent of the 

Bushmanland Inselberg priority area identified through the SKEP process – and thus 

consists of a unique and dynamic region that contains many rare and fragile habitat 

types, including the fine grain quartz patches found on the plateau’s - and in the case 

of the Gamsberg and Achab - on the mountain apron. These unique and confined 

areas are host to a remarkable number of endemic plants (Marsh et al. 2009). 

The Gariep-Koa River Watershed marks the highest point in the Bushmanland. Most 

of the Inselbergs make up this SE-NW watershed. A number of drainage basins exist 

to the north and south of this watershed. Maintaining the integrity of these drainages 

is essential as they play an important role in the structure and dynamics of specific 

habitats and populations. 

5.4 The Study Site for the Proposed Development 

The general location of the property on which the development is planned (Portion 3 

of the farm Zuurwater 62) is described and illustrated above (Figures 2-4). Within this 

property, a preliminary on-site assessment suggested that the least sensitive habitats 

and biodiversity lay just west of the N14 National Road (and the eastern farm 

boundary), with some additional, slightly more sensitive, and possible alternative 

sites adjacent to the main area (Figure. 6). 


Figure 6. Close-up satellite image of the east-central section of Portion 3 of the farm 

Zuurwater 62 (cf. Figures 2-4), showing the principal habitat and topographical features 

influencing the identification of this site as ecologically of low sensitivity but still 

technologically and socially suitable. The least ecologically sensitive sector of the 

development (1, thick dark blue line) is proposed for west of the N14 (yellow line), with 

adjacent slightly more sensitive extensions, including east of the N14 (2, shaded pale blue), 

and an even less preferable north-western extension (3, thin dark blue line).The route of a 

high-voltage transmission line and pylons (green lines) is also shown, from the Eskom 

substation to the east to Springbok in the west. The eastern boundary of Zuurwater is also 

shown (purple line). Engineers will present a final footprint, outline and spacing for how to fit 

the 5-panel table arrays into minimum non-sensitive space available and as close as possible 

to the Eskom substation. Access to a water pipeline between Zuurwater farmhouse and 

Aggeneys also has to be accommodated. 

The exact form and location of the development will require accommodation of the 

surface area necessary to generate 500 MW of electricity, in the conformation 

essential to capture maximal solar radiation, and so no GPS coordinates that 

spatially define the study site are offered. The principal factors for the solar panels 

are that they must face north, at the best angle to capture sunlight for that latitude, 

and with sufficient space between 'tables' to exclude any shading of one another 

during the sun's annual traverse. The tables for this project have been designed for a 

minimal footprint overall, with tables 5 panels deep (length depending on site 

conformation) and 8 m between table rows. 


Figure 7. Impression of how solar panel tables are arranged and spaced, but note this is only 

a 2-deep panel array, supported on a single leg/foot line embedded in the ground and with 

only a narrow space between tables (from www.slc-group.net). The Zuurwater design calls for 

a 5-deep array, supported on a 2-feet line and bolted to a concrete slab resting on the ground 

surface, and with an 8 m shade gap between tables. 

Figure 8. View of power connection and distribution cables housed under the solar panel 

tables. The design allows small livestock to graze under and around the tables (sheep, but 

not goats, cattle or horses on Zuurwater). The upper surfaces of the solar panels are washed 

automatically with water at appropriate intervals, and the waste runs into collection channels 

for recycling (from www.slc-group.net). 


6. METHODS 

Prior to the field visits, a desktop study of the available literature and relevant reports 

was made. 

The EcoAgent team (Prof G.J. Bredenkamp (vegetation scientist) Dr I.L. Rautenbach 

(mammalogist), Dr A. Kemp (ornithologist) and Mr J.C.P. van Wyk (herpetologist). 

Conducted a site visit on 27-28 June 2011; accompanied by the SRK Environmental 

Assessment Practitioners (Ms Lyn Brown and Dr Jenny Lancaster ). The available 

roads on the site were driven using a 4x4 pick-up. The farm owner, Mr Deon 

Maasdorp and his family (and Hester, Olivia, Waldo and Dayle) guided the EcoAgent 

team on site, and Ms Jennifer Brown (SATO) and technology consultant Mr Alfred 

Ostenreid (SLC Group) advised on details of the development. 

Regular stops were made to record diversity and veld conditions by walking random 

transects. Coordinates were taken at localities of note. 

6.1. Flora 

6.1.1 Vegetation and flora 

The vegetation was stratified into relatively homogeneous units on recent aerial 

photographs of the area. At several sites within each homogeneous unit a description 

of the dominant and characteristic species was made. These descriptions were 

based on total floristic composition, following established vegetation survey 

techniques (Mueller-Dombois & Ellenberg 1974; Westhoff & Van der Maarel 1978). 

Data recorded included a list of the plant species present, including trees, shrubs, 

grasses and forbs. Comprehensive species lists were therefore derived for each 

plant community / ecosystem present on the site. These vegetation survey methods 

have been used as the basis of a national vegetation survey of South Africa (Mucina 

et al. 2000) and are considered to be an efficient method of describing vegetation 

and capturing species information. Notes were additionally made of any other 

features that might have an ecological influence. 


The identified systems are not only described in terms of their plant species 

composition, but also evaluated in terms of the potential habitat for red data plant 

species. 

Red data plant species for the area were obtained from the SANBI data bases, with 

updated threatened status, (Raimondo et al. 2009). These lists were then evaluated 

in terms of habitat available on the site, and also in terms of the present development 

and presence of man in the area. 

Alien invasive species, according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 

(Act No.43 of 1983) as listed in Henderson (2001), are indicated. 

Medicinal plants are indicated according to the PRECIS list of SANBI, and is 

obtained from Smit (2007). 

The field observations were supplemented by literature studies from the area 

(Coetzee et al. 1994, 1995). 

6.1.2 Plant Conservation Priority 

The following conservation priority categories were used for each site: 

High: Ecologically sensitive and valuable land with high species richness 

and/or sensitive ecosystems or red data species that should be 

conserved and no developed allowed. 

Medium-high: Land where sections are disturbed but which is in general 

ecologically sensitive to development/disturbances. 

Medium: 

Medium-low: 

Low: 

Land on which low impact development with limited impact on the 

vegetation / ecosystem could be considered for development. It is 

recommended that certain portions of the natural vegetation be 

maintained as open space. 

Land of which small sections could be considered to conserve but 

where the area in general has little conservation value. 

Land that has little conservation value and that could be considered 

for developed with little to no impact on the vegetation. 


6.1.3 Sensitivity 

Only High and Low sensitivity must be indicated. No development should be allowed 

on High sensitive areas. 

In terms of sensitivity the following criteria applies: 

High: High and Medium-High conservation priority categories mentioned 

above are considered to have a High sensitivity and development 

should not be supported. 

Low: 

Medium, Medium-Low and Low conservation priority categories 

mentioned above are considered to have a Low sensitivity and 

development may be supported. Portions of vegetation with a 

Medium conservation priority should be conserved. 

Plant species recorded in each plant community with an indication of the status of the 

species by using the following symbols: 

A = Alien woody species 

D = Dominant 

d = subdominant 

G = Garden or Garden Escape 

M = Medicinal plant species 

P = Protected trees species 

p = provincially protected species 

RD = Red data listed plant 

W = weed 

6.2. Mammals 

The site visit was conducted on 27-28 June 2011. During this visit the observed and 

derived presence of mammals associated with the recognized habitat types of the 

study site, were recorded. This was done with due regard to the well recorded global 

distributions of Southern African mammals, coupled to the qualitative and 

quantitative nature of recognized habitats. 


6.2.1. Field Survey 

During the site visits mammals were identified by visual sightings through random 

transect walks and patrolling with a vehicle. No trapping or mist netting was 

conducted, as the terms of reference did not require such intensive work. In addition, 

mammals were also identified by means of spoor, droppings, burrows or roosting 

sites. 

Three criteria were used to gauge the probability of occurrence of vertebrate species 

on the study site. These include known distribution range, habitat preference and the 

qualitative and quantitative presence of suitable habitat. 

6.2.2. Desktop Survey 

As many mammals are either secretive, nocturnal, hibernators and/or seasonal, 

distributional ranges and the presence of suitable habitats were used to deduce the 

presence or absence of these species based on authoritative tomes, scientific 

literature, field guides, atlases and data bases. This can be done with a high level of 

confidence irrespective of season. 

The probability of occurrences of mammal species was based on their respective 

geographical distributional ranges and the suitability of on-site habitats: 

• High probability would be applicable to a species with a distributional range 

overlying the study site as well as the presence of prime habitat occurring on 

the study site. Another consideration for inclusion in this category is the 

inclination of a species to be common, i.e. normally occurring at high 

population densities. 

• Medium probability pertains to a mammal species with its distributional 

range peripherally overlapping the study site, or required habitat on the site 

being sub-optimal. The size of the site as it relates to its likelihood to sustain 

a viable breeding population, as well as its geographical isolation is also 

taken into consideration. Species categorized as medium normally do not 

occur at high population numbers, but cannot be deemed as rare. 


• Low probability of occurrence will mean that the species’ distributional range 

is peripheral to the study site and habitat is sub-optimal. Furthermore, some 

mammals categorized as low are generally deemed to be rare. 

6.2.3. Specific Requirements 

During the site visits, the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential 

occurrence of Red Data and/or wetland-associated species such as: Juliana’s golden 

mole (Neamblosomus juliana), Highveld golden mole (Amblysomus septentrionalis), 

Rough-haired golden mole (Chrysospalax villosus), African marsh rat (Dasymys 

incomtus), Angoni vlei rat (Otomys angoniensis), Vlei rat (Otomys irroratus), Whitetailed 

rat (Mystromys albicaudatus), Forest shrew (Myosorex varius), Short-eared 

trident bat (Cloeotis percivali), African clawless otter (Aonyx capensis), Spottednecked 

otter (Lutra maculicollis) and Marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosus). 

6.3. Birds 

I made a 2-day site visit on 27-28 June 2011 as part of an EcoAgent team, led by 

Prof G.J. Bredenkamp (botanist), comprising Dr I.L. Rautenbach (mammalogist) and 

Mr J.C.P. van Wyk (herpetologist), and in the company of the farm owner Mr Deon 

Maasdorp. The visit was made in mid-winter, after Palaearctic and intra-African 

migrant bird species had departed. The weather during the visit was cold at night and 

cool during the day, under clear mild clear conditions and with only a slight breeze. 

Good rains had fallen the previous summer, after a 3-year drought, and unusually 

heavy rains of 30 mm had fallen two weeks before the survey, inducing some 

unexpected plant growth and flowering. 

During a site visit, selected roads and tracks on the site were driven, with regular 

stops made to record plant and vertebrate diversity and habitat types by walking 

random transects. Coordinates were taken at localities of note, and attention was 

also paid to the biological conditions and diversity within at least 500 meters on 

adjoining properties. 


6.3.1 Bird Habitats 

While bird distributions have been related to broad vegetation types, there is a 

general consensus internationally that vegetation structure, rather than floral 

composition, is the most critical parameter in most bird habitat preferences (Allan et 

al. in Harrison et al. 1997). The principal vegetation units identified for birds in South 

Africa, based primarily on similarity in vegetation structure rather than composition, 

are divided into four major groups Karoo (subdivided into Succulent, Nama and 

Grassy), Grassland (Sweet, Mixed, Sour and Alpine) Kalahari (South and Central), 

and Woodland (Arid, Moist and Mopane), plus the discrete and smaller areas of 

Fynbos, Valley Bushveld, East Coast Littoral and Afromontane Forest habitat 

(Allan et al. in Harrison et al. 1997). 

Of course vegetation structure is determined by and offers a surrogate for a wide 

variety of abiotic factors (of which climate, in South Africa, particularly rainfall and 

temperature, are most important). The habitats occupied by flying birds differ from 

those of most terrestrial vertebrates in being three-dimensional, especially for aerialfeeding 

species and those regularly using the airspace above landscapes with low 

relief and/or short vegetation, but in the two horizontal dimensions birds depend most 

on vegetation structure and substrate texture and colour (except of a minority of 

species with particular food/nest requirements of substrate, foliage, flowers, fruit or 

seeds). Although plant species composition is the main criterion used to delimit most 

vegetation biomes and units described for South Africa, the most recent analyses 

also take into account and offer good synopses of such abiotic factors that underlie 

these divisions as landscape structure and topography, geology and soil types, and 

climate, besides details of the flora and its conservation (Mucina & Rutherford 2006). 

The principal habitats on site were identified and stratified into relatively 

homogeneous units on recent satellite (Google Earth) images of the area, including 

any particular natural features and/or indications of transformed habitats (croplands, 

mining, buildings). Within each homogeneous unit, a description was made, 

illustrated by images, of the principal features that might influence bird distribution 

(vegetation structure, composition, quality and extent; water-related moist patches, 

marshes (vleis) and areas of open water; topographical and geological features such 

as cliffs, steep slopes, deep valleys or rocky outcrops; or man-made plantations or 

structures that might provide roost/nest sites). 


The biodiversity significance of an area relates to its species diversity, endemism (of 

species or ecological processes) and significant occurrence of threatened/legallyprotected 

species or ecosystems. The following conservation priorities were used for 

each avian habitat type recognised on site or nearby: 

High: Ecologically sensitive and valuable land, with high species richness, 

sensitive ecosystems or Red Data species, that should be conserved 

and no development allowed. 

Medium-high: Land where sections are disturbed but that is still ecologically 

sensitive to development/disturbance. 

Medium: 

Medium-low: 

Low: 

Land on which low-impact development with limited impact on the 

ecosystem could be considered, but where it is still recommended 

that certain portions of the natural habitat be maintained as open 

spaces. 

Land on which small sections could be considered for conservation 

but where the area in general has little conservation value. 

Land that has little conservation value and that could be considered 

for developed with little to no impact on the habitats or avifauna. 

Only High or Low sensitivity is indicated for the habitats, with no development 

allowed on areas of High sensitivity, applying the following criteria: 

High: High and Medium-High conservation priority categories mentioned 

above are considered to have a High sensitivity and development 

should not be supported. These include sensitive ecosystems with 

low inherent resistance and/or resilience to disturbance factors, or 

highly dynamic systems important for maintenance of ecosystem 

integrity. Most such systems represent ecosystems with high 

connectivity to other important ecological systems or support high 

species diversity and provide suitable habitat for a number of 

threatened or rare species. 

Low: 

Medium, Medium-Low and Low conservation priority categories 

mentioned above are considered to have a Low sensitivity and 

development may be supported. Portions of habitat with a Medium 

conservation priority should be conserved as open areas and/or 


uffers wherever possible. These are slightly modified systems that 

occur along disturbance gradients of low-medium intensity, with 

some degree of connectivity with other ecological systems or 

ecosystems with intermediate levels of species diversity that include 

potential ephemeral habitat for threatened species. Low sensitivity 

habitats are degraded, highly disturbed and/or transformed systems 

with little ecological function and low species diversity. 

6.3.2 Bird Species 

On the site visit(s) I recorded the presence of bird species, or assessed the 

probability of their occurrence based on the habitat types recognized on and around 

the study site. This was done with due regard to the well-recorded general 

distributions of southern African birds at the quarter-degree grid cell (QDGC) scale 

(SABAP 1, Harrison et al. 1997) or the pentad (5’ lat. x 5’ long) scale (SABAP 2, ongoing, 

Animal Demography Unit website www.adu.org.za), coupled to my 

assessment of and experience with the qualitative and quantitative nature of the 

habitats recognized on site. Due to the mobility of most birds, I also scanned at least 

500 m of adjoining properties for important faunal habitats and avian species, and 

took note of the extent and proximity of other major areas of natural habitat and 

conservation potential within the normal flying distance of birds. I also extended my 

assessment of the extent, qualities, and limits of the various habitat types, both on 

site and on adjacent properties, by study of satellite images from Google Earth. 

While the QDGC mapping of South African bird species provides the best current 

information of what birds to expect where, the roughly 26-23 km (north-south) x 27.3 

km grid area usually far exceeds the area of most assessment sites and can only be 

expected to support regularly a subset of the QDGC species recorded, depending on 

the subset of possible QDGC habitats available on site. Furthermore, the bird 

species listed for each QDGC are only those recorded during the atlas survey period 

and not necessarily as comprehensive as they may appear, with biases neglecting 

cryptic species and less accessible grids. 

6.3.3 Field Survey 

Birds are a relatively visible and audible group of homoeothermic vertebrates, active 

throughout the day/night and year, and with habitat preferences that we can evaluate 


oth by reference to the comprehensive literature available and by the subset of 

species detected during a field survey done at a particular season and time of 

day/night. Such information and personal experience also informs searches for 

particular species of conservation concern. 

I identified bird species by visual sightings during random transect walks and drives 

across the site, attempting to visit and search samples of all recognised habitat types 

and with special attention to any unusual features within each habitat. Where 

necessary, I used 10x40 binoculars, a 30x spotting scope, the most appropriate field 

guide (Sinclair et al. 2002, plus any local guides), and for calls the Roberts VI PDA 

version (Gibbon 1997). No trapping or mist netting was conducted, since the terms of 

reference did not require such intensive work. The presence of some species was 

recognised by their calls or inferred from old nests, food remains, droppings and/or 

moulted feathers. Where possible, local people were questioned to try and confirm 

occurrence or absence of particular species. 

6.3.4 Desktop Survey 

Three criteria were used to gauge the probability of occurrence of bird species on the 

study site: their known distribution range, their habitat preference(s) and the quality 

and extent of suitable habitat(s) on site. Initially, I derived and compared lists of bird 

species expected to occur on site from the QDGC records presented in the atlas of 

southern African birds (Harrison et al. 1997). Where necessary, I also consulted the 

pentad-scale (5' lat. X 5' long.) records of southern African birds from the on-going 

SABAP2 project (www.adu.org.za). Based on an assessment of the habitats present 

on site, and on the most recent regional field guide(s) for the area (Sinclair et al. 

2002), the list was then reduced to those species recorded on site during this study, 

or expected subjectively to occur within those habitats as either resident species or 

regular visitors. 

The probability of occurrence of a bird species on site was based primarily on its 

geographical distribution and the suitability of on-site habitats, taking into account 

that birds use their mobility to make intermittent use of habitats available when these 

are in a particular condition (e.g. during or after rain, flood, drought, burning, grazing, 

seeding, flowering) or season (e.g. regional, intra-African or inter-continental 

summer/winter migrants and nomads). I assessed the overall expectation of each 

species on site as: 


• High probability: Applies to a species with a distributional range overlying 

the study site plus the presence of prime habitat on site. Another 

consideration for inclusion in this category is the tendency for the species to 

be ‘common’, i.e. to occur normally at a high population density. 

• Medium probability: Applies to a species with a distributional range that 

peripherally overlaps the study site and/or the required habitat on site being 

sub-optimal. The extent of suitable habitat on site, related to its likelihood to 

sustain a viable breeding or non-breeding population, and its geographical 

isolation are also taken into consideration. Species categorized as ‘medium’ 

normally do not occur at high population densities, but cannot be deemed 

rare. 

• Low probability: Means that the species’ distributional range is peripheral to 

the study site and the habitats are sub-optimal. Furthermore, some bird 

species categorized as ‘low’ are generally deemed rare. 

Due to the considerable aerial mobility of birds, one might expect a number of 

additional species as either infrequent nomads or rare vagrants, some of which may 

even be recorded by chance during the site visit. For these Unlikely species, I 

judged that the habitats available would offer no significant material support or 

conservation assistance to them, other than a temporary stopover, and that even if 

they did occur it would only be briefly and in insignificant numbers. 

I made no objective assessment of the carrying capacity of the habitat for any 

species, since this varies through time, birds being capable of arriving or departing 

as conditions change, and our ability to detect them varying seasonally. Such an 

assessment would require a much longer time and greater expense. However, I did 

pay special attention to species considered as threatened internationally or 

nationally, so-called Red Data or Red-listed species (Birdlife International website 

www.birdlife.org; DEAT 2007; Barnes, 2000), and so for any threatened species 

expected even to visit the area I elevated the category assigned to them based on 

the Precautionary Principle. 


6.4. Herpetofauna 

6.4.1. Field Surveys 

The study site visit was conducted on 27-28 June 2011. During the site visits, reptiles and 

amphibians were identified by visual sightings through random transect walks. 

Amphibian diversity was also established by means of acoustic identification. No 

trapping was conducted, as the terms of reference did not require such intensive 

work. The observed and derived presence of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) 

associated with the recognised habitat types of the study site, was recorded. This 

was done with due regard to the well-recorded global distributions of Southern 

African vertebrates, coupled with the qualitative and quantitative nature of recognised 

habitats. Where possible, the adjoining properties were scanned for important fauna 

habitats. 

Three criteria were used to gauge the probability of occurrence of reptiles and 

amphibian species on the study site. These include known distribution range, habitat 

preference and the qualitative and quantitative presence of suitable habitat. 

6.4.2. Desktop Surveys 

As the majority of reptiles and amphibians are either secretive, nocturnal, 

poikilothermic and/or seasonal, distributional ranges and the presence of suitable 

habitats were used to deduce the presence or absence of these species based on 

authoritative tomes, scientific literature, field guides, atlases and data bases. This 

can be done with a high level of accuracy irrespective of season. 

The probability of the occurrence of reptile and amphibian species was based on 

their respective geographical distributional ranges and the suitability of on-site 

habitats. 

High probability would be applicable to a species with a distributional range overlying 

the study site as well as the presence of prime habitat occurring on the study site. 

Another consideration for inclusion in this category is the inclination of a species to 

be common to the area, i.e. normally occurring at high population densities. 

Medium probability pertains to a reptile or amphibian species with its distributional 

range peripherally overlapping the study site, or required habitat on the site being 

sub-optimal. The size of the site as it relates to its likelihood to sustain a viable 


eeding population, as well as its geographical isolation is also taken into 

consideration. Species categorized as medium normally do not occur at high 

population numbers, but cannot be deemed as rare. 

Low probability of occurrence will imply that the species’ distributional range is 

peripheral to the study site and habitat is sub-optimal. Furthermore, some reptiles 

and amphibians categorized as low are generally deemed to be rare. 

Based on the impressions gathered during the site visit, as well as publications, such 

as FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes 

and other Reptiles of Southern Africa (Branch, 1998), A Guide to the Reptiles of 

Southern Africa (Alexander and Marais, 2007), Amphibians of Central and Southern 

Africa (Channing, 2001), Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, 

Lesotho and Swaziland (Minter, et al, 2004) and A Complete Guide to the Frogs of 

Southern Africa (Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009), a list of species which may occur on 

the site was compiled. The latest taxonomic nomenclature was used. The 

vegetation type was defined according to the standard handbook by Mucina and 

Rutherford (eds) (2006). 

6.4.3. Specific Requirements 

During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of 

Red Data reptile and amphibian species in Mpumalanga (Alexander and Marais, 

2007; Minter, et al, 2004, Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009, 2009; Measey (ed.) 2011 

and Carruthers and Du Preez, 2011), such as: 

During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of 

Red Data species such as: 

• Giant Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus); 

• Desert Rain Frog (Breviceps macrops); 

• Namaqua Stream Frog (Strongylopus springbokensis); 

• Karoo Caco (Cocosternum karooicum); 

• Speckled padloper (Homopus signatus); 

• Namaqua Day Gecko (Phelsuma ocellata); 

• Namaqua Plated Lizard (Gerrhosaurus typicus); 


• Armadillo Girdled Lizard (Cordylus cataphractus); 

• Lawrence’s Girdled Lizard (Cordylus lawrenci); 

• Lomi’s Blind Legless Skink (Typhlosaurus lomiae); 

• Namaqua Dwarf Adder (Bitis schneideri); 

• Fisk’s House Snake (Lamprophis fiskii) 

• Southern African Python (Python natalensis). 


7. RESULTS: VEGETATION AND FLORA 

The site is situated within the Arid Karoo and Desert False Grassland veld type, as 

described by Acocks (1988). According to Low & Rebelo (1996) the site is close to 

the boundary between the Orange River Nama Karoo and the Bushmanland. In the 

new vegetation map of South Africa, the area falls within the Bushmanland Sandy 

Grassland vegetation type (NKb4, Mucina & Rutherford 2006). However, the rare 

Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland (SKr 18) and Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld (SKr19) 

are also present in the area. 

7.1 Classification of the vegetation 

The plant communities identified on the study site are the following: 

Vegetation type / Plant Community Size (ha) Sensitivity 

1. Bushmanland Sandy Grassland (=Vegmap Unit Mucina 

High 

& Rutherford 2006) 

2. Bushmanland Arid Grassland (=Vegmap Unit Mucina & 

Low 

Rutherford 2006) 

2.1 Grassland on sandy hummocks Low 

2.2 Grassland on sandy plains Low 

3 Gravelly calcrete plains(=Vegmap Unit: Aggeneys 

High 

Gravel Vygieveld, Mucina & Rutherford 2006) 

4. Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubveld (Vegmap Unit 

High 

Mucina & Rutherford 2006) 

4.1 Shrubveld on mountains, hills slopes and crests High 

4.2 South facing slopes High 

4.2.1 South-facing scree slopes High 

4.2.2 Steep south-facing slopes High 

4.3 Rocky north-facing slopes High 

5 Azonal vegetation High 

5.1 Pans High 

5.2 Washes High 


7.2 Description of the plant communities 

The distribution of the plant communities identified in this study are shown in the 

vegetation map (Figure 9) 

Figure 9. Vegetation map of the study site 

1 Bushmanland Sandy Grassland 

The largest patch of this vegetation type occurs south-east and west of Aggeneys. This is 

the grassland of the valley bottoms on mobile or semi-mobile dunes. The largest patch of 

this vegetation type fills the shallow valley of the Koa River. The sands and calcrete are of 

Quarternary sediments. The area is mostly representing the Af land type, with deep red 

sands predominant, with red sand dunes. The sand dunes suggest similarity to southern 

Kalahari duneveld flora Mucina & Rutherford 2006). Rainfall is low, 70-110 mm per 

annum, mostly falling in late summer to autumn. 

The area is typically covered by sparse open grassland, with Stipagrostis species and 

Schmidtia kalahariensis prominent, with scattered, drought resistant dwarf shrubs or small 

trees, e.g. Rhigozum trichotomum, Boscia albitrunca, Parkinsonia africana and Lycium 

cinereum (Figures 10 & 11). 


Figure 10. Typical Bushmanland Sandy Grassland with mobile sand dunes 

Figure 11. Bushmanland Sandy Grassland on the sands dunes. 


Figure 12. Stipagrostis namaquensis typical of dune crests. 

The most prominent species include: 

Trees, Shrubs and Dwarf shrubs 

Aridaria noctiflora 

Boscia albitrunca 

Eriocephalus microphyllus d 

Galenia fruticosa 

Lycium bosciifolium 

Lycium cinereum 

Parkinsonia africana 

Pentzia spinescens 

Plinthus karroicus 

Pteronia mucronata 

Rhigozum trichotomum 

Rosenia humilis 

Sarcostemma viminale 

Tetragonia arbuscula 

Zygophyllum microphyllum 

D 

d 

Grasses 

Aristida adscensionis 

Aristida congesta 

Centropodia glauca 

Cladoraphis spinosa 

Enneapogon desvauxii 

Schmidtia kalahariensis 

Stipagrostis anomala 

Stipagrostis brevifolia 

Stipagrostis ciliata 

Stipagrostis namaquensis 

d 

d 

D 

d 


Stipagrostis obtusa 

D 

Forbs 

Barleria rigida 

Berkheya spinosissima 

Crassula muscosa 

Dicoma capensis 

Felicia namaquana 

Gazania lichtensteinii 

Grielum humifusum 

Heliophila arenaria 

Hermannia coccocarpa 

Hermannia spinosa 

Hirpicium echinus 

Indigofera daleoides 

Manulea nervosa 

Monechma incanum 

Oxalis eckloniana 

Peliostomum leucorrhizum 

Requienia sphaerosperma 

Ruschia robusta 

Salsola tuberculata 

Senecio cotyledonis 

Sesamum capense 

Thesium lineatum 

Tribulus zeyheri 

Wahlenbergia prostrata 

Zygophyllum flexuosum 

This vegetation is the habitat for the rare and endemic Red Lark, which is unique to 

this area. 

The farmers in the area regard this vegetation as most valuable grazing for their 

cattle. 

2 Bushmanland Arid Grassland 

This vegetation type has a wide distribution, from Namaqualand in the west to Prieska in 

the east. In the vicinity of Aggeneys the Bushmanland Arid Grassland is interrupted by 

Bushmanland Sandy Grassland, especially in the Koa River valley, and also by the 

Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubland that occurs on the scattered mountains and hills in the 

Aggeneys area and the Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld, which is considered to be a rare 

ecosystem, restricted to gravel patches. A large area is covered by quaternary alluvium 

and sand, though Palaeozoic diamictites of the Dwyka Group and meta-sediments of 

Mokolian age outcrop in the area, forming the mountains and hills. The soil is red-yellow, 

apedal freely drained but shallow, typically representing the Ag and Ae land types. Rainfall 


is low, 70-110 mm per annum, mostly falling in late summer to autumn (Mucina & 

Rutherford 2006). 

The extensive plains are sparsely vegetated by grassland with Stipagrostis species giving 

the appearance of a semi-desert steppe. Drought resistant dwarf shrubs are often present 

(Figure 13), while annual forbs flower abundantly in years with good rainfall. 

Figure 12: Figure 13. Typical Bushmanland Arid Grassland. Note the Inselberg on the right. 

The most prominent and general species include: 


Eriocephalus spinescens 

Kleinia longiflora 



d 






Salsola aphylla 


D 

d 

Grasses 




Cenchrus ciliaris 


Enneapogon scaber 

Eragrostis nindensis 


d 

Sporobolus nervosus 




Stipagrostis uniplumis 

Tragus berteronianus 

d 

D 

D 

Forbs 

Acanthopsis hoffmannseggiana 

Aizoon canariense 

Amaranthus praetermissus 

Aptosimum spinescens 

Arctotis leiocarpa 

Avonia albissima 


Berkheya annectens 

Berkheya canescens 

Blepharis mitrata 

Cotula microglossa 


Foveolina albida 

Galenia africana 



Hoodia gordonii 

Limeum aethiopicum 

Lophiocarpus polystachyus 

Mesembryanthemum guerichianum 


Monsonia parviflora 


Polygala seminuda 

Senecio niveus 

Solanum capense 

Tephrosia dregeana 

Trianthema parvifolia 

Tribulus terrestris 

During the site visit it was found that different plant communities (as functional 

ecosystems) occur within the Bushmanland Arid Grassland: 

2.1. Grassland on sandy hummocky plains 

At these sites the landscape is slightly undulating with sandy hummocks where the 

sand is deep. The three species of Stipagrostis namely S. brevifolia, S. obtusa and 

S. ciliata are prominent, while the shrubby Rhigozum trichotomum is prominent on 

the hummocks or disturbed areas.

Figure 14. Grassland on sandy hummocky plains 

2.2. Grassland on flat sandy plains 

The flat sandy plains are covered with shallow sand with calcrete exposed locally. 

The open, sparse grassland is dominated by Stipagrostis brevifolia and S. ciliata. 

The shrubby Rhigozum trichotomum is prominent on the sandy localities while 

Salsola aphylla is more prominent where calcrete is exposed. 


Figure 15. Grassland on flat sandy plains 

3. Gravelly calcrete plains (=Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld) 

A patch of calcrete plains occur on the apron of Hoedkop hill, with a further small 

patch at the north-western end of Skefe berg mountain (See Figures 5 and 9). Where 

the overlying sand is eroded away the calcrete is exposed. The calcrete may have a 

thin layer of pebbles or gravel or a solid calcrete hardpan, but also have a high 

proportion sand on the surface. These calcrete patches therefore form an 

intermediate habitat between the floristically extremely rich Aggeneys Gravel 

Vygieveld which are restricted to gravel patches on mountain plateaus, and the 

sandy Bushmanland Arid Grassland plant communities. Having a high proportion of 

sand on the surface, the vegetation shows similarity to the Grassland on flat sandy 

plains with Stipagrostis obtusa and Stipagrostis ciliata the dominant species, while 

the shrub Zygophyllum decumbens is often dominant. However, the gravel forms the 

habitat for some smaller, rare succulent plant species, such as Lithops julii subsp 

fulleri, Titanopsis hugo-schlechteri and Crassula mesembrianthemopsis. 


This plant community with its specific floristic composition is regarded as highly 

sensitive. On the sensitivity map (Figures 5, 16 and 25). This plant community is 

regarded as Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld, which is regarded as a rare and threatened 

ecosystem. 

4. Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubveld 

Mountains and hills occur scattered within the Bushmanland Sandy Grassland. These 

mountains and hills are covered with the Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubveld, considered 

as a rare vegetation type. These are described as a group of individual mountains and 

hills towering over the surrounding flat plains in northern Bushmanland in the Aggeneys 

and Pofadder regions. 

Figure 16. Typical mountains and hills – the habitat of Bushmanland Inselberg Shrubveld. 

This vegetation type as a whole is considered to be rare and highly sensitive, due to its 

specific plant species composition. 

The following plant communities were recognised: 


4.1 Shrubveld on mountains, hills, slopes and crests 

The vegetation on the slopes and crests of the mountains and hills (Figure 15) is a 

shrubland with both succulent and non-succulent bushes and a sparse grassy layer. The 

geology is varied and complex with metamorphic rocks consisting of clastic sediments, 

volcanic and intrusive rocks of Mokolian age. The land type is mostly Ib and Ic, indicating 

the shallow rocky or gravelly soils. 

The most prominent or general species found in this vegetation include the following: 

Trees, Shrubs and Dwarf shrubs and Succulent Shrubs 

Adromischus diabolicus 

Aloe dichotoma 

P 

Nymania capensis 

Othonna euphorbioides 

Boscia albitrunca 

P 

Ozoroa dispar 

Boscia foetida 

Ehretia rigida 

Eriocephalus pauperrimus 

Euphorbia avasmontana 

Euphorbia gariepina 

Euphorbia gregaria 

Ficus ilicina 



d 

Pappea capensis 

Pteronia unguiculata 




Searsia undulata 

Tetragonia reduplicata 

Tylecodon rubrovenosus 

Tylecodon sulphureus 

D 

d 

Grasses 



Digitaria eriantha 


Eragrostis annulata 

Eragrostis nindensis 

Oropetium capense 


D 

Forbs 


Anacampseros karasmontana 



Blepharis pruinosa 

Ceraria namaquensis 

Chascanum garipense 

Conophytum fulleri 

Conophytum sp 

Cotyledon orbiculata 


Crassula sericea 


Cucumis rigidus 

Drosanthemum godmaniae 

Dyerophytum africanum 


Helichrysum tomentosum 

Hermannia stricta 

Hermbstaedtia glauca 

Hibiscus elliottiae 

Hirpicium alienatum 


Monechma spartioides 

Osteospermum armatum 

Pelargonium spinosum 

Rogeria longiflora 


4.2 South facing slopes 

The high and steep south facing slopes are considered as an important plant community 

(Anderson 2000, Desmet 2010). The vegetation on the steep south-facing slopes is dense 

shrubveld and very low cover of grass species. Due to the cooler south-facing slopes and 

availability of moisture in winter, this vegetation is regarded by Desmet (2010) as a 

remarkable outlier of Succulent Karoo vegetation and shows some similarity to the 

Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland. It is therefore considered as being floristically very 

important and is regarded as highly sensitive. 

4.2.1 South-facing scree slopes 



Aloe dichotoma 

P 



Cadaba aphylla 

Chrysocoma ciliata 

Cineraria alchemilloides 

Didelta carnosa 

Diospyros ramulosa 

Eriocephalus microphyllus 

Eriocephalus scariosus 


Euphorbia mauritanica 

Haworthia venosa 

Huernia campanulata 

Montinia caryophyllacea 


Ozoroa dispar 

Pentzia lanata 

Pteronia leucoclada 


D 



Searsia incisa 


Tetragonia spicata 

Grasses 

Digitaria eriantha Panicum arbusculum 

Forbs 


Adromischus alstonii 


Berkheya spinosissima 


Chascanum garipense 

Cissampelos capensis 

Conophytum sp 


Crassula exilis 


Crassula subaphylla 

Dianthus namaensis 

Drosanthemum godmaniae 

Dyerophytum africanum 

Drosanthemum karooense 

Euphorbia rectirama 

Euryops subcarnosus 

Felicia muricata 






Microloma incanum 

Monechma spartioides 

Ornithogalum glandulosum 

Osteospermum armatum 

Othonna abrotanifolia 

Othonna protecta 

Pegolettia retrofracta 


Phyllobolus latipetalus 

Phyllobolus lignescens 

Psilocaulon subnodosum 

Ruschia divaricata 


Sarcocaulon crassicaule 

Senecio bulbinifolius 

Senecio longiflora 

Senecio radicans 

Sericocoma avolans 

Stachys rugosa 

Schwantesia pillansii 

Trichodiadema obliquum 

The scree habitats with the rocks and gravel form an exceptional habitat for a large 

number of plant species, including rare and protected species, notably succulent plants. 

This area is considered to have a high sensitivity. 


Figure 17. A scree slope 

4.2.2 Steep south-facing slopes 

The steep south-facing slopes are covered with small trees and shrubs (Figure 18). These 

are special habitats for flora and fauna (reptiles and birds), but due to inaccessibility, and 

due to the fact that there will not be any development in or even close to these habitats, 

they were not sampled in detail and only general observations were made. 


Azima tetracantha 



Euphorbia mauritanica 

Buddleja saligna 

Ficus cordata 

Cadaba aphylla 

Montinia caryophyllacea 

Chrysocoma ciliata 



Ozoroa dispar 

Diospyros ramulosa 


Eriocephalus microphyllus 


Eriocephalus scariosus 

Searsia incisa 



D 


Grasses 

Panicum arbusculum 

Forbs 


Cissampelos capensis 






Microloma incanum 

Ornithogalum glandulosum 

Senecio longiflora 

Senecio radicans 

Stachys rugosa 

Figure 18 Steep south-facing slopes and cliffs 

4.3 Rocky north-facing foot slopes 

These areas occur on the apron of the north-facing slopes of Windhoekberg and Skefe 

berg (Figure 19). These areas are very rocky, dry and hot and have a low vegetation 

cover. The species present are mostly dwarf shrubs and very sparse grass. Most of these 


species also occur on the mountain slopes (excluding the special and unique species of 

the south-facing slopes). 

Figure 19. Rocky north-facing slopes 



Eriocephalus pauperrimus 

Euphorbia gregaria 



d 

Pteronia unguiculata 



Tylecodon rubrovenosus 

Othonna euphorbioides 

D 

d 

Grasses 




Oropetium capense 


D 


Forbs 



Blepharis pruinosa 


Crassula sericea 





In spite of the low floristic richness of this dry habitat, it is still considered as a rare habitat 

and therefore as sensitive. 

5. Azonal vegetation 

The azonal vegetation includes the vegetation of pans and washes, which are the 

“wetlands” and drainage lines of the site. 

5.1 Pans 

The pans are often dry, but they do have water after rains during the rainy season 

(Figure 20). The central parts of the pans are normally bare, without vegetation. 

Vegetation is restricted to pan edges, and mostly corresponds to the surrounding 

Bushmanland Arid Grassland or Bushmanland Sandy Grassland, with a few 

additional species. These include the following: 



Eriocephalus spinescens 

Euclea undulata 




d 








Sisyndite spartea 

D 

d 

Grasses 



Cenchrus ciliaris 


Enneapogon scaber 

Eragrostis nindensis


d 


D 

Sporobolus nervosus 

Stipagrostis uniplumis 


d 

Tragus berteronianus 


D 

Forbs 


Aizoon canariense 

Amaranthus praetermissus 

Aptosimum indivisum 


Arctotis leiocarpa 

Avonia albissima 


Berkheya annectens 



Cotula microglossa 



Foveolina albida 

Galenia africana 

Gazania lichtensteinii 

Geigeria plumosa 

Geigeria plumosa 





Indigofera heterotricha 


Lophiocarpus polystachyus 

Mesembryanthemum guerichianum 


Monsonia parviflora 


Polygala seminuda 

Senecio niveus 

Sesamum capense 

Solanum capense 

Tephrosia dregeana 

Trianthema parvifolia 

Tribulus terrestris 

Zygophyllum retrofractum 

Zygophyllum simplex 

The pans are considered to be sensitive ecosystems, due to the availability of open 

water to fauna and as special habitat conditions for amphibia and birds. 


Figure 20. Two examples of Pans – above dry during the survey period, below still with water. 


5.2 Washes 

The drainage lines within the plains of the study area are regarded as washes, as 

water will only flow after good rains, and soon they will be dry again. These washes 

are wide and sandy, and blend into the landscape, merging with the adjacent 

grassland vegetation. They are however noticeable on good quality areal photos. 

The vegetation is often somewhat heterogeneous and with weeds, due to the 

disturbance of the periodic flooding. The species composition is similar to that of the 

pans, given above. 

Washes are of conservation concern and regarded as sensitive ecosystems, due to 

the ecosystem processes linked to provision and transport of water in the landscape. 


7.3 Biodiversity Areas 

This discussion of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s) is from Marsh et al. (2009). Critical 

biodiversity areas are terrestrial and aquatic features in the landscape that are critical for 

retaining biodiversity and supporting continued ecosystem functioning and services. 

These form the key output of a systematic conservation assessment and are the 

biodiversity sectors inputs into multi-sectoral planning and decision making tools. 

• Critical biodiversity areas (CBA’s) are areas of the landscape that need to be 

maintained in a natural or near-natural state in order to ensure the continued 

existence and functioning of species and ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem 

services. In other words, if these areas are not maintained in a natural or nearnatural 

state then biodiversity conservation targets cannot be met. Maintaining an 

area in a natural state can include a variety of biodiversity-compatible land uses and 

resource uses. 

• Ecological support areas (ESA’s) are areas that are not essential for meeting 

biodiversity representation targets/thresholds but which nevertheless play an 

important role in supporting the ecological functioning of critical biodiversity areas 

and/or in delivering ecosystem services that support socio-economic development, 

such as water provision, flood mitigation or carbon sequestration. The degree of 

restriction on land use and resource use in these areas may be lower than that 

recommended for critical biodiversity areas. 

From a land-use planning perspective it is useful to think of the difference between 

CBA’s and ESA’s in terms of where in the landscape the biodiversity impact of any landuse 

activity action is most significant: 

• For CBA’s the impact on biodiversity of a change in land-use that results in a change 

from the desired ecological state is most significant locally at the point of impact 

through the direct loss of a biodiversity feature (e.g. loss of a populations or habitat). 

• For ESA’s a change from the desired ecological state is most significant elsewhere in 

the landscape through the indirect loss of biodiversity due to a breakdown, 

interruption or loss of an ecological process pathway (e.g. removing a corridor results 

64

in a population going extinct elsewhere or a new plantation locally results in a 

reduction in stream flow at the exit to the catchment which affects downstream 

biodiversity). 

The purpose of CBA’s is simply to indicate spatially the location of critical or important 

areas for biodiversity in the landscape. The CBA, through the underlying land 

management objectives that define the CBA, prescribes the desired ecological state in 

which we would like to keep this biodiversity. Therefore, the desired ecological state or 

land management objective determines which land-use activities are compatible with 

each CBA category based on the perceived impact of each activity on biodiversity 

pattern and process. 

Figure 21. Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA’s) in the Namakwa District Municipality. Note the 

presence of CBA1 north of Aggeneys, with CBA2 in the vicinity, while an Ecological Support Area 

(ESA) forms a corridor south of Aggeneys (from Marsh et al. 2009) 

65

CBA 1: Natural landscapes: 

• Ecosystems and species fully intact and undisturbed 

• These are areas with high irreplaceability or low flexibility in terms of meeting 

biodiversity pattern targets. If the biodiversity features targeted in these areas are 

lost then targets will not be met. 

• These are landscape that are at or past their limits of acceptable change 

CBA 2: Near-natural landscapes: 

• Ecosystems and species largely intact and undisturbed. 

• Areas with intermediate irreplaceability or some flexibility in terms of area required to 

meet biodiversity targets. There are options for loss of some components of 

biodiversity in these landscapes without compromising our ability to achieve targets. 

• These are landscapes that are approaching but have not passed their limits of 

acceptable change. 

Ecological Support Areas (ESA): 

Functional landscapes: 

• Ecosystems moderately to significantly disturbed but still able to maintain basic 

functionality. 

• Individual species or other biodiversity indicators may be severely disturbed or 

reduced. 

• These are areas with low irreplaceability with respect to biodiversity pattern targets 

only. 

The presence of CBA 1 north of Aggeneys, and with CBA 2 in the vicinity (Figure 21), 

indicates that there are important biodiversity areas in that vicinity. An Ecological 

Support Area (ESA) forms a corridor south of Aggeneys (from Marsh et al. 2009). 

From this data it is suggested that the proposed photovoltaic power generation facility be 

located in an area which does not qualify for CBA 1 or CBA 2. 

66

7.4 Fine Scale Biodiversity 

Fine scale biodiversity maps of the area were produced SKEP (2005). 

Figure 22. Map indicating biodiversity areas (Image provided by SRK Consulting) 

The biodiversity map (Figure 22) indicates that proposed development is located in the 

“Plains sandy hummocky” and “Plains sandy flat”, which has relatively low biodiversity, in 

relation to the “Plains rocky” and “Mountains”. 

This data indicates that, from an ecological and biodiversity perspective, the 

development will be located on the least sensitive areas on the property. 

7.5 Zuurberg Important Biodiversity Areas 

These Biodiversity Areas are indicated in Figure 23. 

67

Figure 23. Map indicating Zuurwater Important Biodiversity Areas (SKEP 2005) (Image provided 

by SRK Consulting) 

68

The SKEP (2005) biodiversity map for the Zuurwater area (Figure 23) indicates that 

proposed site for development is not located within “Special Concern” or “Important” 

area, but is located in the Ecological Corridor, which is an area connecting Core Areas 

with each other or with surrounding areas. 

7.6 Sensitive Vegetation 

Figure 24. Sensitive vegetation types (Image provided by SRK Consulting) 

The map on Sensitive Vegetation (Figure 24) indicates that the proposed development 

site is located within the “Bushmanland Hummocky Arid Grassland” or “Bushmanland 

Flat Arid Grassland”, both being of the less sensitive areas within the study site. 

69

Figure 25. The vegetation sensitivity map compiled for the site during this survey. 

7.7 Species of Conservation Concern 

According to Marsh et al. (2009, p78) a total of 854 plant species have been recorded in 

the Khai Ma Local Municipality area. As many as 41 species are known to be endemic to 

the area and a further 20 are potentially endemic. Many of the most special plants can 

be found within the fine grained quartz patches – an area that typically contains a 

number of special dwarf succulents (Marsh et al. 2009). 

The Bushmanland Inselbergs are a remarkable feature of this landscape. In total, the 

31,400-hectare area includes 429 plant species, of which 67 are found only in this 

hotspot and 87 are Red List species (Marsh et al. 2009, p81). 

The SANBI POSA data base for the 2918BB Quarter Degree Square Grid, which 

includes only part of the Khai Ma Local Municipality area and part of the Bushmanland 

Inselbergs, contains 257 species. It is important to note that the PRECIS plant list of 

SANBI contains only the species of which there are herbarium specimens housed in the 

70

National Herbarium. This is therefore not regarded as a totally comprehensive and 

complete list, though it is considered as an extremely handy data base, containing 

scientifically based and proven data. 

7.7.1 Protected species 

The only protected tree that occurs in the area is Acacia erioloba (Camel Thorn), which 

may be present on the sandy plains. 

7.7.2 Threatened species 

A Threatened species and Species of Conservation Concern list for the Grid 2918BB 

was obtained from the POSA database on the SANBI website. Threatened species are 

those that are facing high risk of extinction, indicated by the categories Critically 

Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable. Species of Conservation Concern include the 

Threatened Species, but additionally have the categories Near Threatened, Data 

Deficient, Critically Rare, Rare and Declining. This is in accordance with the new Red 

List for South African Plants (Raimondo et al. 2009). 

Species of Conservation Concern (SANBI website, Quarter degree square Grid 

2918BB): 

Family Species Status Endemic 

Amaryllidaceae Brunsvigia herrei F.M.Leight. ex W.F.Barker VU No 

Mesembryanthemaceae Lithops olivacea L.Bolus VU Yes 

Mesembryanthemaceae Conophytum limpidum S.A.Hammer NT Yes 

Apocynaceae Hoodia gordonii (Masson) Sweet ex Decne. DDD No 

Amaryllidaceae Brunsvigia namaquana D.& U.Müll.-Doblies DDT No 

Mesembryanthemaceae Drosanthemum godmaniae L.Bolus DDT Yes 

Mesembryanthemaceae Trichodiadema obliquum L.Bolus DDT Yes 

Crassulaceae Adromischus diabolicus Toelken Rare Yes 

Crassulaceae Crassula exilis Harv. subsp. exilis Rare Yes 

Eriospermaceae Eriospermum pusillum P.L.Perry Rare Yes 

Lachenalia polypodantha Schltr. ex 

Hyacinthaceae 

W.F.Barker Rare Yes 

Mesembryanthemaceae Cephalophyllum staminodiosum L.Bolus Rare Yes 

Fabaceae Acacia erioloba E.Mey. Declining No 

71

Most of these species could occur on the rocky inselbergs and/or quartz plains, not 

present in the proposed sites for the development of the photovoltaic power generation 

facility. Acacia erioloba (Camel Thorn) may be present on the sandy plains. 

7.8 Land Use in the Zuurwater Area 

During the SKEP planning process, the dialogue between biodiversity groups and Anglo 

continued, and an agreement was reached to establish a partnership project: the 

Bushmanland Conservation Initiative (BCI)(Anglo American 2008). This partnership 

between conservation NGOs, the mining company and local communities aims to 

establish a multi-owned protected area through a variety of innovative interventions and 

mechanisms that draw in local landowners. The protected area will achieve conservation 

targets for biodiversity features in this priority area through a multi-use approach (see 

below). The BCI will develop local conservation management capacity through training 

local community members as conservators within the project management team. 

A Multi-use Landscape Plan included: 

• Areas under high protection 

• Areas managed for extensive grazing 

• Areas set aside for more intensive activities, including mining 

The initiative aims to demonstrate best-practice lessons for the engagement between 

mining and conservation. Central to this is creating a culture in which mining not only 

minimises adverse environmental impacts within its operations, but also works to 

positively enhance in situ biodiversity conservation. Anglo has made an in-principle 

commitment to make a substantial contribution to the BCI. This will include setting aside 

the land surrounding the Gamsberg mine for conservation within the BCI (Anglo 

American 2008). 

It is proposed that the Maasdorp family will remain on the farm and manage the rest of 

the farm for extensive grazing. 

72

Figure 26. A map indicating the Black Mountain Land Use Plan (SKEP 2008) with the Zuurwater 

area immediately west of the mining area (Image provided by SRK Consulting) 

The Land Use map (Figure 26) indicates that the proposed development is not located 

within Biodiversity Areas of Special Concern or of Importance, or with areas with Critical 

Plant Populations. 

From this perspective the proposed development site can be considered as suitable for 

the development of proposed photovoltaic power generation facility. 

73

7.9. Discussion 

Although there are no statutory conservation area within this vegetation type, very little of 

the area has been transformed. A local exception is in the mine area close to Aggeneys, 

where mining infrastructure and mine dumps, and also residential areas, transformed 

some land. 

All the results indicate that the area is of great biodiversity importance. However, the 

most important areas are the Inselbergs including their quartz gravel plateaus and foot 

slopes. The dry grassy plains are of relatively less biodiversity importance. Although the 

proposed development site is not located on the Inselbergs or quartz plains, it is still 

emphasized that these are considered as No-Go areas and should be protected. Any 

development on the property should be in accordance with the conservation policies of 

the relevant authorities. 

It is suggested that the proposed the development of proposed photovoltaic power 

generation facility be supported with the condition that the lay-out as shown in this 

document be strictly followed and no changes be done to the lay-out without consultation 

of the biodiversity specialists. 

74

7.10 References 

Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3 rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey 

of South Africa. 57: 1–146. 

Anglo American, 2008. The Bushmanland Conservation Initiative. International Council 

on Mining & Metals (ICMM). 

Bredenkamp, G.J. & Brown, L.R. 2001. Vegetation – A reliable ecological basis for 

environmental planning. Urban Greenfile Nov-Dec 2001: 38-39. 

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007. National Environmental 

Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically 

Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices. 

Low, A.B. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds) 1996 

Swaziland. Dept Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. 

Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 

Marsh, A, Desmet, P & Oosthuysen, E (2009). Namakwa District Municipality 

Biodiversity Sector Plan, Version 2, February 2009. Northern Cape Province Department 

of Tourism, Environment & Conservation (DTEC), Directorate: Policy Coordination and 

Environmental Planning, Springbok. 

Mucina, L, & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 

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. 

SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. 

DRAFT for Comment. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South 

Africa. 

75

SKEP, 2008. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Programme Phase 2. 

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983). 

The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 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). 

Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004. 

The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Draft 

List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape 

Town, 6 Nov 2009. 

The National Forest Act of 1998 (Act 84 0f 1998, amended in 2006) 

The Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003) 

76

8. RESULTS: MAMMALS 

Acocks (1988), Mucina and Rutherford (2006), Low & Rebelo (1996), Knobel and 

Bredenkamp (2006), SANBI & DEAT (2009) discuss the peculiar natural plant 

associations of the study area in broad terms. Rautenbach (1978 & 1982) found that 

mammal assemblages can at best be correlated with botanically defined biomes, such 

as those by Low and Rebelo (1996 & 1998), and latterly by Mucina and Rutherford 

(2006) as well Knobel and Bredenkamp (2006). Hence, although the former’s work has 

been superseded by the work of the latter two, the definitions of biomes are similar and 

both remain valid for mammals and are therefore recognized as a reasonable 

determinant of mammal distribution. 

The local occurrences of mammals are, on the other hand, closely dependent on broadly 

defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rockdwelling) 

and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the 

presence or absence of mammal species by evaluating the habitat types within the 

context of global distribution ranges. Sight records and information from residents or 

knowledgeable locals audit such deductions. 

8.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment 

Most of the study site comprises natural habitats, subject to relatively low stocking levels 

of livestock (sheep, goats, cattle, horses), with the most disturbed areas around water 

points, farm houses, access tracks and along the old road and water pipeline servitudes 

north of and more or less parallel to the N14. 

The local occurrences of mammals are closely dependent on broadly defined habitat 

types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rock-dwelling) and 

wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the presence or 

absence of mammal species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global 

distribution ranges. 

From a mammal habitat perspective, it was established that two of the four major 

habitats are very prominent on the study site, namely terrestrial and rupiculous (rock- 

78

dwelling) habitat. Very little arboreal and wetland-associated vegetation cover habitat 

occurs on the study site. 

Terrestrial habitat forms a large part of the study site and is of great ecological 

significance. Many mammal species have burrows or live almost permanently in the soil 

(Figure 29). The grassy plains are the most extensive habitat on site, characterised by 

the flat topography and red sandy surface, but with a mosaic of patches of grass and/or 

gravel (Figure 27). Most of these were found near the washes of the Koa River drainage 

system, but also extending up slopes to the feet of the various mountains and hills 

scattered across the landscape. The open plains grade into the red sand and dune 

fields. Very few termitaria or moribund termitaria, which are the preferred habitat for 

some mammal species, were found. 

The various rocky mountains (Windhoek, Hoedkop, Skelemberg) form prominent and 

well-defined habitats that support their own special biodiversity (Figure 30). These 

mountains and hills are an important habitat for rupiculous mammals. 

Although not obvious in dry conditions, during periods of exceptional rainfall there are 

watercourses that flow and pans that fill with water, supporting a range of unusual 

biodiversity (Figure 28). The Koa River wash with its associated pans are the most 

obvious. In the northeast corner of the study site a dam constructed by the mines 

provides permanent open water and relatively dense reeds and bushes, some of which 

overflow onto study site. 

Arboreal habitat is almost non-existent on the study site. A few Acacia species and 

other small trees and bushes occur scattered in the dunes. A few Quiver trees (Aloe 

dichotoma) occur on some of the mountain slopes. 

The 500 metres of adjoining zones along the study sites are similar to conditions 

described. The broader adjacent habitats are extensions of those present on site. 

79

Figure 27. A south-westerly view over the gravelly plain earmarked for the proposed 

development. Note the sparse basal cover. 

Figure 28. The dammed water in the Koa River wash and pan. This water body appears to be a 

permanent feature and as such probably support insects which can be expected to rise during 

summer sunsets and serve as feeding patches for hawking bats commuting from roosting sites in 

the various mountains on the property. 

80

Figure 29. An aardvark burrow in the Kalahari duneveld. 

Figure 30. The Bobbejaansgat Mountain. The many boulder overhangs and deep crevices are 

likely to offer suitable daytime roosting sites for bats. 

81

8.2 Observed and Expected Mammal Species Richness 

Of the 56 mammal species expected to occur on the study site (Table 1), no less than 22 

were confirmed during the site visit (Table 2). It should be noted that potential 

occurrences is interpreted as to be possible over a period of time as result of expansion 

and contractions of population densities and ranges which stimulate migration. All feral 

mammal species expected to occur on the study site (e.g. house mice, house rats, dogs 

and cats) were omitted from the assessment since these species normally associate with 

human settlements. 

Mammals reliant on wetland and arboreal habitats were a priori omitted from the list of 

occurrences since these habitat-types are absent from the study site. As such a species 

richness of 56 species in an area with average habitat diversity and a low carrying 

capacity is high. 

Table 1: Mammal diversity. The species observed or deduced to occupy the site. 

(Systematics and taxonomy as proposed by Bronner et.al [2003] and Skinner and 

Chimimba [2005]) 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

ENGLISH NAME 

* Macroscelides proboscideus Round-eared elephant shrew 

√ Elephantulus rupestris Western rock elephant shrew 

√ Orycteropus afer Aardvark 

√ Procavia capensis Rock dassie 

√ Lepus capensis Cape hare 

√ Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare 

√ Pronolagus rupestris Smith’s red rock rabbit 

√ Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape porcupine 

√ Petromus typicus Dassie rat 

√ Pedetes capensis Springhare 

√ Xerus inaurus South African ground squirrel 

? Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled dormouse 

* Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped grass mouse 

* Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse 

82

* Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse 

√ Parotomys brantsii Brant’s whistling rat 

√ Parotomys littledalei Littledale’s whistling rat 

* Desmodillus auricularis Cape short-tailed gerbil 

* Gerbillurus paeba Hairy-footed gerbil 

* Gerbillurus vallinus Brush-tailed hairy-footed gerbil 

DD* Gerbilliscus leucogaster Bushveld gerbil 

* Gerbilliscus brantsii Highveld gerbil 

? Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse 

* Malacothrix typical Gerbil mouse 

* Petromyscus collinus Pygmy rock mouse 

? Papio hamadryas Chacma baboon 

DD* Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew 

? Sauromys petrophilus Flat-headed free-tailed bat 

* Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat 

? Cistugo seabrai Angolan hairy bat 

* Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat 

? Eptesicus hottentotus Long-tailed serotine bat 

? Nycteris thebaica Egyptian slit-faced bat 

? Rhinolophus fumigatus Rüppel’s horseshoe bat 

NT? Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat 

NT? Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s horseshoe bat 

? Rhinolophus capensis Cape horseshoe bat 

? Rhinolophus denti Dent’s horseshoe bat 

√ Proteles cristatus Aardwolf 

√ Caracal caracal Caracal 

√ Felis silvestris African wild cat 

? Felis nigripes Black-footed cat 

* Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet 

* Suricata suricatta Suricate 

√ Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose 

? Galerella sanguinea Slender mongoose 

? Galerella pulverulenta Cape grey mongoose 

83

√ Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared fox 

√ Vulpes chama Cape fox 

√ Canis mesomelas Black-backed jackal 

NT? Mellivora capensis Honey badger 

* Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat 

√ Oryx gazella Gemsbok 

√ Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok 

Raphicerus campestris 

Steenbok 

√ Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer 

√ Definitely present or have a high probability to occur; 

* Medium probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters; 

? Low probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters. 

Red Data species rankings as defined in Friedmann and Daly’s S.A. Red Data Book / 

IUCN (World Conservation Union) (2004) are indicated in the first column: CR= Critically 

Endangered, En = Endangered, Vu = Vulnerable, LR/cd = Lower risk conservation 

dependent, LR/nt = Lower Risk near threatened, DD = Data Deficient. All other species 

are deemed of Least Concern. 

Table 2: Mammal species positively confirmed from the study site, observed indicators 

and habitat. 

SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION HABITAT 

NAME 

INDICATOR 

O. afer Aardvark Burrows Sandy substrates 

P. capensis Rock dassie Resident’s records Boulders & rock faces 

L. capensis Cape hare Resident’s records Short grass on plains 

L. saxatilis Scrub hare Resident’s records Short grass on plains 

P. rupestris Smith’s red rock rabbit Resident’s records Rocky, grassy slopes 

H. africaeaustralis Cape porcupine Resident’s records Broad adaption 

P. capensis Springhare Resident’s records Sandy plains 

X. inaurus SA ground squirrel Sight records Sandy plains 

P. brantsii Brant’s whistling rat Burrows Sandy plains 

84

P. littledalei Littledale’s whistling rat Burrows Sandy plains 

P. cristatus Aardwolf Resident’s records Sandy plains 

C. caracal Caracal Resident’s records Broad adaption 

F. silvestris African wild cat Resident’s records Broad adaption 

S. suricatta Suricate Resident’s records Sandy plains 

C. penicillata Yellow mongoose Resident’s records Broad adaption 

O. megalotis Bat-eared fox Resident’s records Sandy plains 

V. chama Cape fox Resident’s records Sandy plains 

C. mesomelas Black-backed jackal Resident’s records Broad adaption 

O. gazella Gemsbok Grassy plains 

A. marsupialis Springbok Sight records Grassy plains 

R. campestris Steenbok Resident’s records Grassy plains 

O. oreotragus Klipspringer Resident’s records Rocky terrain 

All 22 species are robust and widespread, mostly with the proviso that suitable habitat 

and sufficient space to maintain home ranges / territories are available. Given no or lowkey 

prosecution all species are capable of maintaining their presences in remote areas 

such as the site and surrounding properties. The N14 is obviously a main source of 

fatalities – several carcasses of bat-eared foxes road kills The rupiculous habitat 

available in the Hoedkop, Windhoek, Skelem and Bobbejaangat mountains are sufficient 

to amply provide for species such as dassies, red rock rabbits and klipspringers. 

8.3 Red Listed Mammals 

All Red Data species listed in Table 1 as Critically Endangered, Rare, Near Threatened 

or Data Deficient are discerning species and became endangered as result of the 

deterioration of their preferred habitats. 

No other Red Data or sensitive species are deemed present on the site, either since the 

site is too disturbed, falls outside the distributional ranges of some species, or does not 

offer suitable habitat(s). 

85

8.4 Discussion 

Four pertinent matters emerge from the list of mammals compiled during the site visit 

and the subsequent desktop study: 

5. the species assemblage is typical of a western semi-arid region (particularly species 

such as the elephants shrew species, the ground squirrel, the spectacled dormouse, 

the various gerbil species, the dassie rat, whistling rats, the black-footed cat, the bateared 

fox, the Cape fox, the gemsbok, the springbok etc.); 

6. the species richness of 56 is typical of an extensive area such as the property (5000 

ha) and of adjoining areas, with a near-natural degree of connectivity; 

7. land-use practices and civilization pressures are geared to low-key grazing with a 

focus on concomitant floral conservation to benefit year-round grazing, which are 

conducive to species richness; and 

8. field observations suggested that population levels were low during the site visit. 

Population fluctuations are not uncommon, and often have a domino effect (for 

instance when prey population densities decrease in numbers, this will have an 

adverse effect on carnivore and raptor numbers). 

The rest of the species richness is made up from common and robust mammals with 

wide distributional ranges such as aardvarks, springhares, four-striped grass mouse, 

porcupines, the caracal, the genet, the two mongoose species, the black-backed jackal 

etc. 

The role of insectivorous bats in an ecosystem is often under-estimated, whereas their 

susceptibility to reigning environmental conditions is under-appreciated. Bats are 

sensitive to adverse daytime environmental conditions and predation, and suitable 

daytime roosting sites are of cardinal importance. Especially the Bobbejaansgat 

Mountain has many boulders and rock faces forming many overhangs and deep crevices 

suitable for daytime roosts. The dammed water and marshland conditions in the Koa 

River Wash to the north-east of the site are likely to support insect populations for 

hawking bats. 

86

8.5 Conclusion 

The intended development will result in a progressive loss of ecological sensitive and 

important habitat units, ecosystem function e.g. reduction in water quality, loss of faunal 

habitat, and of loss/displacement of threatened or protected fauna. The main 

conservation objectives for mammals on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 are to retain 

untransformed the mountains and their gravel skirts, the deep red sands and dunes, and 

as much as possible of the Koa River washes and pans, and the untransformed adjacent 

grassy plains. The mountains, pans and dunes should be designated sensitive areas 

and excluded from any development, apart from low densities of livestock grazing. 


Acocks, J.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa, 3 rd ed. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey 

of South Africa. 



Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Mathee, C.A. & 

Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the 

southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates 28:56-103. 


Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically 

Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices. 

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDACE. 2009. 

Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng Provincial Government. 

GDACE Requirements for 

Friedman, Y. and Daly, B. (editors). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South 

Africa: A Conservation Asessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding 

Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa. 

87

Knobel, J. & Bredenkamp, G. 2005. The magnificent natural heritage of South Africa. 

Roggebaai, Sunbird Publishers. 

Low, A.E. & Rebelo, A.G. (eds). 1998. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 

Swaziland. A companion to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 

Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. 

Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. & Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of 

Southern African Mammals. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5. Transvaal Museum, 

Pretoria, RSA. 

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

Winchester, Cape Town, RSA. 

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 


Rautenbach, I.L. 1978. A numerical re-appraisal of the southern African biotic zones. 

Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 6:175-187. 

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

Pretoria, RSA. 

Russel, P.J., Wolfe, S.L., Hertz, P.E., Starr, C., Fenton, M.B., Addy, H., Maxwell, D., 

Haffie, T. and Davey, K. 2010. Biology: Exploring the Diversity of Life. First Canadian 

Edition. Nelson Education, Toronto. 1256pp. 

Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, T.C. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African 

Subregion. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press. 

Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The Mammals of the Southern African 

Subregion. 2nd edition. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. 

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

University of Pretoria. 

88

Taylor, P.J. 1998. The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press: 

Pietermaritzburg. 

Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of Southern Africa. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. 

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983). 

The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act 73 of 1989) 



89

9. RESULTS: AVIFAUNA 

9.1 General 

The habitat at the site occurs within the Nama Karoo biome (with Succulent Karoo just to 

the west) as identified for bird distributions (Allan et al. in Harrison et al. 1997) and more 

specifically the Bushmanland Sandy Grassland vegetation unit (NKb 4), with patches of 

Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld (SKr 19, Mucina & Rutherford 2006). Most of the study site 

comprises natural habitats, subject to relatively low stocking levels of livestock (sheep, 

goats, cattle, horses), with the most disturbed areas around water points, farm houses, 

access tracks and along the old road and water pipeline servitudes north of and more or 

less parallel to the N14. 

The aerial mobility of birds also demands attention to the principal habitats surrounding 

the study site and their conservation status, not just those along the immediate borders 

but also more distant habitats that might provide sources for species visiting the site and 

sinks for those breeding on site. In this context, the study site is situated in wide 

expanses of similar habitat, while more distant sources, such as the Gariep River gorges 

are of different habitat and less likely to influence the Aggeneys area. 

9.2 On-site Bird Habitat Assessment 

The four principal habitat types detected on and/or adjacent to the site, and considered 

most relevant to bird ecology and community structure, were: 

• Grassy plains. This habitat was most the most extensive on site, recognized by 

the flat topography and red sandy surface, but differing in a mosaic of patches by 

the amount of grass and/or gravel that was present. Most of it was found in the 

broad and ill-defined washes of the Koa River drainage system, but also 

extending up slopes to the feet of the various mountains and hills scattered 

across the landscape. It appeared dominated by Aristida spp., Stipagrostis 

uniplumis and Scmidtia kalahariensis grasses in the more grazed and/or 

disturbed areas, and by St. obtusa and St. ciliata in the deeper and more 

productive soils. Various herbs and a few woody shrubs were also present in the 

more variable and disturbed substrates. 

90

Figure 31. View north down the Koa River drainage where the deepest part passes under the 

N14, about where the eastern boundary of Zuurwater meets the road. Note the good but patchy 

stands of grasses, few woody plants, and the mountains, Hoedkop (left) around Aggeneys in the 

background (right). 

Figure 32. View west from the east boundary of Zuurwater, with Hoedkop on the centre and 

Skelemberg on the left horizon, showing the open flats of the Koa wash with the Springbok 

powerline on the right side of the proposed northeast end of the PV arrays. 

91

Figure 33. View east from the Zuurwater farmhouse, showing a Karoo Korhaan in the 

overgrazed plains on a calcrete substrate with shallow soils and some Rhigozum 

trichotomum shrubs, the sort of habitat at the south end of the PV array. 

• Red sand plains and dune fields. The open plains grade into the red sand and 

dune fields, but most noticeable is that the various gravels are no longer on the 

surface, the grass clumps are larger but more widely spaced, and some trees as 

well as shrubs grow in these deeper soils. Various Stipagrostis grasses are still 

present in the flatter areas, especially the large-seeded St. ciliata and some 

Brachiaria glomerulata, with the tall coarse St. amabilis more common on the 

dune crests and Centropodia glauca on the deeper rolling sands. Small 

Parkinsonia trees, and the similar Prosopis alien together with a few Acacia 

species, are scattered in the dunes, while Rhigozum bushes are also 

widespread. 

92

Figure 34. View east from a dune crest in the northern dune fields, looking across a dune street 

with a lone Acacia karroo to the Springbok power lines coming from the Eskom substation behind 

the Aggeneys hills on the left. 

Figure 35. View south west from rocky outcrop at crest of the northern dune field on Zuurwater, 

showing the tussocky grass, few trees/bushes and the Koa wash behind, with the Skelemberg on 

the left and Hoedkop on the right. 

93

Figure 36. View north from the southern sandy area with mainly Centropodia grass, looking north 

of the eastern half of the Windhoekberg (with the N14 passing at the extreme left of the picture. 

• Bare washes and pans. Although not obvious under the dry conditions of our 

visit, during periods of exceptional rainfall there are watercourses that flow and 

pans that fill with water, supporting a range of unusual biodiversity and a major 

attractant to water birds. The Koa River wash is the most obvious, with Pans 1 & 

2 in its bed, but these satellite images and elevated images (see 4 below) also 

show a network of minor 'tributaries' draining off the surrounding slopes and 

mountains, often with a more vegetated 'gutter' around their edges. The previous 

marsh, now converted to a dam by the mines at the northeast corner, provides 

permanent open water and relatively dense reeds and bushes, some of which 

overflows onto Zuurwater. Bushes and temporary marginal vegetation also forms 

around the dry pans after high rainfall seasons. 

94

Figure 37. View west from northeast corner of Zuurwater, showing the pan just inside the 

fenceline that forms the downstream end and overflow of water from the mine dam/vlei just 

outside the farm. Hoedkop ison the horizon. 

Figure 38. View west down the main Koa River wash where it would flow into the wide expanese 

of Pan 1, looking along the fence line that marks the approximate northern edge of the PV array 

and also the ecotone between the open plains (left) and the start (right) of the northern dune 

fields. Hoedkop is in the background, with Pan 2 near its base. 

95

Figure 39. View west towards Hoedkop, looking across Pan 2 and the water that accumulated in 

the ditch dug across its centre from the unexpected 30 mm of rain that fell the fortnight before. 

• Rocky mountains and gravel skirts. The various rocky mountains that protrude 

from the flat landscape form prominent and well-defined habitats that support 

their own special biodiversity of plants and animals. Most range run east-west, 

their southern slopes more shaded, facing the prevailing moist winds, and 

accumulating blown sand at their bases, the northern slopes warmer, drier, and 

with more wind erosion. Quiver tree/Kokerboom Aloe dichotoma and Boscia 

albitrunca are their largest and most obvious woody plants, and a diversity of 

succulents are also characteristic. Rocks and gravels of various sizes form 'skirts' 

as they accumulate around the bases. 

96

Figure 40. Panoramic view along the south side of Windhoekberg W, showing the steep, shaded 

southern slope, the collections of rocks and gravels forming a skirt around its base, and the small 

drainage lines formed by previous runoff. Note the lack of mountains to the west towards 

Springbok and the Namaqualand habitats. 

Figure 41. Panoramic view over the north side of Skelemberg, showing the less steep, sunny 

northern slope, with fewer rocks and gravels forming less of a skirt around its base, but many 

small drainage lines from previous runoff and denser bushes around the 'gutter'. Hoedkop is on 

the left and the Aggeneys mountains on the centre horizon. 

97

Figure 42. Patch of green vegetation formed on the gravel skirt below the north slope of the 

western Windhoekberg, from runoff and seepage after the 30 mm of rain that fell a fortnight 

previously. 

Figure 43. Flowers blooming and succulents growing on the gravel skirt below the north slope of 

the western Windhoekberg, after the 30 mm of rain that fell a fortnight previously. 

98

Figure 44. A patch of succulent mesembryanthemums/vygies flowering on a patch of rocks and 

gravels at the crest of red dunes just south of Aggeneys, after the 30 mm of rain that fell a 

fortnight previously. Hoedkop on the left and Skelemberg on the right horizon. 

Otherwise, the broader habitats adjacent to the study sites are mainly extensions of 

those present on site, or mentioned specifically in the habitat types described above. 

99

Table 1: Rating of recognised on-site avian habitats (site + 500 m buffer) on the farm 

Zuurwater, with assessment of a site(s) for solar panel tables on the property. 

Conservation Priority 

Sensitivity 

Mediumhiglow 

Medium- 

High 

Medium 

Avian Habitats 

Low High Low 

1. Grassy plains X X 

2. Red sands/dunes X X 

3. Bare washes/pans X X 

4. Rocky mountain 

and gravel skirts 

X 

X 

9.3. Expected and Observed Bird Species Diversity 

I assessed that 167 bird species have a high, medium or low probability of occurrence 

on site, based on the habitats available, and of these I confirmed the presence of 44 

species (27%), which offers a good sample in support of general species:habitat 

correlations (Table 2). The number would surely have been higher if we had spent more 

days in search of species, if the surveys had started earlier and extended later in the 

day/night, and if we had covered every sector in more detail. In these arid conditions, 

different seasons and rainfall are also relevant. I scored 73 species (46%) as having a 

high probability of occurrence, 53 species (32%) a medium probability and 41 species 

(25%) a low probability, and of these I confirmed the presence of 42, 1 and 1 species, 

respectively. The total number of species expected would be much larger if other unlikely 

species that are only recorded as rare vagrants to the area were not excluded from this 

analysis due to inadequate availability of their preferred habitat(s). 

The ford different habitat types that I distinguished either supported or are expected to 

support somewhat different species of birds (Table 2). I generally did not assign aerialfeeding 

species, such as swifts, martins and swallows, to a specific habitat on site, 

except for those habitats that offered potential nesting habitats, since they feed wherever 

aerial wind-borne plankton is available. Only 9 generalist species (5%) are expected to 

use all four habitat-types, excluding 11 species (7%) classed as aerial feeders and 

expected to range across all habitats when feeding. Forty-six species (28%) preferred 

three habitats, 46 (28%) preferred two, and 49 (30%) only a single habitat type, and 

100

ather even distribution using 1-3 habitats. Based on a total of 339 assessments of 

predicted habitat preference, red sand and dunes were the richest and most distinctive 

habitat, predicted to be used by 102 (62%) for the expected species. Grassy plains are 

preferred by an estimated 83 species (51%), with 77 species (47%) in the bare washes 

and pans and 66 species (40%) on the rocky mountains and their gravel bases. The 11 

aerial-feeding species are included within the above analysis, not for all the habitats they 

range across when feeding, but only for the terrestrial habitats some might use for 

breeding. Overall, the different habitats attracted a more similar number of bird species 

than in more mesic areas, with red sand/dunes only 1.55 more attractive than the least 

attractive mountains (and the other plain and pan habitats only slightly more attractive).. 

Table 2: Bird species diversity observed and expected on and around Portion 3 of the 

farm Zuurwater 62 near Aggeneys, Northern Cape (2918BC). Based on the national list 

and annotations of Birdlife South Africa (2011), sorted in the order of ‘Roberts VII’ 

(Hockey et al., 2005), with probability of occurrence and habitat preferences assessed 

after a site visit on 27-28 June 2011. 

Common English Name 

Scientific Name 

Probability of Preferred 

Status Codes 

occurrence 

Habitats 

(see below) 

(see 5.4 above) (see 6.2 above) 

RD S E High Medium Low 1 2 3 4 

Common Ostrich Struthio camelus L X X X 

Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa L X 

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca M X 

South African Shelduck Tadorna cana H X 

Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis L X 

Cape Teal Anas capensis H X 

Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata M X 

Cape Shoveler Anas smithii M X 

Red-billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha M X 

Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma M X 

Acacia Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas H X X 

African Hoopoe Upupa africana H X X X X 

Swallow-tailed Bee-eater Merops hirundineus H X X X X 

European Bee-eater Merops apiaster B/NBM M X X X 

White-backed Mousebird Colius colius H X X X 

Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus M X X X 

101

Burchell’s Coucal Centropus burchellii L X 

Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba BM H Aerial 

Common Swift Apus apus NBM M Aerial 

Bradfield’s Swift Apus bradfieldi H Aerial 

Little Swift Apus affinis H Aerial,4 

White-rumped Swift Apus caffer BM H Aerial,1 

Barn Owl Tyto alba H X X X X 

Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis H X X 

Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus H X X X X 

Freckled Nightjar Caprimulgus tristigma M X 

Rufous-cheeked Nightjar Caprimulgus rufigena BM H X X X 

Rock Dove Columba livia L X 

Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea H X 

Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis M X X X 

Cape Turtle-Dove Streptopelia capicola H X X X 

Namaqua Dove Oena capensis H X X X 

Ludwig’s Bustard Neotis ludwigii Vul H X X 

Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori Vul M X X 

Karoo Korhaan Eupodotis vigorsii H X X 

African Rail Rallus caerulescens L X 

Red-knobbed coot Fulica cristata M X 

Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua H X X X 

Double-banded Sandgrouse Pterocles bicinctus L X X X 

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis NBM M X 

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia NBM M X 

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola NBM M X 

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos NBM M X 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres NBM L X 

Little Stint Calidris minuta NB L X 

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea NBM L X 

Ruff Philomachus pugnax NBM M X 

Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis H X X X 

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus H X 

Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta H X 

Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula NBM L X 

Kittlitz’s Plover Charadrius pecuarius M X 

Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris H X 

Chestnut-banded Plover Charadrius pallidus NT H X 

Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus L X 

Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus H X X 

Double-banded Courser Rhinoptilus africanus H X X 

Burchell's Courser Cursorius rufus H X X X 

102

White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus NBM L X 

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus M X X 

Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius M X X 

Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis H X X X 

Black Harrier Circus maurus NT (*) L X X 

Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus M X X X 

Gabar Goshawk Melierax gabar L X X X 

Steppe Buzzard Buteo buteo NBM M X X X 

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus (*) H X X X 

Verreaux’s Eagle Aquila verreauxii H X 

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Vul M X X X 

Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius Vul L X X 

Pygmy Falcon Polihierax semitorquatus L X X X 

Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus H X X X 

Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides H X X 

Red-necked Falcon Falco chicquera L X X 

Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus NT M X X X 

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis M X 

Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia L X 

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea M X 

Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala L X X X 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis M X X X 

Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus L X 

Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus H X X X 

Pririt Batis Batis pririt M X X X 

Cape Crow Corvus capensis H X X 

Pied crow Corvus albus H X X 

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio NBM L X X 

Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor NBM L X X 

Common Fiscal Lanius collaris H X X X X 

Cape Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus L X X 

Ashy Tit Parus cinerascens L X X 

Grey Tit Parus afer (*) L X X 

Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola L Aerial,3 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica NBM H Aerial 

White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis BM M Aeria,3l 

Greater Striped Swallow Cecropis cucullata BM M Aerial,1,4 

Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula H Aerial 

Common House-Martin Delichon urbicum NBM M Aerial 

African Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans H X X X 

Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita (*) M X X X 

Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis L X X X 

103

Karoo Eremomela Eremomela gregalis (*) M X X X 

Lesser Swamp-Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris L X 

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

Orange River White-eye Zosterops pallidus M X X X 

Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla H X X X 

Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis M X X 

Tawny-flanked Prinia Prinia subflava L X 

Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa (*) M X X X 

Namaqua Warbler Phragmacia substriata (*) L X 

Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis M X X 

Cinnamon-breasted Warbler Euryptila subcinnamomea (*) H X 

Cape Clapper Lark Mirafra apiata (*) H X X 

Sabota Lark Calendulauda sabota H X X X 

Fawn-coloured Lark Calendulauda africanoides M X X 

Red Lark Calendulauda burra Vul * H X X 

Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens (*) H X X 

Spike-heeled Lark Chersomanes albofasciata H X X 

Karoo Long-billed Lark Certhilauda subcoronata H X 

Black-eared Sparrowlark Eremopterix australis (*) H X X 

Grey-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix verticalis H X X 

Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea H X X X 

Stark’s Lark Spizocorys starki M X X 

Pink-billed Lark Spizocorys conirostris L X X 

Sclater’s Lark Spizocorys sclateri NT (*) M X X 

Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris (*) L X X 

Short-toed Rock-Thrush Monticola brevipes M X 

Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi (*) M X X 

Chat Flycatcher Bradornis infuscatus L X X 

Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata NBM L X X X 

Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra M X X 

Karoo Scrub-Robin Erythropygia coryphoeus H X X X X 

Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola H X X X 

Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata H X X 

Sickle-winged Chat Cercomela sinuata (*) H X X 

Karoo Chat Cercomela schlegelii H X X X 

Tractrac Chat Cercomela tractrac H X X 

Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris H X X 

Ant-eating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora H X X 

Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup M X X X 

Cape Glossy Starling Lamprotornis nitens M X X X 

Wattled Starling Creatophora cinerea M X X X 

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris I L X 

104

Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa L X 

Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus (*) L X 

Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus H X X X 

Scaly-feathered Finch Sporopipes squamifrons H X X 

Sociable Weaver Philetairus socius H X X X 

Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus H X X 

Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea M X X X 

Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix M X X X 

Red-headed Finch Amadina erythrocephala M X X 

Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild M X X X 

Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura L X X X X 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus I M X 

Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus H X X X X 

Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus L X X X 

African Pied Wagtail Motacilla aguimp L X 

Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis H X 

African Rock Pipit Anthus crenatus (*)? M X 

African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus H X X 

Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis H X 

Black-headed Canary Serinus alario (*) H X X X X 

Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis H X X 

Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris H X X X 

White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis H X X 

Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani H X X X 

Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis M X 

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

T = Threatened BM = breeding migrant Endemism in South Africa (E) (not southern Africa as in 

NT = Near-Threatened 

NBM = non-breeding migrant field guides) 

Vul = Vulnerable 

V = vagrant 

* = endemic 

E = Endangered 

I = introduced 

CE = Critically Endangered R = rare 

(*) = near endemic (i.e. ~70% or more of population in 

RSA) 

RE = Regionally Extinct PRB = probable rare breeder B* = breeding endemic 

§ = Refer to footnote RB = rare breeder B(*) = breeding near endemic 

RV = rare visitor 

W* = winter endemic 

Red Status is from The Eskom 

Red Data Book of Birds of South 

Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, 

Barnes (2001). 

105

9.4. Threatened and Red-Listed Bird Species 

Nine species of international and/or national conservation concern (Red Data species, 

IUCN/Birdlife International 2011, Barnes 2000), ranging from Near Threatened to 

Vulnerable, were considered as possible to occur on site, of which two were recorded 

during the survey (Ludwig's Bustard, Red Lark) and a third reported by the landowner 

(Kori Bustard). Most of these threatened species fall into a few obvious categories by 

habitat preference (Table 3) and their likelihood of occurrence on site (Table 4). 

Table 3: List of threatened species that will possibly make use of the habitats on and 

around Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62, showing their preferred habitat types. Note 

that one species may have more than one habitat preference. 

Preferred Habitat Type(s) 

Threatened 

Species Grassy Red 

Bare Rocky mountains 

Status 

plains sand/dunes washes/pans & gravel 

Near 

Threatened 

Chestnut-banded 

Plover 

X 

Black Harrier X X 

Lanner Falcon X X X X 

Sclater's Lark 

X 

Vulnerable Ludwig's Bustard X X X 

Kori Bustard X X X 

Martial Eagle X X X 

Secretarybird X X X 

Red Lark X X 

TOTALS 9 7 7 6 2 

106

Table 4: The expected frequency of occurrence of threatened bird species on and 

around Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 63. 

Probability of occurrence on site 

Threatened Status 

Species 

Regular 

resident 

Frequent 

visitor 

Erratic 

visitor 

Infrequent 

vagrant 

Near Threatened Chestnut-banded Plover X 

Black Harrier 

X 

Lanner Falcon 

X 

Sclater's Lark 

X 

Vulnerable Ludwig's Bustard X 

Kori Bustard 

X 

Martial Eagle 

X 

Secretarybird 

X 

Red Lark 

X 

TOTALS 9 2 2 5 0 

These analyses indicate that by far the most important habitats to conserve for 

threatened species are the grassy plains and the red sand/dunes, with the bare washes 

and pans also important at the times when they are productive after rains. However, the 

grassy plains form part of extensive similar habitat in the area, while the red dunes are 

more restricted but also much more productive, for livestock and birds alike, including 

the Red Lark that is a restricted-range endemic to Bushmanland. The bare washes/pans 

(for Chestnut-banded Plover) and gravel fields (for Sclater's Lark) are only really 

productive after good rains, while the mountains have nest sites for the Lanner Falcon 

when good rains attract large numbers of nomadic insect- and seed-eating birds. 

Two Vulnerable species are expected to be regular breeding residents (Ludwig's 

Bustard and Red Lark). The Vulnerable Martial Eagle and Secretarybird, and the New 

Threatened Lanner Falcon are expected to be regular visitors to the area, when their 

prey animals are abundant, but while no sufficiently large trees were seen as likely nest 

sites for the Eagle or Secretarybird, the large south-facing cliffs, especially on Hoedkop, 

could well support nesting ledges for the falcon, as they apparently do for Verreaux's 

Eagle. The Vulnerable 

107

The remaining four threatened species are expected to be erratic visitors when high 

rainfall creates productive conditions (plant cover, seeds, insects, small vertebrates). 

Some are resident species in the general area of the Northern Cape whose ephemeral 

habitats on the property are also only likely to become suitable after good rains, the 

Chestnut-banded Plover visiting and possibly feeding and breeding in/around the more 

saline pans and Sclater's Lark using large grass seeds on the few chalky gravel 

patches. The Kori Bustard generally prefers higher rainfall areas with more ground 

cover and productivity, so although they do sometimes visit the area it seems unlikely 

that they breed there. Finally, the Black Harrier is expected only as an erratic, nonbreeding 

winter visitor to the area from the western Cape, again most likely when good 

rains have produced abundant small animals. 

9.5. General Conclusions 

The main conservation objectives for birds on Portion 3 of the farm Zuurwater 62 are to 

retain untransformed the mountains and their gravel skirts, the deep red sands and 

dunes, and as much as possible of the Koa River washes and pans, together with 

whatever of the adjacent grassy plains is not transformed by the proposed solar PV 

electricity generation facility. The mountains, pans and dunes should be designated 

sensitive areas and excluded from any development, apart from low densities of 

livestock grazing. Of 169 bird species recorded and/or expected on Zuurwater, nine are 

threatened species, of which the resident, near-endemic, habitat-specific and rangerestricted 

Ludwig's Bustard and Red Lark are both considered Vulnerable by IUCN 

criteria. The PV array is not considered a direct threat to any bird species, given its 

limited impact in space (

9.6 Limitations, Assumptions and Gaps in Knowledge 

The primary data for this assessment came from the distribution and status information 

collected for southern African birds during the SABAP1 atlas project, and is therefore 

only as accurate and reliable as the limitations and assumptions described for that 

exercise (Harrison et al. 1997), augmented with information from the key Roberts VII 

reference (Hockey et al. 2005). I also had access to suitable databases, information and 

identification resources, and did not consider that the present assignment warranted a 

more detailed (and expensive) survey, even though summer migrants were absent. My 

personal field experience includes work with birds around Pomander and in the then 

Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, and community surveys across a wide range of 

southern African habitats. 

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) attempt to provide an accurate but subjective 

study of the main environmental factors and possible mitigation measures that might 

apply to a given development proposal. EIAs are limited in scope, time and budget, even 

though every care is taken to ensure their accuracy. Even a more factual report, based 

on field sampling and observation over several years and seasons, to account for 

fluctuating environmental conditions and migrations, may be insufficient since one is 

dealing with dynamic natural systems, especially for birds that have such a mobile 

response to changing conditions. The lack of avian experience with local PV array 

developments, especially in the habitats around Aggeneys is also relevant. I offer this 

EIA in good faith, based on the information available to me at the time, but cannot accept 

responsibility for subsequent changes in knowledge or conditions. 


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

and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg. 

BirdLife South Africa. 2011. Checklist of Birds in South Africa 2011. BirdLife South 

Africa, Johannesburg. 



Convention on Biological Diversity. Signed 1993 and ratified 2 November 1995. 

109


Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of 

Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. 

Government Notices. 

Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment (2009). GDACE 

Minimum Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 2. Directorate 

Nature Conservation, Johannesburg 

Gibbon, G. 1997. Roberts VI PDA, version 3. SABirding, Durban 

Harrison, J.A., Allan, D.G., Underhill, L.G., Herremans, M., Tree, A.J., Parker, V. & 

Brown, C.J. (eds.). 1997. The Atlas of Southern African Birds. Vol. 1 & 2. BirdLife 

South Africa, Johannesburg. 

Hockey, P. A. R., Dean, W. R. J. & Ryan, P. G. (eds) 2005. Roberts – Birds of Southern 

Africa, VIIth ed. The Trustees of the John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. 

IUCN Red List. Birds. 2011. Birdlife International, www.birdlife.org. 

Knobel, J. & Bredenkamp, G. 2005. The magnificent natural heritage of South Africa. 

Roggebaai, Sunbird Publishers. 

Mucina, L, & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds.) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 


National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). 

SANBI & DEAT. 2009. Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps. 

DRAFT for Comment. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South 

Africa. 

Sinclair, I, Hockey, P. & Tarboton, W. 2002. Sasol birds of southern Africa, 3rd Edn. 

Struik, Cape Town 

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) 

The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) 

the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA, Act No. of 2002) 


The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). 

Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004. 

The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act 10 0f 2004). Draft 

List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape 

Town, 6 Nov 2009. 


110

The Natural Scientific Professions Act (Act 27 of 2003) 

111

10. RESULTS: HERPETOFAUNA 

10.1. Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment 

The vegetation types of the site are the Bushmanland Arid Grassland vegetation unit 

(NKb 3), Bushmanland Sandy Grassland vegetation unit (NKb 4) with patches of the 

Bushmanland Inselberg Schrubland (SKr 18) and Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld (SKr 19) 

(Mucina & Rutherford 2006). 

Most of the study site comprises natural habitats, subject to relatively low stocking levels 

of livestock (sheep, goats, cattle, horses), with the most disturbed areas around water 

points, farm houses, access tracks and along the old road and water pipeline servitudes 

north of and more or less parallel to the N14. 

The local occurrences of reptiles and amphibians are closely dependent on broadly 

defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rockdwelling) 

and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the 

presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species by evaluating the habitat types 

within the context of global distribution ranges. 

From a herpetological habitat perspective, it was established that two of the four major 

habitats are naturally present and very prominent on the study site, namely terrestrial 

and rupiculous (rock-dwelling) habitat. 

Very little arboreal and wetland-associated vegetation cover habitat occurs on the study 

site. The scarcity of trees on the study site makes this habitat type almost non-existent. 

However the same cannot be said about the wetlands and their associated vegetation 

cover habitat as these are very important in a dry area such as the study site. 

112

Figure 45. A north-easterly view from Windhoekberg towards Springbok. Note the two main 

habitat types of the study: terrestrial to the left and rupiculous towards the right. 

Terrestrial habitat forms a large part of the study site and is of great ecological 

significance. Many herpetofauna species have burrows or live almost permanently in the 

soil. The grassy plains are the most extensive habitat on site, characterised by the flat 

topography and red sandy surface, but with a mosaic of patches of grass and/or gravel. 

Most of these were found near the washes of the Koa River drainage system, but also 

extending up slopes to the feet of the various mountains and hills scattered across the 

landscape. 

The open plains grade into the red sand and dune fields, but most noticeable is that the 

various gravels are no longer on the surface and the grass clumps are larger, but more 

widely spaced. Very few termitaria or moribund termitaria, which are the preferred 

habitat for many herpetofauna species, were found. 

113

Figure 46. A view of red dunes and their vegetation in the foreground. Skelemberg is on the 

right-hand side and in the distance Windhoekberg lies on the left-hand side. 

The various rocky mountains (Windhoek, Hoedkop, Skelemberg etc.) that protrude from 

the flat landscape form prominent and well-defined habitats that support their own 

special biodiversity. These mountains and hills are a very important habitat for 

rupiculous herpetofauna. 

Figure 47. Typical natural rupiculous habitat on the unnamed hill near the farmhouse. 

114

Figure 48. Habitat on Skelemberg. Note the rupiculous habitat on the left and the red sand and 

dunes to the left. 

Man-made rupiculous habitat exists in the form of a farm house and its surrounding 

outbuildings, disused cement dams, old farm worker accommodation and building 

rubble. A few quarries also provide additional rupiculous habitat. These man-made 

habitats are often islands in the sea of terrestrial habitat and have created excellent 

artificial habitat for many rupiculous reptile species. 

Figure 49. Man-made rupiculous habitat in natural terrestrial habitat. Often many species use 

these structures for refuge. 

115

Figure 50. Man-made quarry on the western side of the study site. 

Windhoekberg. 

In the background is 

Although not obvious in dry conditions, during periods of exceptional rainfall there are 

watercourses that flow and pans that fill with water, supporting a range of unusual 

biodiversity. The Koa River wash is the most obvious, together with its pans. 

Figure 51. A dry pan in the Koa River drainage line with Skelemberg on the left. 

In the direction of Hoedkopberg there is a man-made dam wall that catches the water in 

the Koa River drainage line. 

116

Figure 52. A man-made dam in the Koa River drainage line, with Hoedkopberg in the 

background. 

In the northeast corner of the study site, the former marsh, now converted to a dam by 

the mines, provides permanent open water and relatively dense reeds and bushes, 

some of which overflow onto study site. Bushes and temporary marginal vegetation also 

form around the dry pans after high rainfall seasons. 

Figure 53. A view west from the man-made dam in the northeast corner of the study site. Note 

Hoedkopberg in the background. 

117

In the western corner of the study site a small cement weir is built in a drainage line from 

the Bobbejaansgat, and provides permanent water. 

Figure 54. An easterly view from Bobbejaansgat towards Windhoekberg. Note the cement weir 

and the pool of water in the foreground. Such artificial aquatic sources can create habitat for the 

Namaqua stream frog and other frog species. 

Although not abundant on the study site, these limited permanent and temporary water 

sources provide important habitat for moisture-reliant herpetofauna. 

All rivers, streams and wetlands in the Northern Cape Province are protected and are 

regarded as sensitive. 

Arboreal habitat is almost non-existent on the study site. A few Acacia species and 

other small trees and bushes are scattered in the dunes. In the mountains Quiver trees 

(Aloe dichotoma) are the largest and most obvious woody plants. 

118

Figure 55. A view to the west from Windhoekberg. Note the few quiver trees. The farmhouse is 

in the centre of the picture with flat terrestrial habitat surrounding it. On the left is Skelemberg 

and in the distance on the right lies Ghaamsberg. 

A very important aspect of arboreal habitat is dead logs that normally provide shelter and 

food for some herpetofauna. With the exception of a few dead quiver trees, almost no 

such micro habitat exists on the study site. 

The 500 metres of adjoining zones along the study sites are similar to conditions 

described. The broader adjacent habitats are extensions of those present on site. 

Connectivity as a whole is fair and real opportunities for migration exist. The major 

obstacle for migration is the N14 national road that bisects the study site to the south. 

10.2. Observed and Expected Herpetofauna Species Richness 

The Northern Cape is renowned for its biodiversity and the herpetofauna is no exception 

to the rule. It is especially true for reptiles in general and lizards in particular. Many 

species in this area are endemic. Often a herpetafauna species is called by its common 

name, Namaqua. Namaqualand (Succulent Karoo biome) lies west, near the town 

Springbok and the study site in the Bushmanland (Nama Karoo biome), thus the study 

site falls outside the natural range of most of these endemics. 

119

Very few trees occur on the study site, which provided habitat for arboreal (tree-living) 

herpetofauna. As a result arboreal species like the Kalahari tree skink are excluded from 

the species list. 

The farm owner, Mr Deon Maasdorp, gave me a list of herpetofauna species he has 

found on his farm. Some interesting observations he and his family have make in the 

few years they have farmed on the study site, were that they have never seen a single 

frog, but have observed rock monitors on the property. 

Of the 56 reptile species, which are deduced to possibly occupy the study site (Table 1), 

six were confirmed during the site visit (Table 2) and of the possible 11 amphibian 

species which may occur on the study site (Table 1), none was confirmed during the site 

visit (Table 2). The number of species would certainly have been higher if the survey 

had been conducted during the summer months, especially after good rains. The three 

Red Data reptiles which may occur on the study site are discussed below. No exotic 

herpetofauna species are expected to occur on the study site. 

The species assemblage is typical of what can be expected in a fairly natural 

environment, with sufficient habitat to sustain populations. Most of the species of the 

resident diversity (Table 1) are fairly common and widespread (viz. Karoo tent tortoise, 

brown house snake, common egg eater, puff adder, horned adder, Cape cobra, Bibron’s 

tubercled gecko, giant ground gecko, Anchieta’s agama and western rock skink). 

The high species richness expected on the study site is due to the size of the study site, 

the renowned endemic biodiversity of the Northern Cape and the presence of three of 

the four habitat types. The excellent presence of rupiculous habitats have also enhanced 

the species richness. 

10.3. Red Data Listed Reptiles 

The study site area falls outside the natural range of the speckled padloper, Namaqua 

day Gecko, Lawrence’s girdled lizard, Armadillo girdled lizard, Lomi’s blind legless skink, 

120

Namaqua dwarf adder and the Southern African python, and these species should not 

occur on the study site. 

The Namaqua plated lizard inhabits dry sandy areas and are rocky hillsides (McLachlan 

1988), which occur in abundance on the study site. This species has been recorded 

from Springbok (McLachlan 1988). Although the possibility is very small that this species 

may occur on the study site, it might be there nonetheless. 

Very few Fisk’s house snake specimens are ever collected and little is known of its 

biology. There is a specimen collected from Steinkopf in the Ditsong National Museum 

of Natural History (Transvaal Museum) (Broadley 1990). It is very difficult to confirm 

whether this cryptic snake is present on any study site, but it is highly unlikely that it 

occurs on this particular study site. 

10.4. Red Data Listed Amphibians 

The study site area falls outside the natural range of giant bullfrogs, desert rain frog and 

the Karoo caco, and these species should not occur on the study site. 

The Namaqua stream frog occurs in areas which receive annual rainfall of < 60mm. In 

this arid environment, these frogs are restricted to the proximity of springs, seps, small 

permanent and non-permanent streams and artificial impoundments. (Channing 2004). 

The study site contains some of these water sources and the fact that a fragmented subpopulation 

has been recorded at the nearby Ghaamsberg, makes the occurrence of this 

frog species on the study site a real possibility. 

Due to this it is very important that all the water sources and drainage lines on the study 

site should be excluded from any development. 

121

Table 1: Reptile and Amphibian species diversity observed on or deduced to be on 

Portion 3 of the farm Suurwater 63 near Aggeneys, Northern Cape (2918BC). 

Systematic arrangement and nomenclature according to Branch (1998), Alexander and 

Marais (2007), Minter, et.al (2004) & Du Preez and Carruthers (2009). 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

ENGLISH NAME 

CLASS: REPTILIA 

REPTILES 

Order: TESTUDINES 

TORTOISES & TERRAPINS 

Family:Testudinidae 

Tortoises 

√ Psammobates tentorius verraxii Karoo Tent Tortoise 

Order: SQUAMATA 

SCALE-BEARING REPTILES 

Suborder:LACERTILIA 

LIZARDS 

Family: Gekkonidae 

Geckos 

√ Chondrodactylus angulifer Giant Ground Gecko 

* Goggia lineate Striped Dwarf Leaf-toed Gecko 

? Goggia rupicola Namaqualand Dwarf Leaf-toed Gecko 

? Lygodactylus bradfieldi Bradfield’s Dwarf Gecko 

√ Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron’s Tubercled or Thick-toed Gecko 

? Pachydactylus labialis Western Cape Thick-toed or Western 

Cape Gecko 

? Pachydactylus capensis Cape Thick-toed or Cape Gecko 

√ Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Thick-toed Gecko 

? Pachydactylus namaquensis Namaqua Thick-toed Gecko 

? Pachydactylus rugosus Rough Thick-toed Gecko 

√ Ptenopus garrulus Barking Gecko 

Family: Agamidae 

Agamas 

? Agama aculeata Ground Agama 

√ Agama anchietae Anchieta’s Agama 

√ Agama atra Southern Rock Agama 

Family:Chamaeleonidae 

Chameleons 

√ Chamaeleo namaquensis Namaqua Chameleon 

Family: Scincidae 

Skinks 

122

√ Acontias lineatus Striped Legless Skink 

? Acontias gracilicauda namaquensis Thin-tailed Legless Skink 

√ Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink 

√ Trachylepis occidentalis Western Three-striped Skink 

√ Trachylepis sulcata Western Rock Skink 

Family:Lacertidae 

Old World Lizards or Lacertids 

√ Meroles suborbitalis Spotted Desert Lizard 

? Pedioplanis laticeps Cape Sand Lizard 

√ Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard 

√ Pedioplanis namaquensis Namaqua Sand Lizard 

* Pedioplanis inornata Plain Sand Lizard 

* Nucras tessellata Western Sandveld Lizard 

Family: Gerrhosauridae 

Plated Lizards 

? Cordylosaurus subtessellatus Dwarf Plated lizard 

?Vu Gerhosaurus typicus Namaqua Plated Lizard 

Family: Cordyidae 

* Cordylus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard 

? Platysaurus broadleyi Augrabies or Broadley’s Flat Lizard 

Family: Varanidae 

Monitors 

√ Varanus albigularis Rock Monitor 

Suborder: SERPENTES 

SNAKES 

Family: Typhlopidae 

Blind Snakes 

* Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande’s Beaked Blind Snake 

* Rhinotyphlops schinzi Schinz’s Beaked Blind Snake 

Family: Leptotyphlopidae 

Thread Snakes 

* Leptotyphlops occidentalis Namaqua Worm or Western Thread 

Snake 

Family: Colubridae 

Typical Snakes 

√ Lamprophis capensis Brown House Snake 

? Lamprophis guttatus Spotted House Snake 

?Vu Lamprophis fiskii Fisk’s House Snake 

√ Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake 

123

? Prosymna bivittata Two-striped Shovel-snout 

√ Prosymna frontalis South-western Shovel-snout 

√ Dipsina multimaculata Dwarf Beaked Snake 

√ Psammophis notostictus Karoo Whip or Sand Snake 

√ Psammophis trinasalis Kalahari Sand Snake 

√ Psammophis leightoni namibensis Namib Sand Snake 

? Psammophis crucifer Crossed Whip Snake 

√ Dasypeltis scabra Common or Rhombic Egg Eater 

√ Telescopus beetzii Beetz’s Tiger Snake 

Family: Elapidae 

Cobras, Mambas and Others 

√ Aspidelaps lubricus Coral Shield Cobra 

√ Naja nivea Cape Cobra 

√ Naja nigricollis Black-necked Spitting Cobra 

Family: Viperidae 

Adders 

√ Bitis caudalis Horned Adder 

√ Brits arietans Puff Adder 

? Bitis xeropaga Desert Mountain Adder 

? Bitis cornuta Many-horned Adder 

CLASS: AMPHIBIA 

AMPHIBIANS 

Order: ANURA 

FROGS 

Family: Pipidae 

Clawed Frogs 

? Xenopus laevis Common Platanna 

Family: Bufonidae 

Toads 

? Vandijkophrynus gariepensis Karoo Toad 

* Vandijkophrynus robinsoni Paradise Toad 

Family: Microhylidae 

Rubber Frogs 

? Phrynomantis annectens Marled Rubber Frog 

Family: Breviceptidae 

Rain Frogs 

? Breviceps namaquensis Namaqua Rain Frog 

Family: Pyxicephalidae 

? Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog 

*Vu Strongylopus springbokensis Namaqua Stream Frog 

124

? Cocosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco or Common Caco 

* Cocosternum namaquense Namaqua Caco 

* Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog 

? Tomopterna tandyi Tandy’s Sand Frog 

√ Definitely there or have a high probability of occurring; 

* Medium probability of occurring based on ecological and distributional parameters; 

? Low probability of occurring based on ecological and distributional parameters. 

Red Data species rankings as defined in Branch, The Conservation Status of South 

Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89 – 103..In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), ‘The 

State of Southern Africa’s Species (2002) and Minter, et.al, Atlas and Red Data Book of 

the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2004) are indicated in the first 

column: CR= Critically Endangered, En = Endangered, Vu = Vulnerable, NT = Near 

Threatened, DD = Data Deficient. All other species are deemed of Least Concern. 

Table 2: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site, observed 

indicators and habitat. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION HABITAT 

INDICATOR 

Chondrodactylus Giant Ground Sight record Under man-made 

angulifer 

Gecko 

rupiculous habitat 

Chondrodactylus Bibron’s Tubercled Sight record Under man-made 

bibronii 

or Thick-toed 


Gecko 

Trachylepis sulcata Western Rock Sight record Under and above 

Skink 

rocks and manmade 

rupiculous 

habitat 

Pedioplanis Namaqua Sand Sight record Red sand dunes 

namaquensis Lizard 

Agama anchietae Anchieta’s Agama Sight record Basking above 

125

Psammophis 

notostictus 

Karoo Whip or 

Sand Snake 

huge boulders in 

the first rays of the 

sun and inside an 

old tyre. 

Sight record Under man-made 


10.5 Discussion 

Despite the site visit being conducted in mid-winter, when many poikilothermic 

herpetofauna are inactive, 6 species were observed. The diurnal western rock skink was 

found in fair numbers on and under natural and man-made rupiculous habitat. Quite a 

few Anchieta’s agamas were found on boulders on the south side at the foot of 

Windhoekberg where they were basking in the first rays of the sun. A single specimen 

was also found inside an old tyre. A single giant ground gecko specimen was caught 

under a corrugated iron sheet plate. A single Bibron’s tubercled gecko specimen was 

caught under a wooden panel near disused workers accommodation. A single Karoo 

Whip or Sand Snake was found under a wooden panel near disused workers 

accommodation. A few very fast-moving Namaqua sand lizards were observed in the 

sand dunes. 

All the species listed in Table 2 should be abundant on the study site and elsewhere in 

its range. 

The study site is situated in an area of habitat transitions - the northern edge in South 

Africa of the Nama-Karoo and Bushmanland habitat, the western edge of the Kalahari 

savanna, the southern edge of the Gariep River drainage and the eastern edge of 

Namaqualand. Three of the four habitats for herpetofauna occur on the study site. Three 

Red Data species may possibly be found on the study site. 

The habitats considered most sensitive on the farm are the red dunes and areas of deep 

sand, the mountains and their gravel skirts, and the Koa River washes and pans. This 

leaves the open grassy plains, with shallow soils of mixed gravels and sands, as the 

least sensitive and most widespread habitat on the farm and surrounding areas. It is 

126

proposed that any development should be on the most disturbed areas of the grassy 

plains, with as little overlap as possible into the Koa River system. 

On the mountains, the Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld is considered an isolated, arid and 

most north-eastern part of true Succulent Karoo vegetation, worthy of special protection. 

Almost none of this area and the more widespread Bushmanland Sandy Grassland 

vegetation unit are formally conserved. 

Figure 56. Bibron’s tubercled gecko found on the study site. 

Figure 57. A giant ground gecko found on the study site. 

127

10.6 Conclusions 

The main conservation objectives for herpetofauna on Portion 3 of the farm Suurwater 

63 are to retain untransformed the mountains and their gravel skirts, the deep red sands 

and dunes, and as much as possible of the Koa River washes and pans, together with 

the untransformed adjacent grassy plains y. The mountains, pans and dunes should be 


densities of livestock grazing. Of 66 herpetofauna species recorded and/or expected on 

Suurwater, three are Red Data species. The PV array is not considered a direct threat to 

any bird species, given its limited impact in space (

Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Protea Bookhouse 

Pretoria. 470pp. 

Channing, A. 2004. Strongylopus springbokensis Pp. 314-316 in Minter,L.R., Burger, M., 

Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. eds. 2004. Atlas and 

Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.SI/MAB 

Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 

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

Cape Town. 108pp. 


Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of 

Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. 

Government Notices. 

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDACE. 2008 and revised on February 2009. 

GDACE Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng 

Provincial Government. 

Du Preez, L. & Carruthers V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. 

Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 488 pp. 

McLachlan, G.R. 1988. Gerrhossaurus typicus Pp. 109-110 in Branch, W.R. (ed.) South 

African Red Data Book – Reptiles and Amphibians. 

S.Afr.Nat.Sci.Prog.Rep.151:241pp 

Measey, G.J. (ed.) 2011. Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs: a strategy for 

conservation research. SANBI Biodiversity Series 19. South African National 

Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.84pp 

Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. eds. 

2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and 

Swaziland.SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and 


129

11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR BIODIVERSITY 

11.1 The ecological importance of the study site 

Zuurwater farm stands in an area of vegetation and habitat transitions - the northern 

edge in South Africa of the Nama-Karoo and Bushmanland habitat, the western edge of 

the Kalahari savanna, the southern edge of the Gariep River drainage and the eastern 

edge of Namaqualand. The larger area has at least thirteen plant species of 

conservation concern. It supports four main structural habitats for fauna, it is expected to 

host nine threatened bird species, including the Vulnerable and near-endemic Ludwig's 

Bustard and Red Lark that are resident and breeding on and around the site. There is a 

possibility of about five red data mammals species may occur on the site, while there is a 

remote possibility that 2 red data reptile species can be present. A single red data frog 

may occur on the site. 

The habitats considered most sensitive on the farm are the red dunes and areas of deep 

sand, the mountains and their gravel skirts, and the Koa River washes and pans. This 

leaves the open grassy plains, with shallow soils of mixed gravels and sands, as the 

least sensitive and most widespread habitat on the farm and surrounding areas. It is 

proposed that any development should be on the most disturbed areas of the grassy 

plains, with as little overlap as possible into the Koa River system. 

On the mountains, the Aggeneys Gravel Vygieveld is considered an isolated, rainfallimpoverished 

and most north-eastern form of true Succulent Karoo vegetation, worthy of 

special protection due to several rare plant species along with some of its bird 

inhabitants (e.g. Cinnamon-breasted Warbler). Almost none of this and the more 

widespread Bushmanland Sandy Grassland vegetation unit are formally conserved. 

11.2 General impacts associated with PV arrays 

• Effects of PV table arrays and associated structures – For birds, the top of the 

PV tables form a dark (blue or black) sloping surface that should constitute neither a 

reflective or collision risk (Fig. 7). Birds are unlikely to try and land on the structure, 

except along the top ridge, and maybe on the water drainage channel along the base 

unless these are specially designed to avoid this. The three main effects of the PV 

tables will be underneath them where 1) they will cast shade on what is naturally a 

130

virtually unshaded flora and fauna, 2) their 'feet' of concrete slabs resting on the 

ground that will resemble loose rocks, and 3) the legs, struts and wiring will provide 

possible roost and/or nest sites for some bird species (e.g. Cape Sparrow) and 

shelter for some reptiles (e.g. skinks and some geckos). 

The effect of shading is difficult to predict, but many bird species seek shade during 

the extreme summer heat and may be expected to hide under the tables, at least 

around the edges of the layout. An important effect may arise from effects of shading 

on the vegetation, altering plant community composition, survivorship and/or 

structure. 

The effect of the foot slabs is unlikely to differ from that of naturally occurring rocks 

(or strewn debris), locally eliminating plant cover but providing cover for small 

animals. However, if shallow excavation is necessary to level the ground first and so 

alter its soil structure, a slight risk of permanent transformation is expected in the 

long term. Given the natural instability of the soil surface under constant strong winds 

and/or occasional heavy rains, and the ability of the vegetation to adapt to this 

instability may mean the effects are temporary or at least capable of rehabilitation. 

The effect of the legs, struts and wiring will depend on how well the design 

discourages birds, such as having only vertical and sloping surfaces, and concealing 

wiring, to prevent perching and/or nest attachment. Obviously, for operations and 

safety, care must be taken to ensure that no living organisms can come into contact 

with or entangled by any electrical wiring that might cause short circuits, injury or 

death. Since it proposed that sheep graze in and around these PV tables, 

presumably the latter factor is already controlled. 

• Effect on use and management of water – Water is a scarce and valuable 

commodity in this arid landscape and so needs to be managed wisely. Water is used 

in an automatic washing system to periodically clean the upper surfaces of the solar 

panels on the PV tables. The water runs off into a gutter at the base of the panel 

arrays and is then stored for re-cycling. The only effect on fauna would be if residual 

water gathers in the drain and attracts birds to drink, or on herpetofauna, especially 

frogs is the potential creation of habitat in the form of small artificial wetlands, 

131

assuming that the water does not have any potentially toxic ingredients to assist with 

cleansing the panel surfaces. A regular supply is required to initiate and replenish the 

required volumes, especially given the high evaporation rates in the area, and this 

will be taken from a pipeline that supplies the farmhouse and passes through the 

panel arrays. Access to and maintenance of the supply has to be built into the overall 

design, the details of which are still under development. 

• Loss of conservation-significant taxa and/or changes in community structure – 

The relatively small footprint of the total solar array on the landscape is unlikely to 

cause direct and widespread loss of threatened fauna taxa or change in community 

structure. It is placed in the least sensitive and productive habitat on Zuurwater, and 

the actual footprint of the table's feet is limited and expected to be temporary and 

capable of rehabilitation. It is however expected that the plant species composition 

will change, but being the least sensitive area on the farm, this is not considered to 

have a great influence on any rare plant species. 

• Increased habitat fragmentation & loss of connectivity – The scope of the solar 

panel array within the greater area is unlikely to have any significant effect on habitat 

fragmentation or connectivity, especially for birds that can move over, under and 

around the development. The affected habitats are widespread all around the 

development and even the Koa River washes are relatively ill-defined, broadly 

distributed and thus unlike more typical riverine/riparian systems that are such 

sensitive movement corridors. 

• Increased anthropogenic encroachment – The solar panel arrays do markedly 

extend the normal anthropogenic effects for this arid and sparsely populated farming 

region, but on a relatively small spatial (

scrutiny, as does the provision of access roads and staff accommodation/facilities 

during operation, and the provisions made for removal and rehabilitation on 

completion. In addition, no mention has been made of security provisions, such as 

fencing, which could create significant impact for birds. Pre- and post-development 

activities have the potential to be more damaging to the delicate substrate than 

operational activities. 

Table 11.1: Impacts expected to occur during the proposed development of the SATO-SLC PV 

array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys. 

Mitigation 

Severity* Likelihood** 

Activity Nature of Impact 0 (low) – 10 (high) 

(see 8 

High/Medium/Low 

+ve or -ve 

below) 

Construction impacts 

Container delivery Substrate damage -8 High M1 

Table assembly Substrate damage -8 High M1 

Water supply Servitude disturbance -5 Medium M2 

Electricity 

connection 

Staff facilities on 

site 

Access/maintenance 

management 

Servitude 

management 

Water management 

Servitude disturbance -5 Medium M2 

Substrate 

transformation 

Operational impacts 

-8 High M3 

Substrate damage -5 Medium M1 

Loss of habitat -3 Low M2 

Water wastage, 

contamination risk 

-3 Low M4 

Faunal interference Soiling/shorting/shading ±2 Low M5 

Vegetation 

management 

Material 

removal/recycling 

Control of plant 

diversity/structure 

Closure impacts 

±5 Medium M6 

Substrate damage -5 Medium M1 

Substrate repair Substrate damage -5 Medium M1 

133

Vegetation Deficient plant 

-5 Medium M6 

restoration communities 

Facility conversion Substrate damage -5 Medium M1 

* Positive (+) or Negative (-) in the absence of mitigation. Severity score: 0-10, where 0 = no discernible 

impact and 10 = extremely severe impact extending well beyond the immediate area of the proposed 

development. 

* Probability (low, medium, high) of a negative impact occurring. 

The following Impact Tables are in accordance with the methodology proposed by SRK 

Consulting See Appendix 1). The Mitigation and environmental management are given 

in Chapter 12. 

134

Impact Table1a: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Construction Phase 

- Without mitigation 

Impact by Likelihood Consequence 

Frequency of activity Freq of impact Benefit/Severity of 

impact 

Spatial/Population 

scope 

Duration 

Container delivery 1 2 2 1 2 15 Very Low 

Table assembly 2 3 4 1 2 35 Low 

Water supply 1 2 1 1 2 12 Very Low 

Electricity connection 1 2 1 1 2 12 Very Low 

Staff facilities on site 2 3 3 1 2 30 Low 

Rating 

Impact Table 1b: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Construction Phase 

- With mitigation 


Frequency of activity Freq of impact Benefit/Severity of 

impact 


scope 

Duration 

Container delivery 1 2 1 1 2 12 Very Low 

Table assembly 2 3 3 1 2 30 Low 



Staff facilities on site 2 3 2 1 2 25 Very Low 

Rating 

135

Impact Table 2a:: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Operational Phase 

- Without mitigation 


Frequency of 

activity 

Freq of impact 

Benefit/Severity of 

impact 


scope 

Duration 



Staff facilities on site 2 3 3 1 2 30 Low 

Access/maintenance 

management 

Rating 

4 4 4 1 4 72 Medium 

Low 

Servitude management 2 3 4 1 2 35 Low 

Water management 1 2 1 1 2 12 Very Low 

Faunal interference 4 2 2 1 4 42 Low 

Vegetation management 4 4 4 1 4 72 Medium 

Low 

Impact Table 2b: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Operational Phase - 

With mitigation 


Frequency of 

activity 



impact 


scope 

Duration 



Staff facilities on site 2 3 2 1 2 25 Very Low 

Access/maintenance 4 3 3 1 4 56 Medium 

Rating 

136

management 

Low 

Servitude management 2 3 2 1 2 25 Very Low 

Water management 1 2 1 1 2 12 Very Low 

Faunal interference 3 2 1 1 4 30 Low 

Vegetation management 4 4 3 1 4 64 Medium 

Low 

Impact Table 3a: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Closure Phase - 

Without mitigation 

Material 



Frequency of 

activity 



impact 


scope 

Duration 

Rating 

2 2 3 1 1 20 Very Low 

Substrate repair 2 2 3 1 2 24 Very Low 

Vegetation restoration 2 3 3 1 2 30 Low 

Facility conversion 2 2 3 1 2 24 Very Low 

Impact Table 3b: Impact on biodiversity of the SATO-SLC PV array on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys during the Closure Phase - 

With mitigation 

Material 



Frequency of 

activity 



impact 


scope 

Duration 

Rating 

1 1 2 1 1 8 Very Low 

137

Substrate repair 1 2 2 1 2 15 Very Low 

Vegetation restoration 2 3 2 1 2 25 Very Low 

Facility conversion 2 2 2 1 2 20 Very Low 

138

12 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 

Alternative placement of part of the development, based on concerns about habitat and 

biodiversity sensitivity, was discussed with the developers on site, and a new proposed 

layout has been prepared (Figure. 6). 

The mitigation measures proposed below for the construction, operation and closure 

phases are derived from personal experience, the position statement of BirdLife South 

Africa (2011) on effects of solar power facilities on birds, and from the comprehensive 

set of guidelines developed by the Gauteng authorities (GDACE 2009). It is suggested 

that the following mitigation recommendations form part of the Environmental 

Management Plan: 

12.1 Specific mitigation measures 

M1: Substrate damage 

Since substrates in semi-arid areas are particularly sensitive to mechanical damage, 

with long-term negative effects on soil moisture and vegetation and biodiversity 

composition, all activities should be as limited in space and time as is consistent with 

efficient completion, operation and closure of the development. 

Wherever possible, any damaging activities (e.g. tracks, unloading/storage/ construction 

sites) should be located on the areas of lowest sensitivity (in this instance areas with the 

least grass and sand, and most resistant gravels) and only within the footprint of the 

development. 

Minimize area cleared for construction and erection activities, including the areas used 

by staff during construction. 

Provide adequate ablution facilities to avoid using natural (sensitive) areas as toilets. 

Store topsoil from any cleared areas for subsequent resurfacing after closure. 

Allow only a single access route to each relevant section of the development and, within 

each section, always maintain only the minimum tracks necessary for operation and 

139

maintenance, with designated passing points so that effectively only a single track is 

created for 2-way traffic. 

Care must be taken that to prevent an overspill of construction and maintenance 

activities into sensitive areas. 

M2: Servitude disturbance 

Use existing distribution lines and servitudes wherever possible to avoid creating new 

disturbances. 

Wherever possible, place servitudes through areas of least sensitive habitat. 

Minimize tracks, use of heavy equipment and dumping of soil as far as possible to 

contain the area of substrate affected. 

Store separately any topsoil removed for later rehabilitation. 

Rehabilitate plant cover as a continual process, to maximize viability of the natural seed 

bank and reduce loss of topsoil during storage. Use only indigenous (to the area) plant 

material. 

Monitor rehabilitation success by comparing data from the servitude with that of 

surrounding habitats. 

Conduct monitoring during two seasons for each year. Construction staff must be 

restricted to an allocated area and should not gain access to sensitive habitat types. 

Provide adequate ablution facilities to avoid using natural (sensitive) areas as toilets. 

M3: Substrate transformation 

Wherever substrate has to be cleared, and used for some time, ensure that wherever 

possible cleared areas are used for successive operations, so minimizing number of 

cleared sites created. E.g. use container storage site for subsequent assembly and then 

for erection of staff facilities (accommodation, offices, workshops, etc.). 

140

Wherever possible, make use of existing off-site storage/ accommodation/workshop 

facilities, especially during the intensive construction phase. 

Select sites for clearance and design such developments such as staff housing/offices in 

a position that makes use of existing infrastructure (water, electricity), minimized impacts 

on surrounding farming activities, but can serve a useful purpose for the landowner(s) 

after closure. 

M4: Water wastage and contamination 

Minimise water usage, especially by designing efficient recycling facilities for the panel 

washing water, 

Ensure designs of panels and gutters for maximum capture of any natural rainfall to be 

incorporated into the storage capacity. 

Minimize contamination of the water by filtering of washing ingredients, and plant and 

animal waste and/or remains. 

Ensure that there is no leakage/overflow/runoff to affect the water-sensitive ecology of 

the semi-arid biodiversity. 

M5: Fauna soiling/shorting/shading 

Ensure that the undersides of panels (legs, frames, wiring) do not provide 

perch/roost/nest sites for birds or other animals. 

Monitor and report any animal interactions with all aspects of the PV array, to allow 

remedial action and also to compile databases relevant to other applications of the 

effects of this little-studied technology on these semi-arid habitats. 

Monitor other bird or other fauna uses of the structures, such as use of shade for resting, 

where unnaturally high input of nutrients may alter vegetation structure and/or 

composition. 

141

M6: Control of plant diversity/structure 

Apply plant management, primarily by controlled grazing of sheep, to maintain, as far as 

possible, a plant diversity and structure that replicates that of adjacent habitats. 

Maintain a reporting system to record management decisions, actions, and results, 

based on project designs and technical assistance of the relevant specialists if 

necessary. 

Monitor sample plots by fixed-point images both on and adjacent to the site prior to 

development and at intervals during operation to define and calibrate the vegetation and 

any changes that might develop. 

Base rehabilitation of the site at closure on the management experience of the habitat 

before and during operation, to ensure that plant and biodiversity communities replicate 

the original state as closely as possible. 

12.2 Generic Mitigation measures 

• An appropriate management authority must be contractually bound to implement the 

Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Record of Decision (ROD) during the 

operational and restoration phases of the development. This authority should be 

identified and informed of their responsibilities in terms of the EMP and ROD. 

• Harvesting of any plant material is strictly prohibited. Staff shall only assist with the 

(necessary) removal of important plant species if requested to do so, under 

supervision. 

• All staff should be advised (induction) by means of environmental awareness 

training on the significant importance of the area and its conservation importance. 

• Intentional killing of any faunal species (including invertebrates) should be avoided 

by means of awareness programmes presented to the labour force. The labour 

force should be made aware of the conservation issues pertaining to the fauna and 

flora taxa occurring on the study site. Any person found deliberately harassing any 

animal in any way should face disciplinary measures, following the possible 

dismissal from the site. 

142

• Any outside lighting (e.g. for security) should be designed to minimize impacts on 

fauna. All outside lighting should be directed away from sensitive areas. Fluorescent 

and mercury vapour lighting should be avoided and sodium vapour (yellow) lights 

should be used wherever possible. This will minimize attraction of invertebrates that 

fly at night being attracted to and killed at lights, and the effects of these losses on 

other fauna (for food) and flora (for pollination/dispersal). Lights and insects also 

attract insectivores and their predators. 

• Physical barriers must be constructed around fuel depots and generators to prevent 

spilled fuel from spreading or coming into contact with surface or ground water. 

• Chemicals and equipment for the treatment of fuel spillages must be available on 

site at all times. 

• Prevent introduction of alien plant species. Indigenous species already present in 

the area should be used during the rehabilitation phase. 

• Where communication masts / cell phone towers / overhead lines (power lines or 

telephone lines) are to be constructed within/adjacent to the site, the Eskom-WET 

strategic partnership should advise on appropriate mitigation measures. 

• Underground cable installations along existing servitudes should be considered 

wherever possible. 

• The design (including mitigation measures) and location of any proposed power lines 

(whether new alignments or refurbishment/upgrading of existing lines) should be 

endorsed by the bird conservation experts of the Eskom-EWT strategic partnership. 

• Anti-collision devices such as bird flappers should be installed where power lines 

cross corridors, rivers or ridges, especially considering the on-site presence and 

reported breeding nearby of bustards, including the vulnerable Ludwig's Bustard that 

is especially disposed to collisions. 

13. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

It is important to minimize the impact on the natural substrate, vegetation and animal life 

during the construction and operational phases of all areas that will be influenced by the 

PV array development on the farm Zuurwater near Aggeneys, by minimizing negative 

impacts and optimizing positive impacts. The destruction of natural habitat is one of the 

most important influences on plant and animal ecology. 

143

Some Red Data plants and animals occur and/or are expected in or close to the 

development area and so it is important that all workers, managers, contractors and 

visitors be educated and aware of the presence of these Red Data plants and animals. 

The destruction of Red Data species must be avoided at all times and, if encountered, 

GPS coordinates need to be recorded. 

In general, the Ecological Management Plan should: 

• include an on-going monitoring and eradication programme for all nonindigenous 

species, with specific emphasis on invasive and weedy species, 

• ensure the persistence of all Red List species, plants and fauna, 

• include management recommendations for neighbouring land, especially Black 

Mountain mining properties, where correct management on adjacent land is 

crucial for the long-term persistence of sensitive species present on the site, 

such as Ludwig's Bustard and Red Lark. 

• report back to the Directorate of Nature Conservation on an annual basis 

• The crossing of natural drainage systems should be minimized and only 

constructed at the shortest possible route, perpendicular to the natural drainage 

system. 

Fauna and Flora 

Objectives 

• To minimise the disturbances of animal/plant communities during the 

construction and operation activities; 

• To prevent the unnecessary destruction of natural habitat and animal/plant life 

within adjacent natural areas; 

• Not to alienate the wildlife in the area or to harm any animal/plant life found on 

the property; 

• To prevent the unnecessary destruction of natural habitat and animal/plant life 

within the area and adjacent areas; 

• To maintained the existing animal/plant life; 

• To relocate any Red Data animals/plants that can be moved to a safe place 

outside the construction area, and as far as possible record all rare and 

endangered animals/plants observed; 

144

• The movement of all animals, which will tend to move away from the 

construction and associated activities, should not be hindered; 

• Visitors and workers should be informed that the killing or removal of fauna/flora 

is prohibited within the boundaries of the area, as well as neighbouring areas; 

• All workers, contractors and visitors should be educated and informed about any 

rare or endangered species. This should be done through an environmental 

awareness plan and the distribution of posters, containing pictures of any 

potential rare and endangered species; 

• The sighting of any rare or endangered species should be reported to 

management who should keep a record of all such observations; 

• Any cases of misuse or hunting by stray dogs of any animals (including Red Data 

species) should be reported directly to mine management; 

• The pollution of water, soil and vegetation, which can cause harm to animal/plant 

life should be prevented; 

• Any pollutants that spill accidentally and can cause harm to animals should be 

efficiently cleaned up; 

• No employees will be allowed to snare, trap or kill any small animals in and 

around the site; 

• Areas surrounding infrastructure that were disturbed during the construction 

phase must be cleaned, levelled, covered with topsoil and then re-vegetated; 

• Minimise disturbance to existing vegetation; 

• To prevent the encroachment and spreading of the invasive Prosopis shrub; 

• To prevent heavy machinery or any other vehicles from driving through natural or 

rehabilitated vegetation within the surface boundaries. 

Decommissioning phase 

The aim of the decommissioning phase is to ensure that the site is in such condition that 

a land owner can again use Zuurwater for livestock grazing after cessation of electricity 

generation. During the decommissioning phase, all involved parties will be informed 

about the planned schedule to close and remove the development, after an independent 

audit. Approval must be granted by all involved parties and the plan will be executed 

under strict supervision. 

145

Flora 

Some areas of infrastructure than cannot be utilized after closure will be demolished, soil 

will be prepared and the areas will be re-vegetated with a mixture of grass seeds. 

Disturbed areas will be levelled and dressed with topsoil, after which these areas will be 

re-vegetated. The impacts due to the re-vegetation of these areas during 

decommissioning will be positive and the objectives and management practices will be 

as follows: 

Fauna 

• To rehabilitate disturbed areas so that sustainable vegetation cover becomes 

established. 

• There should be no unnecessary clearing of vegetation, so as to enable seeds 

from undisturbed areas to move in through the natural processes of succession; 

• To monitor the species richness and biodiversity of selected indictor taxa (e.g. 

mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates) within the adjacent natural vegetation 

and the rehabilitated areas, to determine the success of the rehabilitation; 

• To minimise the disturbance of animal life and encourage its return during and 

after rehabilitation; 

• Not to alienate, other than by rehabilitation, the wildlife in the area or to harm any 

animal life found on the property; and 

• To prevent animals being killed by demolishing vehicles and machinery, hunting 

of any kind by any worker, contractor or visitors to the site. 

146

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 1: EIA METHODS 

This methodology is prescribed and was provided by SRK Consulting. 

The first stage of risk/impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, 

aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of receptors and resources, 

which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the 

sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are given below. 

• An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organization for which a 

responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or pieces of 

infrastructure that are possessed by an organization. 

• An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and 

services which can interact with the environment’ 1 . The interaction of an aspect with 

the environment may result in an impact. 

• Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on 

environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, for example, 

disturbance due to noise and health effects due to poorer air quality. Receptors can 

comprise, but are not limited to, people or human-made systems, such as local 

residents, communities and social infrastructure, as well as components of the 

biophysical environment such as aquifers, flora and palaeontology. In the case 

where the impact is on human health or well being, this should be stated. Similarly, 

where the receptor is not anthropogenic, then it should, where possible, be stipulated 

what the receptor is. 

• Receptors comprise, but are not limited to people or man-made structures. 

• Resources include components of the biophysical environment. 

• Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place. 

• Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will 

impact on the receptor. 

• Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the 

reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact 

1 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 

147

(increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; 

threat to environmental and health standards. 

• Spatial scope refers to the geographical scale of the impact. 

• Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in 

the resource or receptor. 

The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically 

according to defined criteria as outlined in Table 7.2. The purpose of the rating is to 

develop a clear understanding of influences and processes associated with each impact. 

The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the 

consequence of the impact and when summed can obtain a maximum value of 15. The 

frequency of the activity and the frequency of the impact together comprise the likelihood 

of the impact occurring and can obtain a maximum value of 10. The values for likelihood 

and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance rating matrix (Table 7.3), 

used to determine whether mitigation is necessary 2 . 

Measures such as demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of 

land, are considered post-mitigation. 

The model outcome of the impacts is then assessed in terms of impact certainty and 

consideration of available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied in line with 

South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances 

of uncertainty or lack of information by increasing assigned ratings or adjusting final 

model outcomes. In certain instances where a variable or outcome requires rational 

adjustment due to model limitations, the model outcomes are adjusted. 

2 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation 

148

Table 1: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts 

Severity of impact 

RATING 

Insignificant / non-harmful 1 

Small / potentially harmful 2 

Significant / slightly harmful 3 

Great / harmful 4 

Disastrous / extremely harmful 5 

Spatial scope of impact 

RATING 

Activity specific 1 

Mine specific (within the mine boundary) 2 

Local area (within 5 km of the mine boundary) 3 

Regional 4 

National 5 

CONSEQUENCE 

Duration of impact 

RATING 

One day to one month 1 

One month to one year 2 

One year to ten years 3 

Life of operation 4 

Post closure / permanent 5 

Frequency of activity/ duration of aspect RATING 

Annually or less / low 1 

6 monthly / temporary 2 

Monthly / infrequent 3 

Weekly / life of operation / regularly / likely 4 

Daily / permanent / high 5 

LIKELIHOOD 

Frequency of impact 

RATING 

Almost never / almost impossible 1 

Very seldom / highly unlikely 2 

Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3 

Often / regularly / likely / possible 4 

Daily / highly likely / definitely 5 

149

Table 2: Significance Rating Matrix 

CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration) 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

LIKELIHOOD (Frequency of activity + 

Frequency of impact) 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 

7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 

9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 

Table 3: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings 

Significance 

Rating 

Value Negative Impact Management 

Recommendation 

Positive Impact Management 

Recommendation 

Very high 126-150 Improve current management Maintain current management 

High 101-125 Improve current management Maintain current management 

Medium-high 76-100 Improve current management Maintain current management 

Medium-low 51-75 Maintain current management Improve current management 

Low 26-50 Maintain current management Improve current management 

Very low 1-25 Maintain current management Improve current management 

Risk/impact assessment guidelines 

The following points must be considered when undertaking the assessment: 

Risks and impacts must be analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence 

encompassing: 

150

• Primary project site and related facilities that the client and its contractors 

develops or controls; 

• Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for further planned 

development of the project, any existing project or condition and other project-related 

developments; and 

• Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable 

developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location. 

Risks/Impacts should be assessed for all stages of the project cycle including: 

• Pre-construction; 

• Construction; 

• Operation; and 

• Post-closure. 

151

APPENDIX 2: CURRICULII VITAE 

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: George Johannes Bredenkamp 

Born: 10 February 1946 in Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Citizenship: South African 

Marital status: Married, 1 son, 2 daughters 

Present work address 

Department of Botany, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa 

Tel:(27)(12)420-3121 Fax: (27)(12)362 5099 

E-Mail: gbredenk@postino.up.ac.za 

or 

EcoAgent CC 

PO Box 25533, Monument Park, 0105, South Africa 

Tel: (27)(12) 346 3180 

Fax: (27)(12) 460 2525 

Cell 082 5767046 

E-Mail: ecoagent@mweb.co.za 

Qualifications: 

1963 Matriculation Certificate, Kemptonpark High School 

1967 B.Sc. University of Pretoria, Botany and Zoology as majors, 

1968 B.Sc. Hons. (cum laude) University of Pretoria, Botany. 

1969 T.H.E.D. (cum laude) Pretoria Teachers Training College. 

1975 M.Sc. University of Pretoria, Plant Ecology . 

1982 D.Sc. (Ph.D.) University of Pretoria, Plant Ecology. 

Theses: (M.Sc. and D.Sc.) on plant community ecology and wildlife management in 

nature reserves in South African grassland and savanna. 

Professional titles: 

• MSAIE South African Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Scientists 

152

- 1989-1990 Council member 

• MGSSA Grassland Society of Southern Africa 

- 1986 Elected as Sub-editor for the Journal 

- 1986-1989 Serve on the Editorial Board of the Journal 

- - 1990 Organising Committee: International Conference: Meeting 

Rangeland challenges in Southern Africa 

- 1993 Elected as professional member 

• PrSciNat. South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions Registration 

Number 400086/83 

- 1993-1997 Chairman of the Professional Advisory Committee: 

Botanical Sciences 

- 1993-1997: Council Member 

- 1992-1994: Publicity Committee 

- 1994-1997: Professional Registration Committee 

Professional career: 

• Teacher in Biology 1970-1973 in Transvaal Schools 

• Lecturer and senior lecturer in Botany 1974-1983 at University of the North 

• Associate professor in Plant Ecology 1984-1988 at Potchefstroom University for 

CHE 

• Professor in Plant Ecology 1988-2008 at University of Pretoria. 

• 2009 – current Professor Extra-ordinary in the Dept of Plant Science, University of 

Pretoria 

• • Founder and owner of the Professional Ecological Consultancy firms Ecotrust 

Environmental Services CC and Eco-Agent CC, 1988-present. 

Academic career: 

• Students: 

- Completed post graduate students: M.Sc. 53; Ph.D. 14. 

- Presently enrolled post-graduate students: M.Sc. 4; Ph.D. 2. 

• Author of: 

- 175 scientific papers in refereed journals 

153

- >150 papers at national and international congresses 

- >250 scientific (unpublished) reports on environment and natural resources 

- 17 popular scientific papers. 

- 39 contributions in books 

• Editorial Committee of 

- South African Journal of Botany, 

- Journal Grassland Society of Southern Africa, 

- Bulletin of the South African Institute of Ecologists. 

- Journal of Applied Vegetation Science.( Sweden) 

- Phytocoenologia (Germany) 

- 

• FRD evaluation category: C2 (=leader in South Africa in the field of Vegetation 

Science/Plant Ecology) 

Membership: 

• International Association of Vegetation Science. 

• British Ecological Society 

• International Society for Ecology (Intecol) 

• Association for the Taxonomic study of the Flora of Tropical Africa (AETFAT). 

• South African Association of Botanists (SAAB) 

1988-1993 Elected to the Council of SAAB. 

1989-1990 Elected as Chairman of the Northern Transvaal Branch 

1990 Elected to the Executive Council as Vice-President 

1990- Sub-editor Editorial Board of the Journal 

1991-1992 Elected as President (2-year period) 

1993 Vice-President and Outgoing President 

• Wildlife Management Society of Southern Africa 

• Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns 

(=South African Academy for Science and Art). 

• Wildlife Society of Southern Africa 

1975 - 1988: Member 

1975 - 1983: Committee member, Pietersburg Centre 

1981 - 1982: Chairman, Pietersburg Centre 

154

• Dendrological Society of Southern Africa 

1984 - present: Member 

1984 - 1988: Committee member, Western Transvaal Branch 

1986 - 1988: Chairman, Western Transvaal Branch 

1987 - 1989: Member, Central Committee (National level) 

1990 - 2000: Examination Committee 

• Succulent Society of South Africa 

1987 - 2000 

• Botanical Society of South Africa 

2000 – present: Member 

2001- 2008: Chairman, Pretoria Branch 

2002 – 2006: Chairman, Northern Region Conservation Committee 

2002- 2007: Member of Council 

Special committees: 

• Member of 10 special committees re ecology, botany, rangeland science in South Africa. 

• Member of the International Code for Syntaxonomical Nomenclature 1993-present. 

Merit awards and research grants: 

1968 Post graduate merit bursary, CSIR, Pretoria. 

1977-1979 Research Grant, Committee re Research Development, Dept. of Cooperation 

and Development, Pretoria. 

1984-1989 Research Grant, Foundation for Research Development, CSIR, Pretoria. 

1986-1987 Research Grant, Dept. of Agriculture and Water Supply, Potchefstroom. 

1990-1997 Research Grant, Dept. of Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria. 

1991-present Research Grant, National Research Foundation , Pretoria. 

1991-1993 Research Grant, Water Research Commission. 

1999-2003 Research Grant, Water Research Commission. 

2006 South African Association of Botanists Silver Medal for outstanding contributions to 

South African Botany 

Abroad: 

1986 Travel Grant, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 

Potchefstroom 

155

Visits to Israel, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal. 

1987 Travel Grant, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 

Potchefstroom. 

Visits to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, The Netherlands, United Kingdom. 

1990 Travel Grant, FRD. 

Visit to Japan, Taiwan, Hong-Kong. 

1991 Travel Grant, FRD. 

Visits to Italy, Germany. Switzerland, Austria, France, The Netherlands, United 

Kingdom. 

1993 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria. 

Visits to the USA, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Austria. 

1994 Travel Grant FRD. 

Visits to Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic. 

1995 Travel Grant FRD, University of Pretoria 

Visits to the USA 

1996 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria 

Visit to the UK. 

1997 Travel Grant University of Pretoria, Visit Czech Republic, Bulgaria 

1998 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden 

1999 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Hungary, Spain, USA 

2000 Travel Grant, University of Pretoria, Visit Poland, Italy, Greece. 

2001 Travel Grant, NRF, Visit Brazil 

2006 German Grant Invited lecture in Rinteln, Germany 

Consultant 

Founder and owner of Ecotrust Environmental Services CC and Eco-Agent CC 

Since 1988 >250 reports as consultant on environmental matters, including: 

• Game Farm and Nature Reserve planning, 

• Environmental Impact Assessments, 

• Environmental Management Programme Reports, 

• Vegetation Surveys, 

• Wildlife Management, 

• Veld Condition and Grazing Capacity Assessments, 

156

Red Data analysis (plants and animals). 

157

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach 

Identity number 421201 5012 00 5 

Gender 

Male 

Date of birth 1 December 1942 

Nationality South African 

Home languages Afrikaans, fluent in English 

Postal address 45 Helgaard Street, Kilner Park, Pretoria, RSA 0186. 

Tel no +27 12 3334112, Cell 082 3351288 

E-mail naasrauten@mweb.co.za 

Former position Retired Director: Planning, Northern Flagship Institute 

Present position Consultant – Specialist Environmental Assessments, 

Project management 

Research –EIAs, writing, woodworking, photorecording 

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

Honours 

Associate of the Photographic Society of South Africa 

Master photographer at club level 

Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural Scientific 

Professions, Registration # 400300/05 

Notable Research Contribution 

In-depth survey of the Mammals of the Transvaal 

Notable Literary Contribution 

Rautenbach, Naas & Annalene Rautenbach. 2008. Photography for Focused 

Beginners. 302pp with 250 images. Green Door Studio, Pretoria. 

Formal Courses 

Computer Literacy, Project Management, Contract Design, Senior Management 

Employment history 

May 2001 - Present Self-employed, collaborator with du Plessis & Associates 

[display design and construction], Galago Ventures [environmental impact 

assessment], technical writing, and photography 

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

Jan 1991 - April 1999 Executive Director, Transvaal Museum 

158

July 1967 - Dec 1990 Curator (in charge) of the Division of Mammalogy, 

Transvaal Museum. Promoted to Specialist Scientist rank as of June 1985 

March - June 1967 Research student at the Mammal Research Institute of the 

Zoology Department, University of Pretoria 

July 1966, Nov l966 - Febr 1967 Member of the Smithsonian Institution's field 

teams as part of the 'African Mammal Project' 

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

1962 - 1965 Temporary assistant during University holidays in the Nematology 

laboratories, Agricultural Technical Services 

1992 - 2001 Founder member and non-executive director of the Board of 

Trustees of the Museum Park Section 21 Company 

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

Fund 

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

Professional Achievement 

Managed a research institute of 125 members of staff. Solicited numerous grants 

totalling ≥ R1 000 000. Initiated and overseen building programmes of R30 

million at Transvaal Museum. Conceptualised and managed 12 display 

programmes. 

Research: 

Author and co-author of 85 scientific publications on mammalogy in peer 

reviewed subject journals, 18 Popular articles, 10 Books, and >400 contractual 

EIA research reports. Extensive field work and laboratory experience in Africa, 

Europe, USA, Alaska, Brazil and Mexico. B-rated by FRD as scientist of 

international status 

Public Recognition 

Public speaking inter alia Enrichment Lecturer on board the 6* SS Silver Wind, 

radio talks, TV appearances 

Hobbies 

Technical writing, photography, field logistics, biological observations, wood 

working, cooking, designs 

159

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Alan Charles Kemp 

Born: 7 May 1944 in Gweru, Zimbabwe 

Citizenship: South African, British 

Marital status: Married, 1 daughter, 1 son 

Present work address: 

Naturalists & Nomads, 8 Boekenhout Street, Navors, Pretoria, 0184, South Africa 

Tel: (+27)(12)804-7637 Fax: (+27)(12)804-7637 

E-Mail: leadbeateri@gmail.com 

or 

Naturalists & Nomads, Postnet Suite #38, Private Bag X19, Menlo Park, 0102, South 

Africa 

Qualifications: 

1965 B.Sc. Rhodes University, Zoology and Entomology majors 

1966 B.Sc. Hons. Rhodes University, Zoology 

1973 Ph.D. Rhodes University, Zoology of Pretoria 

Thesis: (Ph.D.) 

The ecology, behaviour and systematics of Tockus hornbills (Aves: 

Bucerotidae), conducted mainly in the Kruger National Park 

Professional titles: 

• Pr.Sci.Nat. South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions Registration 

Number 400059/09, Zoological and Ecological Sciences. 

Professional career: 

• Field Research Assistant to Prof. Tom J. Cade, Section of Ecology and Systematics, 

Cornell University, in Kruger National Park, South Africa, Nov 1966 - Apr 1969. 

• Department of Birds, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, June 1969 – August 1999, Head of 

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

• Elected Manager, Transvaal Museum, September 1999 – July 2001, until voluntary 

early retirement. 

160

• Edward Grey Institute of Ornithology, Oxford, December 2001 – April 2002, drafting 

specialist bird texts for Gale Publishing, USA and Andromeda Press, Oxford, UK. 

• Berg ‘n Dal & Pretoria, April 2002 - February 2003, presenting paper and later editorial 

assistant for book from the Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, The 

Kruger Experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. 

• Bangkok, March – June 2003, drafting research papers for colleague at Mahidol 

University; touring Laos. 

• Pretoria, August-December 2003, editorial assistant for book from the Mammal 

Research Institute, University of Pretoria, a revision of The Mammals of Southern 

Africa. 

• Hala-Bala Wildlife Reserve, January – December 2004, a one-year rainforest study of 

hornbills, raptors and owls in southern Thailand for their National Center for Genetic 

Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC). 

• Pretoria, January 2005 – July 2007, organizing 4 th International Hornbill Conference 

at Mabula Game Lodge and editing and publishing CD-ROM proceedings, and 

consulting on ground hornbills to Mabula, University of Cape Town and Endangered 

Wildlife Trust. 

• Bangkok, India, Singapore, Sarawak, September 2006 – April 2007. assisted 

colleagues at Mahidol University, Bangkok, with compilation of research paper on 

molecular systematics of hornbills, and travelled to see other Asian habitats and 

meet with other colleagues. 

• Singapore, March 2009, present opening address, paper and poster at 5 th 

International Ornithological Conference 

Academic career: 

• Students: 

- Supervise completed post graduate students: M.Sc. 14; Ph.D. 5. 

• Author of: 

- 104 scientific papers or notes in refereed journals 

- 48 papers at national and international congresses 

- 6 scientific (unpublished) reports on environment and natural resources 

- 73 popular scientific papers. 

161

- 15 contributions in or as books 

• Editorial Roles 

- Ostrich, African Journal of Ornithology (editor 1973-75). 

- Bird Conservation (International (editorial committee 1995-present) 

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

● Associate positions: 

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

2001) 

• Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, research 

associate (2001 – present). 

• Ditsong National Museum of Natural History (ex Transvaal Museum), Honorary curator 

(2004-present) 

• Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, wildlife conservation associate (1996- 

present). 

Membership: 

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

• Birdlife South Africa (South African Ornithological Society), Ordinary Member (1969- 

present), President (1975-1993) of Northern Transvaal (Pretoria) Branch, Honourary 

Life Member of North Gauteng (Pretoria) Bird Club (2000 – present). 

Special committees: 

• International Ornithological Committee of 100, elected member (1989-present). 

• Raptor Research Foundation, Grants assessor, Leslie Brown Memorial Fund (1985- 

present). 

Merit awards and research grants: 

• 1969-86. Annual research grants from South African Council for Scientific and Industrial 

Research (CSIR). 

• 1974. Chapman Fund Award, American Museum of Natural History, for field research in 

162

Borneo and India. 

• 1986-98. Annual research award from South African Foundation for Research 

Development (FRD) as "C"-graded national scientist. 

• 1989-95. Team member of FRD Special Programme in Conservation Biology. 

• 1989-95. Team member of FRD Special Programme in Molecular Systematics. 

• 1991-95. Various private sector sponsorships. 

• 1992, 1994. FRD merit award to museum scientists. 

• 2000. Special NRF Science Liaison award to attend 10 th Pan-African Ornithological 

Congress, Kampala, Uganda. 

• 2001. Special NRF Science Liaison award to attend 3rd International Hornbill 

Workshop, Phuket, Thailand. 

• 2004. One year’s support from Thailand’s National Center for Genetic Engineering 

and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) for rainforest survey research. 

• 2007-2008. Six month’s funding to enable specialist assistance at Department of 

Microbiology, Mahidol University, Thailand. 

• 2010. Gill Memorial Medal of Birdlife South Africa 

Consultant 

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

Natural History Unit for filming of Wildife on One programme, 10 weeks. 

• Oct-Nov 1996. Kruger National Park, specialist consultant on various birds to David 

Attenborough for BBC series Life of Birds, 3 weeks. 

• Sep-Oct 1998. Kruger National Park, specialist hornbill consultant to National 

Geographic magazine team, 4 weeks 

• October 2001 – Mala Mala, specialist consulting on ground hornbills for National 

Geographic film unit, 1 week. 

• 2004-present - >15 specialist birding and nature tours as a National South African 

Tourist Guide, registration number GP0770. 

2005-present – >20 Biodiversity assessments for a Ramsar wetland proposal, 

Important Bird Area proposal, and general scoping, G20 and specialist avifaunal 

EIAs. 

163

Abridged Curriculum Vitae: Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk 

Identity number 680804 5041 08 4 

Gender 

Male 

Date of birth 4 August 1968 

Nationality 

South African 

Home languages 

Afrikaans, fluent in English 

Postal address P.O. Box 25085, Monument Park, Pretoria, 0105. 

Tel no +27 12 347 6502, Cell +27 82 410 8871 

E-mail jcpvanwyk@absamail.co.za 

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

Hoërskool Waterkloof 

Consultant Specialist Environmental Assessments, EIAs, writing, photorecording 

Qualifications B.Sc. (U.F.S.) B.Sc. (Hon.) (U.F.S.), H.E.D (U.O.F.S.), M.Sc. (U.F.S.) 

Honours Foundation of Research Development bursary holder 

Professional Natural Scientist (Zoology) – S.A Council for Natural 

Scientific Professions, Registration # 400062/09 

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

Formal Courses Attended Outcomes Based Education, University of the South Africa 

(2002) 

Introductory Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand 

(2008) 

OBE, GET & FET training, 2002-2008, Education 

Department 

Employment history 

2000 – Present Co-Department Head for Environmental Education & Life Sciences, 

Hoërskool Waterkloof, Pretoria. 

1995 - 1999 Teaching Biology (Grades 8 – 12) and Physics / Chemistry (Grades 8 – 9) 

at the Wilgerivier High School, Free State. Duties included teaching, mid-level 

management and administration. 

164

July 1994 – Dec 1994 Teaching Botany practical tutorials to 1 st year students at the 

Botany & Zoology Department of the Qwa-Qwa campus of the University of Free State, 

plant collecting, amphibian research 

1993 - 1994 Mammal Research Institute (University of Pretoria) research associate on 

the Prince Edward Islands: topics field biology and population dynamics of invasive alien 

rodents, three indigenous seals, invertebrate assemblages, censussing king penguin 

chicks and lesser sheathbills, and marine pollution 

1991 - 1993 Laboratory demonstrator for Zoological and Entomological practical 

tutorials, and caring for live research material, University of the Free State 

1986 - 1990 Wildlife management and eco-guiding, Mt. Everest Game Farm, Harrismith 

Professional Achievement Research: Author and co-author of 50 scientific 

publications in peer-reviewed and popular subject journals, 

and 22 contractual EIA research reports. Extensive field 

work and laboratory experience in Africa 

Public Recognition: Public speaking inter alia radio talks, 

TV appearances 

Hobbies: Popular writing, travel, marathon running, climbing (viz Kilimanjaro), 

photography, biological observations, public speaking. 

165

Biodiversity (1 - SRK Consulting

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?