Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park

INVERTEBRATE SPECIALIST REPORT Prepared For: Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park Dalerwa Ventures for Wildlife cc P. O. Box 1424 Hoedspruit ...
Author: Irene Carroll
0 downloads 2 Views 2MB Size
INVERTEBRATE SPECIALIST REPORT Prepared For:

Malelane Safari Lodge, Kruger National Park

Dalerwa Ventures for Wildlife cc P. O. Box 1424 Hoedspruit 1380 Fax: Cell (Elize) Cell (Ian): E-mail:

086 212 6424 074 834 1977 084 722 1988 [email protected] [email protected]

Table of Contents 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3

2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................................................5 2.1.1 Safari Lodge Development ....................................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Invertebrate Specialist Report ...............................................................................................................5 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE.........................................................................................................................................6 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................8 3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................................9 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................10 4. DATA SOURCING ....................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 DESKTOP STUDY ..............................................................................................................................................12 4.1.1 Arachnids .............................................................................................................................................13 4.1.2 Insects ..................................................................................................................................................17 4.2 SITE VISIT ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 5. SITE SENSITIVITY........................................................................................................................................ 24 5.1 TIMFENHENI RIVER LOCATION. ...........................................................................................................................25 6. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 26 6.1 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 26 7. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. .......................................................................................................... 30 8. CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................................................................ 34 9. PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS .......................................................................................................................... 35 10. REFERENCES. ........................................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................................. 37 APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX C................................................................................................................................................... 40

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

2

1. Executive Summary When considering the impact of a listed activity in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 0f 1998) one should take a step back to the second chapter of the Bill of Rights. Section 24b (Environment) states that “Everyone has the right to have an environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that i. ii. iii.

prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecological sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.’

According to Henning (2001a) these statements from the constitution make individuals and corporations responsible for their actions and accountable to the nation. To promote a system of environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to or within protected areas the concept of what constitutes a protected area needs to be addressed (Henning, 2001b).Even though protected areas are key to in situ conservation under the Convention on Biological Diversity they are unlikely to be sustainable if established or managed in isolation. A systems approach is therefore required, which focuses on relationships between component parts and the broader implications of actions related to individual components. In some areas there is evidence of long standing focus on relatively large or otherwise attractive wildlife species leading to too much attention on charismatic wildlife and not enough on habitats and communities. The implementation of a new development requires impact assessments to be undertaken and mitigation applied where impacts on the environment may be considered harmful. Where mitigation measures are insufficient, the implementation of the development may be in jeopardy. The process of determining whether any components of the invertebrate groups of organisms may be affected by the development in question at the proposed Malelane Safari Lodge commences at a baseline level i.e. historically protected species. The desktop study indicated that there may be certain ‘Threatened or Protected Species’ present on the site but the serious lack of baseline data or comprehensive long-term data on most of the invertebrate groups at the particular site precludes conclusive results. On a ‘lower’ level consideration of the habitat requirements of the invertebrate organisms can be investigated and compared to the habitat within the

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

3

development footprint. Where the required habitat is restricted and not commonly available, mitigation would be difficult. In this case , the habitat is well represented in the region and cannot be considered a threat to any invertebrate organism through ‘habitat losses’. Food sources may be a limiting factor especially to invertebrate organisms that are reliant on specific plant species to complete a part of the lifecycle (i.e. Lepidoptera) and therefore ensure their survival. As the vegetation type is well represented, it is assumed due to lack of detailed floristic data, that this aspect would not be problematic. Other groups that are predatory are also considered to be secure due to the fact that no essential habitat or food source required for their survival is lacking in adjacent areas or further afield. Factors that may have detrimental effects on local populations of any invertebrate group during both the construction and operational phases of the development are mentioned as they could eradicate or adversely affect viable local populations. The impact of pollution in the form of spills of toxic substances or airborne detrimental chemicals (poisons) may impact on both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Destruction of microhabitats on the proposed site, such as the rocky outcrops, the drainage line embankment or rotting tree stumps may have an impact on certain invertebrates. Excessive lighting at night also warrants mention as invertebrates, which are active at night are drawn to such light sources. This study has been based on historical data and consultation with specialists and authors of publications on specific groups of invertebrates. Time constraints did not allow for extensive surveys do be done on the invertebrate groups of interest even to obtain baseline information. McGeoch, et al (2011) showed that in South Africa there are already several examples of invertebrates (a) being successfully inventoried, (b) having their conservation status assessed, (c) being used in conservation planning, and (d) being used as bioindicators in monitoring programmes. In the light of this a monitoring programme has been recommended to determine whether the development has impacted on, or continues to impact on the invertebrate populations at the specific site.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

4

2. Introduction 2.1 Description of Proposed Project 2.1.1 Safari Lodge Development The proposed development project located in the Malelane region of the Kruger National Park comprises the establishment of a four star 240-bed safari lodge, with its associated activities as described in the BAR. Further components of the proposed development include re-alignment of the road (S114) and a park and ride facility at the Malelane Gate. The proposed site preferred by the applicant for the development lies at the confluence of the Timfenheni and Crocodile Rivers, along the southern boundary of the Kruger National Park.

Figure 1: Proposed Layout plan of the lodge

2.1.2 Invertebrate Specialist Report

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

5

The significance of potential impacts of the proposed tourism development at the applicable proposed site, namely at the Timfenheni River and partially along the Crocodile River, on the invertebrate populations was investigated. The assessment focussed on taxa that may be affected by construction activities and during the operational phase. More specifically, those species or invertebrate groups that are listed under ‘Threatened or Protected Species’ (TOPS) (Table 1) as contained in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (2004), were considered. Local regulation was also consulted using the applicable acts for the Mpumalanga Province (Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act No.10 of 1988) and the Limpopo Province (Limpopo Environmental Management Act, 2003) THREATENED OR PROTECTED SPECIES (2007) INVERTEBRATA Scientific Name

Common Name

Probability of Occurrence

Aloeides clarki Coega Copper Butterfly None Ceratogyrus spp – All species Horned Baboon Spiders Probable Echinodiscus bisperforatus Pansy Shell None Dromica spp – All species Tiger Beetles Probable Graphipterus assimilis Velvet Ground Beetle Possible Hadogenes spp – All species Flat Rock Scorpions Probable Harpactira spp – All species Common Baboon Spiders Probable Ichnestoma spp – All species Fruit Chafer Beetles Uncertain Manticora spp – All species Monster Tiger Beetles Possible Megacephala asperata Tiger Beetle Possible Megacephala regalis Royal Tiger Beetle Possible Nigidius auriculatus Stag Beetle None Oonotus adspersus Stag Beetle None Oonotus interioris Stag Beetle None Oonotus rex Stag Beetle None Oonotus sericeus Stag Beetle None Opisthacanthus spp - All spp Creeping Scorpions Probable Opistophthalmus spp – All spp Burrowing Scorpions Probable Platychile pallida Tiger Beetle Uncertain Prosopocoilus petitclerci Stag Beetle None Prothyma guttipennis Tiger Beetle Uncertain Pterinochilus spp – All spp Golden Baboon Spiders Probable Table 1: Threatened or Protected Species (2007)

Invertebrates are increasingly being used as environmental health indicators or more specifically as ‘bioindicators’. This has been more prevalent in aquatic systems but is increasing on a terrestrial level. The term ‘bioindicator’ also applies to emergency disciplines of biodiversity surrogacy where potential ‘surrogate’ or ‘target’ taxa are examined for their capacity to provide an indication of total species diversity and abundance (Andersen, 1997).

2.2 Terms of Reference

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

6

Assessment of the site footprint, especially in terms of terrestrial invertebrates is an enormous task if one considers the number of species involved and the diversity of these biological groups. Consideration of historic information was the primary research method focussing on particular groups or species that are considered to have a vulnerability status. Micro habitat loss is probably the greatest threat the development poses to many invertebrate species, as opposed to direct physical threat to individual species on the site. This aspect has to be viewed within the context of the extent of each vegetation type applicable. The Invertebrate Study will follow the deliverables recommendations of the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Board (2006) but with some deviations: • •

• • •

• •

List of invertebrate species of conservation concern that might be expected to occur in the area, based on data from the literature and other sources. Estimates of probability of occurrence and preliminary information on presence/absence of Red Data invertebrate species and other priority species and groups. Particular emphasis will be placed on Red Data invertebrates and/or protected spiders, scorpions, dragonflies & damselflies, beetles and butterflies. GPS coordinates for any conservation-important specimens found and maps indicating distributions of all priority species confirmed on the site. Recommendations for additional survey work, if required, e.g. to confirm the presence / absence of further priority species, refine on-site distribution mapping of those confirmed as present, or to establish additional baselines for monitoring the potential spread of invasive species as a result of the construction process. Monitoring of ant communities is important in the light of recent concerns regarding potentially invasive ant species in the KNP. Recommendations for mitigation measures / management options to conserve priority species and to manage potential problem species.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

7

2.3 Description of Site and Surrounding Environment The footprint of the development site lies near the confluence of the Timfenheni River with the larger, east-flowing Crocodile River. The primary zone is an elevated ‘plateau’ that overlooks the Timfenheni River with a poorly developed small cliff face below and extends westward along the drainage line. The Timfenheni River structure has nothing unique comprising a small annual stream of connected pools with a riverbed that is both rocky and interlaced with sandbanks. The site for the proposed development also follows the course of the Crocodile River upstream for a short distance in a south-westerly direction from the confluence. The vegetation of the site is typical of the landscape of that area of the Kruger National Park being comprised of open savannah woodland with large trees with patches of multi species shrub. No area within the development zone can be described as unique in the sense that it differs significantly from the general vegetation structure or species composition. The main vegetation types, as described by Low and Rebelo (1996) that are affected are the Malelane Mountain Bushveld and Granite Lowveld. The conservation status of the Granite Lowveld type is considered ‘vulnerable’ (Low & Rebelo,1996) with some 17% conserved in the Kruger National Park and a similar amount in adjacent private nature reserves. Citing Mucina & Rutherford (2006) in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment for the proposed development the vegetation was described as Granite Lowveld that has a conservation status of ‘vulnerable’. A total of only 30% of the vegetation type is conserved in the Greater Kruger National Park area and 20% has already been totally transformed. Five vegetation communities were described with the GrewiaCombretum Closed Shrubland the dominant vegetation covering an area of approximately 30.4ha. As indicated in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment (2015) the study area is not situated within any threatened terrestrial ecosystem or centre of plant endemism. Four of the five vegetation communities were identified at the proposed development site. No plant species were identified as endemic to the proposed site of development that may have an impact on the lifecycle of any insect species, especially that of the Lepidoptera.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

8

3. Background 3.1 Legislative Framework Invertebrates, as with all other life forms present in South Africa, are covered in terms of conservation, sustainability and management under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act which was promulgated as Act No. 10 of 2004. The protection of threatened species and ecosystems as required by the Act is regulated through a permit system. The collection of invertebrates is regulated through provincial legislation but, as there is no centralised national legislation, guidelines differ from province to province. In conservation areas, collection of invertebrates is regulated by the nine provinces, the National Parks Board and the Department of Water Affairs. Restrictions on collecting of invertebrates within protected areas (e.g. provincial reserves and national parks) is controlled by the permit systems and on private land additionally requires written permission from the landowner. Oddly enough, legislation does not cover the destruction or poisoning of invertebrates in general under any condition. The application of land-use other than conservation i.e. agriculture, forestry or infrastructure development, that leads to habitat alteration has only specially protected species to consider. The bulk of invertebrate biomass is thus open to eradication by all means possible and only specimen collection is regulated. For example Section 61 (1)(d) of LEMA states: ‘No person may without permit :collect, catch, keep or import into, convey in or through, or export or remove from, the Province any other invertebrate not referred to in paragraph (a) of Schedule 10 (i.e. not protected species) for entomology, commercial or collection purposes’. Paragraph (e) does however forbid the killing of any invertebrate in a Provincial Park or Site of Ecological Importance. It is only through training of personnel and the instilling of respect for invertebrate organisms at the site of development that real conservation and protection of invertebrate species can be affected.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

9

3.2 Assumptions and Limitations The number of groups that are contained under ‘invertebrates’ precludes the possibility of intensive surveys to conclusively determine the presence of threatened species, diversity of each group or the probable biomass of all taxa to determine invertebrate richness. Falk (1998) states that the quality of invertebrate information varies greatly within EIA reports, being inadequate in a number of ways:    

The adequacy of taxonomic coverage. The adequacy of sampling. The quality of interpretation. The style of presentation

The consequence of these shortcomings may in turn lead to over-optimistic statements that suggest that:    

Invertebrate interests of a large, diverse site can be concentrated into a much smaller area The use of a vegetation-led approach will always protect more important invertebrate species and assemblages at a site. Habitat translocation and habitat creation projects can be as successful and predictable for invertebrates as purported to be for plants. Insect populations are evenly distributed over a site and are unlikely to be affected by partial destruction of a site.

To address some of the concerns indicated above recommendations for future monitoring actions of invertebrate groups investigated were made under Section 8 of this report. The timeframe for completion of the assessment did not allow for any detailed surveys to be implemented for any of the invertebrate groups. Accumulation of such data would require months of sampling and simultaneous attention to too many invertebrate groups that are of interest. As a result the study was focused on historical information obtained from literature, KNP and ARC-PPRI databases and personal communication with specialists in various fields of invertebrate studies. All data referenced has been obtained either from intensive studies conducted in specific localities or random sampling by researchers or interested participants in the collection of records through photographs or samples. No database was found to be sufficiently detailed (down to quarter degree squares) to provide information that is complete or specific to the site of the proposed development. No ecological studies

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

10

on the group of taxa selected for this report were found that have been done in or nearby the site or within the vegetation type of concern. The prevailing weather conditions were also concluded to be critical to the presence of a number of invertebrate species during the site visit. For example, through random observations, especially of Lepidoptera in the Lowveld region this season, it has been noted that due to the late onset of the rainfall season numbers are unseasonably low. Late flush within the wooded plant communities and delayed flowering of herbaceous plant species would especially have had an impact on the numbers of many of the invertebrate groups. Rainfall records received from the staff at Berg-en-Dal indicates that the rainfall season was late and that only 251mm of rain had fallen in the first half of the season (Table 4). The number of rain days indicates that rain events have been small and therefore probably insufficient to properly stimulate the onset of insect activity. The mean annual rainfall for the area is given as approximately 630 mm by Mucina & Rutherford (2006). Emphasis was placed on historical data and expert consultation as a means of mitigating the lack of data from short-term observation or monitoring discrepancies.

4. Data Sourcing The time constraints associated with the delivery of the specialist study report, combined with the numerous invertebrate species probably present at the site have ruled out the possibility of doing extensive sampling studies. Gardiner (1997) has investigated the potential use of certain invertebrates as indicator species for Environmental Impact Assessments and noted that their sensitivity to environmental changes is advantageous to such investigations. However, there are many disadvantages, as they are also affected by climatic events, time of year when they are active and there is generally insufficient data on their local movements.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

11

Dobson (1989), with reference mainly to Lepidoptera, stated that where one is required to assist in surveys related to conservation of certain species, it is preferable to record foodplants than to list species occurring at the site in question. In view of the process whereby nature reserves or even habitats within protected areas, are becoming oases in terrain that is being developed through agriculturalization, afforestation or construction of housing, roads, and industry, it has become more important to list possible foodplants for the survival of both static and nomadic populations of insects and other invertebrates. Weather patterns play a vital role in the status of vertebrate populations at any point in time. Many species are reliant on average rainfall to fulfil their ecological roles. Monitoring invertebrate organisms would require long term data collection as species diversity and numbers depend on climatic conditions. The same could be said for vegetation monitoring: doing surveys in dry season months would exclude many geophytic plants, many that are protected. Once-off monitoring would be inconclusive but having well populated databases that provide extensive baseline data would go a long way to facilitating informed decisions on invertebrate status. A site visit was used to orientate and search for possible sedentary Red Data species or TOPS listed species that will be directly affected by the proposed development. Exclusivity of the habitats affected by the proposed development was also investigated. Observations made at the proposed development site will assist in determining the future requirements of invertebrate monitoring processes that should commence from the onset of construction and continue into the operational phase.

4.1 Desktop Study Red Data or TOPS listed invertebrate species or groups that have sufficient historic data available and which are likely to be affected in some way by the proposed development, have been investigated. Species that are listed under various protective legislations have been afforded more intensive investigation. The chief target groups are Arachnids (spiders, scorpions and solifugae), and Insecta (mainly butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies, ants and beetles). Even though invertebrates are the most species-rich and abundant biological groups, there is limited historical information available on diversity and abundance at the proposed development site. Experts in the fields above were consulted to acquire recent data on conservation status of species, to source species lists and records of species abundance for the Kruger National Park. Attempts were made to gather relevant baseline data for the quarter-degree (2531BC) of concern but little or no data was available. Distribution data on listed species, especially the Coleoptera, was difficult to come by.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

12

A number of studies have been done in the KNP but are localised or over generalised. For example, studies associated with the experimental fire application regimes at sites in the Shabeni and Kambeni areas near Pretoriuskop included surveys of invertebrate groups such as butterflies, ants, termites and grasshoppers. On the general side material has been collected from various databases with species listing as the focal point. Certain ‘atlassing’ projects on invertebrates have contributed to distribution data but the intensity of such data collection is not of such a standard sufficient to inform detailed species richness down to a quarter-degree square. 4.1.1 Arachnids 4.1.1.1 Spiders As with the insect groups, spiders are numerous in both species and biomass. According to Filmer (1993) it is estimated that there are on average more than 500 000 spiders per arable hectare of land in the world. In South Africa approximately 2000 species have been described (Dippenaar-Schoeman & Leroy, 2003). Legislation mainly protects the Theraphosidae. In effect the whole Mygalomorph group of spiders should probably be protected but insufficient knowledge about the biology and abundance of many species precludes informative decision making.

Figure 2: Junodi’s Golden Baboon Spider (IAugecephalus junodi)

The South African National Survey of Arachnida was initiated in 1997 and as part of this initiative a project commenced to compile an inventory of spiders presently conserved in parks and reserves in South Africa (Dippenaar-Schoeman & Leroy, 2003). Sixteen years of collecting data was used to compile a checklist (Table 2) of

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

13

arachnid species for the Kruger National Park. In total 152 species were listed of which 68% were new distribution records. Comparatively, 40 of the known 71 South African families occur in the KNP but only 7, 5% of the species are represented (Dippenaar-Schoeman, 2014).

The Mygalomorph species records for the Kruger National Park are listed in Appendix A. The Araneomorth group of spiders is numerous and the ARC-PPRI database includes a large number of species records for the KNP. Where the proposed site for development is concerned, the closet records are from the Malelane area but only 14 records are on the database of which 50 % are not as yet fully identified. The presence and abundance of this group of organisms, more particularly the Mygalomorphs, is unclear from available literature and expert consultation.

Family Araneidae Archeidae Barychelidae Caponiidae Corinnidae Ctenidae Cyrtaucheniidae Deinopidae Dyctinidae Dipluridae Eresidae Gnaphosidae Hersiliidae Idiopidae Linyphiidae Liocranidae Lycosidae Mimetidae Miturgidae Oecobiidae Oonopidae

Genera 15 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 2 1 8 1 2 2 1

Species 23 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 2 1 2 1 8 1 4 2 1

NR 15 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 8 1 2 2 1

Family Oxyopidae Palpimanidae Philodromidae Pholcidae Phyxelididae Pisauridae Prodidomidae Salticidae Scytodidae Segestriidae Selenopidae Sicariidae Sparassidae Tetragnathidae Theraphosidae Theridiidae Thomisidae Uloboridae Zodariidae

Total: 40

Genera 3 1 3 3 1 5 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 5 4 5 9 1 4

Species 9 1 4 3 1 5 2 8 1 1 6 2 3 7 5 5 15 2 4

NR 4 1 3 3 0 3 2 7 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 5 14 2 2

116

152

103

Table 2: Spider families collected at the Kruger National Park indicating the number of new records (NR) and the number of species and genera in each family (Dippenaar- Schoeman & Leroy, 2003)

4.1.1.2 Scorpions According to Lawrence (1964 & 1967) 20 species of scorpion were collected in the Kruger National Park mainly by Dr U. de V. Pienaar and his field staff. A further 3 species were listed as probably occurring due to their presence in areas bordering

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

14

the park. In Appendix B the scorpion species known to occur in the Kruger National Park are listed.

Figure 3: An Opisthacanthus laevipes (Creeping scorpion) found under rocks at the site

All species of Hadogenes scorpions (Flat Rock Scorpions) are listed under the TOPS regulation. These species are generally found on rocky outcrops hiding in the cracks between rocks. Furthermore, species of the genera of Opisthacanthus (Creeping Scorpions) and Opistophthalmus (Burrowing Scorpions) are also included in the TOPS listing. All three genera are likely to occur at the proposed development site. The revised TOPS list due for publishing in this years’ parliamentary session may affect the status of some of the species.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

15

Cheloctonus jonesii Hadogenes gunningi Hadogenes troglodytes Hottentotta trilineatus Opistophthalmus glabrifrons Parabuthus transvaalicus Uroplectes carinatus Uroplectes olivaceus Uroplectes triangulifer Uroplectes sp.

1 1 6

Skukuza

KNP General

Shingwedzi

Punda Maria

Olifants

Mangeba

Species

Pafuri

Location

Letaba

Number of Scorpiones records from KNP database.

1 3 3 1

1 1 1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1

Table 3: Scorpions records from KNP database

Only limited information on the distribution of Scorpions species in the KNP could be sourced from literature and databases. From available data, the historic presence of protected scorpion species could not be confirmed at the proposed development site.

4.1.1.3 Solifugae. Although not considered true spiders, the Solifugae are of interest as 16 species are known to occur in the Kruger National Park (Lawrence, 1964 & 1967). A further 6 species are known to have occurred in areas surrounding the Park and may also be present. No species of Solifugae is listed as protected under any of the relevant legislation. Most solifugae species are nocturnal but there are species that are diurnal. They are more closely related to Pseudoscorpiones than to the Aranaea. The group is monophyletic based on both morphological and molecular analyses (Filmer, 2010). As one of the dominant predatory arthropods in arid ecosystems, as well as their role as important prey to many vertebrates in such ecosystems, solifugae are considered an indicator species by some authors. Living in environments where they are subjected to temperature extremes and low relative humidity these voracious predators probably have high metabolic rates (www.solpugid.com)

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

16

Figure 4: The Solifugae species found at the site.

Burrowing is an important part of their lifestyle, providing humidity, protection from temperature extremes and from predators. Furthermore burrows serve as daytime refuge for nocturnal species, a retreat during moulting and digestion of large meals, and shelter for deposition of eggs. (www.solpugid.com). Even though included in Arachnid databases, limited specific information on their abundance or presence at the development site is available. Lawrence (1964 & 1967) did include a grid map locality reference in his listing of solifugae species for the Kruger National Park as indicated in Appendix C. Only 1 record was from the Malelane area. 4.1.2 Insects 4.1.2.1 Butterflies & Moths (Lepidoptera) Williams (2006) compiled a checklist of butterflies of the Kruger National Park totalling 219 species. Otto (2014) includes some 265 species in his publication but did include areas surrounding the Kruger National Park. More specifically, Lepidoptera records submitted to the Animal Demographic Unit’s LepiMap site are limited and only a total of 44 species for the 2531BC quarter degree, on which the development is proposed, and 120 species on the adjacent 2531AD quarter degree are listed on the database.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

17

All species of butterfly listed for both these areas are rated as ‘Least Concern’ for their conservation status. The handful of moth records are all listed as ‘not evaluated’. The KNP database records 112 butterfly species according to the Butterfly Atlas for the 2531BC quarter degree. For both butterflies and moths, no species known to occur in the KNP are Red Data listed. In his book Pinhey (1975) estimates that there are more than 7000 species of moth known in southern Africa but that there are probably more than 10000 species, as little is known about a number of families. Moth species are divided into some 52 families. According to Staude (pers. comm.) only 156 species of moth are listed for the Kruger National Park as research on this group has been restricted in the past. The database on moths for the KNP contains only 640 records. A total of 107 genera and 173 species are recorded with only 81 records for the southern KNP, mostly at Skukuza and Pretoriuskop.

Figure 5: Aggregated moth larvae on site.

The above indicates that with such limited data on the existence of many species, unrecorded lifecycles and limited distribution data, determining the impact of any development on this group of invertebrates in near impossible.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

18

In South Africa the butterflies most at risk are the myrmecophilous Lycaenidae (Henning, 2001b). These species are extremely localized requiring specific larval foodplants and host ants. Optimal climatic and habitat conditions are essential and therefore they are vulnerable to any disturbance of their preferred habitat. A minor disturbance of a preferred habitat can lead to the extinction of a rare species. In the area of the proposed development, 5 Lycaenid genera that are ant-associated occur according to Otto (2014). Included are Axiocercis spp. (2), Cigaritis spp. (4), Aloeides spp. (2), Crudaria spp. (1) and Lepidochrysops spp. (3). These butterfly species are attended to by ants of the Pheidole, Crematogaster, Anaplolepis or Camponotus species. The introduction of the alien ant species, Iridomyrmex humilis (Argentine ant) to the development site could have a detrimental effect on ant-associated butterfly species survival in the area. Harassment of indigenous ants by this alien species drives them away removing their contribution to the essential functions of the ecosystems such as the care of butterfly larvae and plant seed dispersal (Henning, 2001b). It should be noted, however, that first and foremost, the foodplant species required by the butterfly species in question has to also occur within the area proposed for development. 4.1.2.2 Dragonflies & Damselflies (Odonata)

Figure 6: An inhabitant of the Timfenheni River system, Ictinogomphus ferox (Tigertail), photographed on site.

Tarboton (2002) has listed some 91 species of dragonfly for South Africa of which 64 species occur in the Kruger National Park area. None of these species are Red Data listed and not all KNP species would occur in the vicinity of the site under investigation. Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

19

A ‘Dragonfly Biotic Index’ (DBI) has recently been developed by Michael Samways and John Simakia that ranks Odonata according to their rarity, sensitivity, range restriction, etc. This index ranks all the species on a scale of 0-9 where 9 is priority and 0 common and unthreatened. Of those ranked between 7-9, two species, namely Ceriagrion suave and Pseudoagrion sjoestedti, both of which are damselflies, occur in the southern KNP. Two 6 - ranked species, Gomphidea quarrei and Neurogomphus zambeziensis, occur in the greater Lowveld (Tarboton, pers. comm.). 4.1.2.3 Beetles (Coleoptera) Certain groups of Coleoptera have species that are protected as indicated in Table 1. These include species of tiger beetles, stag beetles, fruit-chafer beetles and velvet ground beetles. The stag beetle species are mostly forest dwelling thus unlikely to occur on the site. Both the tiger and fruit-chafer beetles may possibly occur in the area. Scholtz (pers. comm.) indicated that the whole Coleoptera group is considered ‘Data Deficient’ for the area of concern but also generally throughout the country. He postulated that even the species considered ‘rare’ are probably just poorly known as insufficient research has been done to determine their status.

Figure 7: A giant emerald fruit-chafer beetle (Dichronorrhena derbyana).

The pet trade and collectors of impressive beetles are the main motivations behind the listing of most of the Coleoptera species as there is limited information on their status. It can thus be considered a preventative measure more than scientifically proven rarity that led to these species needing special protection.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

20

Of interest to this study is the fact that all the representatives of the Cicindelinae (Tiger Beetles) are to be removed from the listing in a revision of TOPS as there is no scientific justification for their inclusion (Stals, pers. comm.). The only listed species that occurs within the Mpumalanga Province will then be Oonotus adspersus (Inland Small Stag Beetle)

PROVINCIALLY PROTECTED COLEOPTERA SPECIES: Mpumalanga Dromica sp Flightless Tiger Beetle species Manticora sp Monster Tiger Beetle species Megacephala asperata Tiger Beetle Megacephala regalis Tiger Beetle Nigidius auriculatus Tiger Beetle Oonotus adspersus Tiger Beetle Oonotus interioris Tiger Beetle Oonotus rex Tiger Beetle Oonotus sericeus Tiger Beetle Prosopocoilus petitclerci Stag Beetle Prothyma guttipennis Tiger Beetle 4.1.2.4 Ants (Formicids) No species of ant are formally protected through legislation in any form. Research conducted in the Kruger National Park has been inconclusive as to the status of ant species. There are many species considered ‘rare’ but there is insufficient data on their distribution within the KNP and there is no quantitative data on the presence of these species at the development site (Parr, pers. comm.) Schoeman & Foord (2012) found in studies in the Marekele National Park that the presence of large herbivores combined with vegetation complexity plays a role in ant species diversity. The vegetation surveys conducted for the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment indicated that a number of smaller plant communities are present at the site forming part of the encompassing vegetation type. The location of the development site is furthermore presently open to large herbivores as part of the Kruger National Park and , therefore, it can be expected that there would be high ant species diversity.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

21

Figure 8: The larvae of Iolaus bowkeri (Bowker's Marbled Sapphire) attended by a species of ant

Parr, et al. (2004) recorded 162 species of ants in the Kruger National Park. Surveys were conducted in the Satara, Pretoriuskop and Skukuza areas. Ants are considered an important group for invertebrate monitoring in the KNP for a number of reasons especially the ubiquitousness and relevance of the taxon in the area. Heath & Classens (2000) estimated that over 80% of South African Lycaenid butterflies have an association with ants at some time during their life history. A range of associations exist, both mutualistic and parasitic. Despite all the research done on the life histories of the Lycaenid butterflies, no more than 25% are known and if ant-larvae interactions are considered, this may be a gross overestimate. Healthy ant populations are tantamount to the survival of many Lycaenid species. The invasion of the development site by alien ant species will have a detrimental effect on the local invertebrate communities. Mention has already been made as to the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile), an ant first believed to have been introduced to the country during the Anglo-Boer war. Apart from doing harm in many other respects, indigenous ants are driven away through harassment and taking over of their nests and food supplies. Not only are the ants themselves affected, but also plants that are reliant on the dispersal of seeds through the feeding behavior of the particular ant species (Henning, 2001b).

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

22

The Pugnacious ant (Anoplolepis custodiens) is native to Sub-Saharan Africa where it is considered a major indigenous pest. This species is polygynous, highly aggressive and is known to exhibit extreme dominance over other ant species in agricultural landscapes (www.antweb.org, 2015). This species is commonly found in disturbed landscapes such as fallow agricultural lands, eroded zones and overgrazed habitats. Environmental disturbances such as building sites for new developments provide ideal opportunities for this species to colonize a new area. The lack of intra-specific aggression among colonies is thought to facilitate invasive expansion at the local scale. Invertebrate Group Araneae

Coleoptera

Formicids

Lepidoptera

Odonata

Scorpiones

Taxon of Interest Ceratogyrus spp. (all) Harpactira spp. (all) Pterinochilus spp. (all)

Status

Listed under National Legislation as ‘Protected’. Commercially threatened. None Though a number of species are listed under TOPS none are known to occur at site. Camponotus maculates Under threat from alien formicid spp. C. niveosetosus Acantholepis capensis Crematogaster spp Pheidole spp None No Red Data listed species are known to occur at site Ceriagrion suave Rated as species of concern on DBI Pseudoagrion sjoestedti Hadogenes spp. Listed under National Opistophthalmus spp. Legislation as ‘Protected’ Opisthacanthus spp.

Source NEMBA IUCN

Prof C. Scholtz R. Stals

G. Henning H. Otto

Dr H. Staude ADU: LepiMap W. Tarboton

NEMBA

Table 4: Invertebrate taxons of special interest derived from literature, consultation and observation that have a probability of occurrences at the proposed development site.

4.2 Site Visit The proposed development site along the Timfenheni River was visited on 30 December 2014 where potential habitats that may be inhabited by Red Data or TOPS listed invertebrates were randomly searched for the presence of these species or related species. The elevated rocky embankment of the drainage line, flat area of woodland and the course of the drainage line were traversed while searching for signs of any species of conservation importance i.e. protected species. The brief period of the site visit and small size of the study area precluded quantitative and extensive surveys.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

23

None of the TOPS species listed in Table 1 were observed during the visit. The area of the proposed development was walked and rocks and logs lifted to search for scorpions. Vegetation was searched for perching dragonflies and fruit-chafer beetles and short-grassed areas investigated for baboon spider burrows. The sand banks of the Timfenheni River were searched for tiger beetles and Odonata species. Butterfly species present were noted. Arachnids noted during the site visit included a few creeping scorpions (Figure 5) and a Solifugae species (Figure 6). Insects also did not exhibit much in the form of diversity. Even though it was a hot, partly clouded day, only a handful of butterflies were seen and a few moth larvae of unknown species noted on some of the vegetation. The most significant was the aggregation of fairly large larvae (Figure 4) on the lower stem of a Euclea divonorum. Odonata were well represented along the Timfenheni River with many dragonflies being observed, but only 1 species of damselfly. Conclusive results may be achieved by extended surveys providing a better understanding of species diversity and abundance of all the invertebrate groups. Anderson (1997) states that using bioindicators to assess ecological change in relation to land use is most effective when supported by a predictive understanding of the organization of bioindicator communities. This allows the impact of anthropogenic disturbance to be distinguished from inherent site variability. However, historical data and consultation with experts within each of the invertebrate fields allows for predictability within the limitations of the investigation on the impact of the proposed development on such organisms and the probability of occurrence of protected species.

5. Site Sensitivity. Bell (2008) found that herbivory, including both large and medium-sized herbivores can have large indirect effects on invertebrate richness and abundance. One explanation was that herbivores congregate in favourable environments and depress the invertebrate richness and abundance on a local scale but not on a wider scale. The construction of the proposed lodge can thus be assumed to have a similar impact as vegetation status will be altered on a local scale. The habitat modification and degradation on a local scale is expected to be moderate and thus most organisms are expected to migrate to adjacent areas of natural vegetation during the construction phase. However, the proposed activity will

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

24

have a high impact on organisms that are sedentary with limited ability to translocate e.g. baboon spiders, burrowing and rock scorpions, larvae of various organisms and flightless beetle species. With reference to larval foodplants for Lepidoptera species, Kemp (1998) states that perennial species are of more importance than annual species. Clearing of sites for construction purposes at the proposed development site would thus impact on the availability of such plant species for Lepidoptera species occurring in the area. In mitigation however, the layout of the proposed lodge does allow for natural areas to remain between various structures where perennial plant species will be represented.

5.1 Timfenheni River location. In general, site sensitivity is not considered to be high where the invertebrate populations are concerned. Site specific habitats were not noted, thus, precluding any possibility of a sensitive or restricted invertebrate species from only occurring in the development footprint. Even though the habitat types that can be identified at the site are well represented in surrounding areas of the Kruger National Park, care should be taken to preserve the integrity of localised habitats. E.g. the AloeEuphorbia Closed Woodland as described in the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment (2015). Areas considered worthy of special attention include the steep rocky face of the embankment leading down to the drainage system of the Timfenheni River and also the drainage line system itself, although not perennial, that provides suitable habitat to a number of invertebrate species. Such areas may be sensitive to disturbance from mechanical machinery or spills of detrimental pollutants during the construction phase. Fragmentation of the habitat and the formation of islands of natural vegetation within the development area poses the greatest challenge to invertebrates. Sedentary species will be less affected but active predators and mobile species may have to access other areas in search of food, water, mates or shelter.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

25

5.2 Crocodile River Status. Although the Crocodile River will not be as directly affected as the Timfenheni River by the development, some comment on this system is included. In his study on the impact of anthropogenic activities in the Crocodile River system, Soko (2014) found that, according to the ecological categories of the MIRAI, the lower reaches of the river that include the location of the proposed development, is rated as a class C (Moderately Modified). The monitoring sites CR9 (GPS coordinates 25°29’02.0”S; 31°30’21.0”E) and CR10 (GPS coordinates 25°23’37.3”S; 31°58’03.6”E) located on the Crocodile River both showed little difference during high- and low flow periods. The ecological modification of macro-invertebrates was attributed to change in water quality (e.g. agricultural activities, mining seepage, sewerage discharge, littering and urban and rural run-offs), habitat (e.g. river bank disturbance) and flow modification (e.g. weirs and impoundments). Any form of pollution from the proposed development during the construction phase and operational phase can detrimentally affect the water quality of this river downstream. This would have an impact on the invertebrates, both aquatic and terrestrial, that inhabit this system. Any impact on the Crocodile River system can only be speculated as resultant effects will only be noted in the long term and may only be due to a cumulative effect of all the activities within the catchment of this river system.

6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures 6.1 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential impacts were identified that might be triggered by both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The methodology as required in the terms of reference was followed to determine possible impacts on the invertebrate groups that have some form of legislative protection. It must be noted that potential impacts as identified for both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project may have a similar effect on protected species as well as non-protected species. The nature of the potential impact was determined by quantifying the impact according to the criteria as described in the table below.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

26

Criteria

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Categories Very Low Low Medium High Very High Very Short Short Medium Long Permanent None Minor Low Moderate High Very High Very Improbable Improbable Probable Highly Probable Definite Negligible Low Moderate High Very High

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Description Impact limited to site Impact will affect local neighbourhoods Within the region Nationally Internationally 0 – 1 years 2 – 5 years 5 – 15 years > 15 years Permanent

< 20% chance of impact 20% - 40% chance of impact 40% - 60% chance of impact 60% - 80% chance of impact > 80% chance of impact Very low impact, almost no mitigation measure necessary Low impact, mitigation can easily be achieved Impact will be real but non-substantial, mitigation feasible Impact real and substantial, mitigation feasible but difficult High impact, mitigation not possible

Malelane Safari Lodge

27

1. Illumination Impact: Disruption of nocturnal invertebrate species due to lighting of the lodge Project Phase Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance Construction Operation X Low Permanent Moderate Definite High Description of the impact: Electric lights used to illuminate the lodge complex will have a targeted impact on both crawling arachnids (e.g. scorpions, solifugae and mygalomorph spiders) and flying insects (e.g. moths, ant and termite alates, dragonflies and beetles). Irrespective of legislative status, species of both groups may be attracted to the lights. Mitigation Measures: • Yellow light bulbs will attract fewer insects and arachnids. • Downward illumination will lessen impact. • Long wavelengths emitting bulbs would reduce the numbers of attracted insects and arachnids. Significance with mitigation Project Phase Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance Construction Operation Very X Permanent Low Definite Moderate Low 2. Micro Habitats Impact: Destruction of micro habitats may lead to invertebrate extermination Project Phase Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance Construction Operation

Very Permanent High Definite High Low Description of the impact: Micro habitats of invertebrates, irrespective of legislative status, will be destroyed or disturbed through various activities during the construction phase of the project. Activities include: • Removal of topsoil, rocks and decaying logs. • Removal of flora. • Excavation of foundations. • Excavation of trenches for services. X

Mitigation Measures:

• • • •



Ensure that all site personnel have a basic level of environmental awareness training. Disturbed invertebrates can be relocated to other suitable habitats or food plants in the area. Contact relevant experts in the respective fields to assist with the relocation. Decaying logs provide micro habitats for invertebrates. Wood should not be removed to be used as fire wood during the construction and operational phases of the project. Preserve the integrity of localised habitats through responsive layout and design of the proposed development. Significance with mitigation

Project Phase Construction Operation X

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Highly Probable Very Low Permanent Moderate Moderate 3. Soil and Ground Water Contamination Impact: The maintenance and servicing of vehicles and machinery on site may lead to possible contamination of soil and ground water

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

28

Project Phase Construction Operation X

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Low

Short

Minor

Highly Probable

Low

Description of the impact: • Spills from servicing or re-fuelling. • Chemical spills e.g. during foundation poison application. Mitigation Measures:

• • •

Allocate a designated area for refueling and repair of construction machinery and vehicles. Contain accidental spills immediately to prevent leaching into surrounding areas and the aquatic system. Poisonous chemicals to be safely stored and spills effectively contained. Significance with mitigation

Project Phase Construction Operation X

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Very Low

Short

Minor

Improbable

Negligible

4. Surface Water Contamination Impact: Pollution through chemical and or sewage spills can cause surface water contamination Project Phase Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance Construction Operation

X X Medium Permanent Low Probable Description of the impact: • Spills from servicing or re-fuelling during the construction phase. • Chemical spills e.g. during foundation poison application. • Chemical and sewage spills during the operational phase.

Moderate

Mitigation Measures:

• • •

Allocate a designated area for storage of chemicals. Allocate a designated area for servicing and re-fueling of vehicles and machinery. Contain accidental spills immediately to prevent leaching into surrounding areas and the aquatic system. Significance with mitigation

Project Phase Construction Operation X

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Low

Permanent

Minor

Improbable

Low

Malelane Safari Lodge

29

5. Alien Ant Species Impact: Alien ant species may invade micro habitats of indigenous invertebrates and reduce indigenous diversity Project Phase Extent Duration Magnitude Probability Significance Construction Operation X X Low Permanent Moderate Probable Moderate

Description of the impact: Introduction of alien ant species may have a negative impact on the diversity of the indigenous invertebrate species. Mitigation Measures:

• • •

Monitor all material entering the proposed building site during the construction phase. If alien ant colony is noted during the operational phase of the proposed project, take the necessary steps to mitigate impact. Exterminate alien ant colonies, if noted during either phase. Significance with mitigation

Project Phase Construction Operation X

Extent

Duration

Magnitude

Probability

Significance

Very Low

Very Short

Minor

Probable

Negligible

7. Additional Recommendations. Recommending the need for additional field work at this point in the process would not be pertinent as no specific observation can be considered a significant ‘Red Flag’. All recommendations would be directed at future knowledge building and expansion of Protected Area i.e. the KNP, data bases. This is an ongoing process and would not be directly aligned to the assessment of the proposed development. Budgetary constraints may preclude repeat visits by surveyors thus consideration should be given to incorporating local conservation groups or volunteers that are trained to do the survey work. The proposed Environmental Education Centre at the lodge can play an active role in supporting and promoting a programme to contribute to the invertebrate database. Collections of invertebrate species from the proposed development zone, indicating any protected species, can be displayed. Diagram 1 provides an example of an Individual Species Impact Assessment data sheet as recommended by Falk (1998). Factors such as the size and nature of the site, quality and age of data gathered, experience and breadth of expertise of surveyors used in field work and choice of recording techniques contribute in determining the requirements. This will be useful in the event of a TOPS listed species’ presence being confirmed through site-clearing activities or by future observations. Monitoring of any protected invertebrate species not red flagged in this study but noted during the operational phase can form part of an environment Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

30

protection programme. Along with other activities such as recycling of waste, the monitoring action would contribute to the green status of the proposed lodge. The revised edition of TOPS may also preclude certain species in the near future as it has been indicated that a number of species (especially Coleoptera) are to be removed. Scientists from the Kruger National Park’s research section are to be encouraged to initiate research projects that will firstly contribute to baseline data for the particular area. Secondly, comparative monitoring programmes initiated where the status of invertebrate populations within the development zone are compared to adjacent areas outside of the direct influence of the development. In this way the database will be populated in a positive way and any noted problems through the comparative studies can be mitigated in a proactive manner. During the implementation phase, construction staff must be informed of the possible presence of protected invertebrate species. Highlighted species should include the Mygalomorph spider group especially the fossorial species, scorpions and solifugae. Site clearing will unearth members of these invertebrate groups and such occurrences should be brought to the attention of the Environmental Control Officer. Steps can then be taken to remove and release such individuals appropriately. Extended monitoring programmes will serve to be proactive in early detection and control of any alien invertebrate species that may be introduced to the development once operational. Measures can be immediately applied to eradicate or control the spread of unwanted alien invertebrate species. Schoeman & Foord (2012) also concluded with their research on the Formicids of the Marakele National Park, that detailed and freely available inventories of potential indicator groups of insects (ants, butterflies, dragonflies and scarab beetles) should be compiled for all protected areas in South Africa. The prevailing data deficiency within these areas for invertebrates leads to a lot of speculation in EIA processes, a problem that requires urgent attention. For the proposed development site it can be concluded that ad hoc observations should continue and, if at any point a protected species is noted, necessary mitigating steps instituted to protect this species. As more data is collected in the Kruger National Park, the application of measures to address any conservation strategy for protection of a species or habitat by operational management may be necessitated. McGeoch (2011) asks the question ‘Why monitor invertebrates in protected areas?’ and goes on to state that one of the key reasons is to ensure the adequate protection of rare and threatened invertebrate species and communities. Invertebrates provide sensitive, appropriate and logistically feasible target taxa for monitoring a wide cross section of Protected Area management. Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

31

Education of staff during both the construction and operational phases can contribute to collecting of data during their work activities as they can report the presence of invertebrate species that are of particular concern. Talks by specialists and the display of posters at staff areas will sensitize workers to the plight and importance of invertebrates.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

32

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

33

8. Conclusion. The referencing of historical information and consultation with experts in different invertebrate fields, combined with a site visit was the main method used to determine the possibilities of any invertebrate organism being negatively affected by the development in question. Through this process no aspect, whether a specific species or habitat type, could be red flagged. Where possible impacts have been identified, mitigating actions are recommended. Future management of the site where the proposed development has been located will continue to impact on invertebrate species, whether Red Data listed or not. The exclusion of herbivory or fires, a natural part of a dynamic ecosystem, will affect the presence of certain invertebrate species. One example of such impact can be seen with species of Mygalomorph spiders where densification of the grass layer has a negative impact on their ability to source food as required prey densities are diminished (Sharp, pers. obs.). Potential chemical or sewerage spills and sources of light are aspects that may have continuous impact or possible impact during the operational phase. Mitigation measures for possible impacts on invertebrates are limited as it is considered that the proposed development will not be entirely environmentally destructive such as would be the case of a mining operation. Certain aspects will result in localised destruction such as the footprint of any structure that is to be erected. Focus for mitigation should mainly be to minimise disturbance of ‘natural’ areas within the development footprint and the surrounding areas. Invertebrate communities will therefore have reservoir populations within this area and thus have the opportunity to colonise areas undisturbed by the proposed development. The extent of the identified impacts, as discussed under section 7 of this report can be regarded as of low significance if the proposed mitigation measures are applied. In Table 5 a summary of the impact assessments pre- and post-mitigation is provided. Impact Summary Impact Pre Mitigation Post Mitigation 1 High Moderate 2 High Moderate 3 Low Negligible 4 Moderate Low 5 Moderate Negligible Table 5: Summary of pre- and post-mitigation ratings for identified impacts

From a legal perspective, the TOPS listing of 2007 has been revised and the updated version is awaiting the Minister to sign into law. The intention to publish the

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

34

revised list was published as Notice 389 of 2013 in Government Gazette 16 of April 2013 and is expected to be signed in the next parliamentary session starting February 2015 (Stals, pers. comm.). The status of some species addressed in this report may change nullifying their legal protection but on the other hand, new species may become a concern. With this in mind, impact surveys should not be compartmentalized as all components of the environment are linked to form the ecosystem functioning in a particular area. Time constraints normally associated with EIA’s preclude studies whereby such interactive surveys can be conducted. Knowledge of the plant species combined with that of organisms present would provide a completely different picture when the relationship between these components is investigated. Based on available information we are of the opinion that the continuation of the proposed development will not have a detrimental effect on the invertebrate populations at the proposed site and immediate surrounds, therefore, the proposed development can be supported.

9. Project Contributors I.C. Sharp: BSc (Hons) Wildlife Management. E. Osmers: ND Nature Conservation.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

35

10. References. Andersen, A.N. 1997. Using Ants as bioindicators: Multiscale Issues in Ant Community Ecology. Conservation Ecology [online] 1(1): 8. Available from the Internet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art8/ Animal Demography Unit (2014). LepiMAP Virtual Museum. Accessed at http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=LepiMAP Antweb (2015), http://www.antweb.org. Accessed 17 January 2015. Bell, David (2008) Indirect effects of mammalian herbivores on invertebrates in a river gradient of the Kruger National Park, South Africa. Dept. of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental studies, SLU. Examensarbete i ämnet biologi vol. 2008:17. Dobson, A. H. 1989. Lepidoptera foodplant recording for conservation. Br. J. Ent. Nat. Hist., 2:131-138. Dippenaar-Schoeman, A. S. and A. Leroy. 2003. A checklist of spiders of the Kruger National Park, South Africa (Arachnida: Araneae). Koedoe 46(1): 91-100. Dippenaar-Schoeman, A. S. 2014. Field guide to the spiders of South Africa. LAPA Publishers, Pretoria. Falk, S. 1998. Individual species impact assessments: A standardized technique for describing the impact of development proposals on critical invertebrate species. Br. J. Ent. Nat. His., 11: 19-29. Filmer, M.R. 2010. Filmer’s Spiders: An Identification guide for Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Gardiner, A. 1997. The potential use of butterflies & dung beetles in environmental impact studies: an example from Zimbabwe. Metamorphosis Supplement 3: 129-132. Henning, G. A. 2001a. Notes on butterfly conservation in South Africa and the IUCN Red Data Book catergories. Metamorphosis 12(2): 55-68. Henning, G. A. 2001b. Notes on the biology of threatened butterflies in South Africa. Metamorphosis 12(3): 109-122. Kemp, R. 1998. Butterflies – Importance of larval foodplant’s life cycle with particular reference to the Brown Argus Aricia agestis. The Bulletin of the Amateur Entomologists’ Society 57 (421):225-227.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

36

Lawrence, R. F. 1964. The solifugae, scorpions and pedipalpi of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 7(1): 130-143. Lawrence, R. F. 1967. Supplementary list of the solifugae, scorpions and pedipalpi of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 10(1): 82-86. Lott, D. A., I. Butterfield and M. B. Jeeves. 1999. Terrestrial invertebrates in site assessment: a local perspective. Br. J. Ent. Nat. Hist., 12: 96-104. Low, B. & A. G. Rebelo. (1996) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: A Companion to the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa. McGeoch, M. A., H. Sithole, M. J. Samways, J. P. Simaika, J. S. Pryke, M. Picker, et al., 2011. Conservation and monitoring of invertebrates in terrestrial protected areas. Koedoe 53(2), Art. #1000, 13 pages. Doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1000. Milburn, D.. 2012. Proposed development of a hotel at the confluence of the Timfenei and Crocodile Rivers within the Kruger National Park. EIA Draft Scoping Report. Mucina, A., M. C. Rutherford (Eds.). 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria Otto, H. 2014. Butterflies of the Kruger National Park & Surrounds. Herbert Otto, Barbeton, South Africa. Parr, C. L., H. G. Robertson, H. C. Biggs & S. L. Chown. 2004. Response of African savanna ants to long-term fire regimes. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 630-642. Schoeman, C. S. & S. H. Foord. 2012. Achecklist of epigaeic ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from the Marakele National Park, Limpopo, South Africa. Koedoe 54(1), Art. #1030, 7 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v54i1.1030. Soko, M. I. 2014. A study of the impact of anthropogenic activities in the Crocodile River, Mpumalanga. MSc thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Solifugae web (2015), http://www.solpugid.com. Accessed 18 January 2015. Tarboton, W & M. Tarboton, 2002. A field guide to the dragonflies of South Africa. Warwick & Michèle Tarboton, Nylstroom, South Africa.

APPENDIX A Mygalomorph Spider Species Recorded in KNP: [List according to ARC Database for KNP)

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

37

Theraphosidae: Augacephalus breyeri Augacephalus junodi Brachionopus pretoriae Brachionopus sp. Ceratogyrus darlingi Ceratogyrus dolichocephalus Ceratogyrus pillansi Harpactira sp. Harpactirella sp. Idiothele nigrofulva Pterinochilus lugardi Pterinochilus sp. Ceratogyrus dolichocephalus Ctenizidae: Stasimopus sp. Dipluridae: Allothele malawi Cyrtaucheniidae: Ancylotrypa barbertoni Ancylotrypa zebra Ancylotrypa brevipalpis Ancylotrypa sp. Idiopidae: Idiops gunning Idiops castaneus Idiops sp. Ctenolophus oomi Galeosoma vandami Galeosoma planiscutatum Galeosoma sp. Segregara transvaalensis Segregara mossambicus Segregara monticola Segregara sp.

ALL SPECIES OF Ceratogyrus, Harpactira and Pterinochilus ARE TOPS LISTED.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

38

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

39

APPENDIX B Scorpion Species Possible At Development Site: [List according to I. Engelbrecht (pers. comm.)] Buthidae: Parabuthus transvaalicus Uroplectes olivaceus U. vittatus U. carinatus Hormuridae (Liochelidae): Cheloctonus jonesii Opisthacanthus asper O. laevipes Scorpionidae: Opistophthalmus glabifrons

Additional Species in Kruger National Park: Buthidae: Lychas burdoi Hottentotta trilineatus Pseudolychus ochraceus P. pegleri (in literature but not confirmed) Uroplectes flavoviridus (needs confirmation) U. formosus U. planimanus U. chubbi (to be confirmed: Sithole & Engelbrecht, 2005) Hormuridae: Hadogenes troglodytes Scorpionidae: Opistothalmus boehmei ALL SPECIES OF Hodogenes, Opisthacanthus and Opistophthalmus ARE TOPS LISTED.

APPENDIX C Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

40

Solifugae Species Recorded in Southern KNP: [List according to R. F. Lawrence (Koedoe, 1964)] Solpugidae: Zeriassa transvaalensis Zeria strepsiceros (ARC Database) Solpuga sericea S. strepsiceros Solpugopa conservatorum Solpugiba arenicola S. lineata (ARC Database) Daesiidae: Blossiola laticosta

Additional Species in Kruger National Park: Solpugidae: Zeriassa furcicornis Zeriassa purcelli (ARC Database) Solpuga celeripes S. serraticornis S. monteiroi S.spiralicornis Solpugopa truncata Solpugema hostiles (ARC Database) Daesiidae: Biton trilineatus NO SPECIES ARE EITHER RED DATA OR TOPS LISTED. Most records on the ARC-PPRI database are unidentified or are only listed at genus level.

Invertebrate Specialist Report

Malelane Safari Lodge

41