08 Appendix G: Specialist Reports

Home , Acontias gracilicauda, Knocking sand frog, Mochlus sundevallii

APPENDIX G - Specialist reports

1. Appendix G1: Ecological Impact Assessment 2. Appendix G2: Geotechnical Assessment 3. Appendix G3: Heritage Screener

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

RAMOTSHERE MOILOA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY (RMLM) KORT AND BUITEN STREET RESIDENTIAL EXTENSION, ZEERUST, NORTH WEST

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Prepared for:

Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality

Prepared by:

JULY 2019

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Ecological Impact Assessment for the Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality (RMLM) Kort and Buiten Street Residential Development, Zeerust, North West. Client Name & Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality (RMLM) Address:

Status: Final

Issue Date:

Mr Aidan Gouws Lead Author:

Reviewer: Ms Tarryn Martin and Ms Amber Jackson Study Leader/ Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner – Approval: No. of hard No. electronic Circulated to Report Distribution copies copies

Ramotshere Moiloa Local 1 Municipality

Report Version Date

12 July 2019

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or [email protected] rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written www.cesnet.co.za permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) ii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

AUTHOR AND SPECIALIST

Mr Aidan Gouws, Environmental Consultant and Ecological Specialist

Aidan obtained his MSc in Environmental Science (Cum laude) from Rhodes University, having conducted research on the spatio-temporal dynamics of Acacia dealbata invasions and broader land-use and cover changes in the northern Eastern Cape, funded through a study bursary awarded by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC). Prior to this, he obtained his BSc Honours in Geographical and Environmental Sciences (Cum laude) from the University of Pretoria, studying plant ecology and EIA methodology amongst others. He is also member of the Golden Key Honours Society. Aidan joined CES in 2018 and has been involved in several projects, including Basic Assessments, Full Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessments, Environmental Audits and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) Audits. He works from the Johannesburg office and his interests include the general Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, GIS mapping, ecological studies and the Public Participation Process (PPP).

Ms Tarryn Martin, Principal Environmental Consultant and Report Review (Pri.Sci.Nat.)

Tarryn holds a BSc (Botany and Zoology), a BSc (Hons) in African Vertebrate Biodiversity and an MSc with distinction in Botany from Rhodes University. Tarryn’s Master’s thesis examined the impact of fire on the recovery of C3 and C4 Panicoid and non-Panicoid grasses within the context of climate change for which she won the Junior Captain Scott-Medal (Plant Science) for producing the top MSc of 2010 from the South African Academy of Science and Art as well as an Award for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Range and Forage Science from the Grassland Society of Southern Africa. Tarryn specialises in conducting vegetation assessments including vegetation and sensitivity mapping to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts on sensitive vegetation. She has conducted a number of vegetation and impact assessments in South Africa for renewable energy EIAs and assisted with the botanical baseline survey for the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Polihali Dam. She has also conducted a number of vegetation surveys, to IFC standards, in Mozambique, has also worked on a Critical Habitat Assessment for Sasol in Inhambane Province and has co- designed and implemented the Terrestrial Monitoring Program for Kenmare, MOMA, a heavy minerals mine in Mozambique.

Ms Amber Jackson, Principal Environmental Consultant and Report Review

Amber is a Principal Environmental Consultant and has been employed with CES for the last 7 years. She has an MPhil in Environmental Management and has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her undergraduate degrees focused on Ecology, Conservation and Environment with particular reference to landscape effects on Herpetofauna, while her masters focused on the environmental management of social and ecological systems. During her time at CES Amber has worked extensively in South Africa and Mozambique managing a number of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments. Amongst which she has conducted large scale faunal impact assessments in the both South Africa and northern of Mozambique to both national standards and international lenders standards (AfDB, EIB and IFC), alone and assisted by and to Prof Bill Branch. Her interests include, lenders requirements, range

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) iii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

limitation, island biogeography, ecology as well as land use and natural resource management.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) iv

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CES CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services ECO Environmental Control Officer ESA Ecological Support Area GIS Geographical Information System IAP Invasive Alien Plant IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NEMBA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act NWBMA North West Biodiversity Management Act NWBSP North West Biodiversity Sector Plan QDS Quarter Degree Square READ North West Department of Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development RMLM Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality SA South Africa SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SCC Species of Conservation Concern TOPS Threatened or Protected Species

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) v

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality (RMLM) proposes to facilitate the extension of the residential area on the corner of Kort and Buiten Street – RE Portion 5 of Farm Hazia JP No 240, Zeerust, North West Province. Zeerust is located approximately 70km north-east of Mafikeng, 130km west of Rustenburg and 130km south south-east of Gaborone.

The 5.01ha area will be subdivided into approximately 80 stands. Stands will be sold to prospective residents who will then construct their own housing. Adjacent municipal services, including water, electricity, waste removal and roads will be extended into the area.

The proposed site is a green field’s site zoned for agriculture and comprised of degraded indigenous vegetation. The clearing of indigenous vegetation and transformation of open space into residential housing requires an environmental licence. The municipality will be responsible for the clearing and pegging of the site, as well as the extension of services.

The study area and surrounding areas were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. Secondly, a site visit was conducted in summer on 18 and 19 February 2019 to assess the site-specific ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visit also served to identify potential impacts of the proposed development and its impact on the surrounding ecological environment.

Using available spatial data it as determined that the project site falls within the Moot Plains Bushveld vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012) and within an area classified as an Ecological Support Area (ESA) 1. The ground-truthing assessment determined that the ESA 1 area is comprised almost entirely of highly degraded vegetation and that that the Moot Plains Bushveld vegetation type occurs throughout the site and is considered to be degraded. This vegetation type is characterised by a moderate-to-high degree of degradation due the presence of a site camp for an adjacent development, illegal dumping and intersecting access roads.

The site is dominated by a patchy, discontinuously distributed herbaceous understorey of predominantly Eragrostis spp. Other graminoids include Aristida congesta, Heteropogon contortus, Hyparrhenia hirta, Melinis repens, Themeda triandra and Urochloa cf mosambicensis. The woody canopy is limited to a few shrubs (0.8-1.5m) and low trees (3-4m), including Euclea undulata, Searsia lancea, Vachellia karroo and Ziziphus mucronata. There is also a relatively high species richness of wild flowers, including Aneilema aequinoctiale, Arctotis arctotoides, Chlorophytum cooperi, Felicia muricata, Geigeria burkei, Gladiolus pretoriensis, Hibiscus microcarpus, Indigofera cf filipes, Menodora heterophylla, Peliostomum virgatum, Selago densiflora, Solanum campylacanthum, Verbena tenuisecta and Wahlenbergia undulata. A few succulent species were also recorded on site, including Aloe zebrina, Bulbine cf abyssinica and the invasive Cereus jamacaru and Agave sisalana. Approximately 5.01ha of this vegetation will be impacted by the clearing, construction and operation of the proposed residential development.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) vi

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Cereus jamacaru (Queen of the night) and Agave sisalana (Sisal), listed as Category 1b and Category 2 invasive species, respectively, according to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004), were the only IAP species recorded on site. Species listed as 1b under the regulations require compulsory control as part of an invasive species control programme. No permits are issued for the use of this species and they must be removed and destroyed by the landowner in conjunction with a government sponsored invasive species management programme. Species listed as Category 2 under the regulations are deemed as potentially invasive, yet commercially important species, which require a permit for planting. Without a permit, Category 2 species are treated as Category 1B specie and the same management measures apply.

The indigenous species recorded at the site were compared to the South African Red Data List, the TOPS list and the NWBMA, No 4. of 2016. Thirty species recorded on site appeared in the South African Red Data List, however all were categorised as ‘Least Concern’ species. None of the species recorded on site were SCC in terms of the TOPS and NWBMA Schedule 2 lists. However, if species of greater conservation concern are found on site during the construction phase, then these species will require permits for their destruction and/or relocation.

Approximately 23 amphibian species, 19 reptile species, bird species and 110 mammal species have distribution ranges that coincide with the project site (ADU, 2019; Lepage, 2019; IUCN, 2019;) of which 20 bird and 13 mammal species are of conservation concern. However, it is very unlikely that any of these SCC occur within the development site due to the high degree of urbanisation resulting in habitat fragmentation, and inadequate habitat availability to support these species.

The project site is classified as an area of low sensitivity as it is degraded and transformed in some areas and there is some infestation of alien species. Although this site could be rehabilitated back to its original state, the cost to do this would likely be expensive and given its location in a densely populated urban area, it is unlikely to be successful.

Ten ecological impacts were identified. Prior to the implementation of mitigation measures, seven impacts have a low negative significance, two have a moderate negative significance and one has a low positive significance. With mitigation measures both moderately negative impacts can be reduced from low significance.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) vii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Without mitigation With mitigation

0, 0%

1, 10% 1, 10% 2, 20%

7, 70% 9, 90%

Moderate - Low - Low + Moderate - Low - Low +

The proposed development area will affect approximately 5.01ha of degraded Moot Plains Bushveld. The site is currently in a largely-transformed, semi-natural state due to the disturbances caused by access road usage, illegal dumping and the invasion of alien species. It is highly recommended that all invasive alien plant species in and around the proposed area are removed and the vacant erven should monitored for re-invasion between the clearance and construction phases.

The ecological impacts of all aspects for the construction of the proposed new Kort/Buiten residential development were assessed. Most of the proposed site is degraded and has therefore been designated as an area of low sensitivity due to the loss of ecological processes as a result of the current land use. In light of the general degradation of the site, the absence of species of conservation concern on site and the extent of the vegetation types outside of the development area, the proposed development is considered to be ecologically acceptable, provided that mitigation measures provided in this report are implemented.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) viii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

SPECIALIST CHECKLIST

Section NEMA 2014 Regs - Appendix 6(1) Requirement Position in report 1 A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain— (a) details of- (i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Page iii (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist Appendix D report including a curriculum vitae; (b) a declaration that the person is independent in a form Appendix D as may be specified by the competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for Chapter 1 which, the report was prepared; (d) the date and season of the site investigation and the Section 1.3 and relevance of the season to the outcome of the Section 2.1 assessment; (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing Chapter 2 the report or carrying out the specialised process; (f) the specific identified sensitivities of the site related to Chapter 3 and 4 the activity and its associated structures and infrastructure; (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including Chapter 4 buffers; (h) a map superimposing the activity including the Figure 4.1 associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitive of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a description of any assumptions made and any Section 1.4 uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; (j) a description of the findings and potential implications Chapter 5 of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Chapter 5 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental Chapter 6 authorization; (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr Chapter 5 and 6 or environmental authorisation; (n) a reasoned opinion- Chapter 6 (i) as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorized and (ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity of portion thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) ix

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Section NEMA 2014 Regs - Appendix 6(1) Requirement Position in report included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a description of any consultation process that was Refer to Basic undertaken during the course of preparing the Assessment Report specialist report; (p) a summary and copies of any comments received Refer to Basic during any consultation process and where applicable Assessment Report all responses thereto; and (q) any other information requested by the competent None for the authority. ecological report

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) x

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1

1.1 Project description ...... 1 1.2 Objectives and terms of reference ...... 2 1.3 Limitations and assumptions ...... 3 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4

2.1 The assessment ...... 4 2.2 Species of conservation concern ...... 4 2.3 Sample site selection ...... 4 2.4 Vegetation mapping ...... 5 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 7

3.1 Description of the biophysical environment ...... 7 3.2 Current land use ...... 8 3.3 North West Biodiversity Spatial Plan ...... 9 3.4 Description of the vegetation ...... 11 3.4.1 National vegetation map: expected vegetation types ...... 11 3.4.2 Vegetation type recorded on site...... 12 3.4.3 Alien species recorded on site ...... 14 3.4.4 Species of conservation concern recorded on site ...... 15 3.5 Description of the fauna ...... 15 3.5.1 Amphibians ...... 15 3.5.2 Reptiles ...... 15 3.5.3 Birds ...... 16 3.5.4 Mammals ...... 18 4 BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ...... 20

4.1 Sensitivity analysis ...... 20 4.2 Site sensitivity ...... 20 5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 22

5.1 Construction phase ...... 22 5.1.1 Impact 1: Loss of vegetation communities ...... 22 5.1.2 Impact 2: Loss of biodiversity ...... 22 5.1.3 Impact 3: Loss of floral species of conservation concern ...... 23 5.1.4 Impact 4: Habitat fragmentation ...... 23

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) xi

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

5.1.5 Impact 5: Invasion of invasive alien plant species ...... 24 5.1.6 Impact 6: Soil erosion ...... 25 5.1.7 Impact 7: Dust ...... 25 5.1.8 Impact 8: Loss of faunal habitat ...... 26 5.2 Operation phase...... 26 5.2.1 Impact 1: Creation of garden habitats ...... 26 5.2.2 Impact 2: Effects on surrounding faunal species ...... 27 5.3 Alternative options ...... 27 6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32

6.1 Conclusion and recommendations ...... 32 6.2 Specialist statement ...... 32 7 REFERENCES ...... 34

8 APPENDIX A: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 36

9 APPENDIX B: BOTANICAL SPECIES LIST ...... 39

10 APPENDIX C1: AMPHIBIANS ...... 40

11 APPENDIX C2: REPTILES ...... 41

12 APPENDIX C3: AVIFAUNA ...... 43

13 APPENDIX C4: MAMMALS ...... 56

14 APPENDIX D: SPECIALIST DECLARATION AND CURRICULUM VITAE ..... 60

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) xii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area...... 5 Table 3-1 Categories in the NWBSP (2015) ...... 9 Table 3-3 Bird SCC with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. 17 Table 3-4 Endemic birds with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site...... 18 Table 3-5 Mammal SCC with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site...... 18 Table 5-1 Proposed alternatives for the development ...... 28 Table 8-1 Ranking of evaluation criteria...... 37 Table 8-2 Matrix used to determine the overall significance of the impact based on the likelihood and effect of the impact...... 37 Table 8-3 Description of Environmental Significance Ratings and associated range of scores...... 38 Table 9-1 List of botanical species recorded on site...... 39 Table 10-1 Amphibians with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site...... 40 Table 11-1 Reptiles with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. 41 Table 12-1 Birds with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. .... 43 Table 13-1 Mammals with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site...... 56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Proposed site for the Kort/Buiten street residential development...... 1 Figure 1-2 Locality map showing the position of Zeerust Town in relation to other major centres...... 2 Figure 3-1 Elevation profile of the proposed site. The highest point to the west (Cnr Kort/Lange street) is 1 222m asl and the lowest the to the east (Cnr Kort/Buiten street) is 1 200m asl...... 7 Figure 3-2 Biodiversity Spatial Plan for the study area...... 11 Figure 3-3 National Vegetation Map showing the vegetation type (Moot Plains Bushveld) that will be affected by the residential development (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006)...... 12 Figure 3-4 Vegetation map of the study area. 5.01ha of degraded Moot Plains Bushveld will be impacted by the proposed residential development ...... 13 Figure 3-5 Proximity of proposed development site to Important Birding Areas (IBAs)...... 17 Figure 4-1 Sensitivity map showing the site as an area of low sensitivity...... 21 Figure 6-1 Summary of the significance of impacts in the absence of mitigation measures (left) and the significance of impacts after the implementation of mitigations measures (right)...... 32

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) xiii

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality (RMLM) proposes to facilitate the extension of the residential area on the corner of Kort and Buiten Street (Figure 1-1) – RE Portion 5 of Farm Hazia JP No 240, Zeerust, North West Province. Zeerust is located approximately 70km north- east of Mafikeng, 130km west of Rustenburg and 130km south south-east of Gaborone (Figure 1-2).

Figure 1-1 Proposed site for the Kort/Buiten street residential development.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 1

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1-2 Locality map showing the position of Zeerust Town in relation to other major centres.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The specific terms of reference for the botanical assessment are as follows:  Describe and map the vegetation types in the study area.  Describe the floral biodiversity and record the plant species that occur in each vegetation type.  Describe biodiversity and ecological state of each vegetation unit.  Establish and map sensitive vegetation areas showing the suitability for urban development, developable area and no-go areas.  Identify species of conservation concern.  Identify alien plant species, assess the invasive potential and recommend management procedures.  Identify and assess the impacts of development on the site’s natural vegetation in terms of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of key ecosystems and, where feasible, provide mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

The specific terms of reference for the faunal assessment are as follows:  Undertake a desktop assessment to identify and list faunal species likely to occur in the study region using available distribution data (Animal Demography Unit, 2019; Lepage, 2019).  Record any faunal species or evidence of species observed on site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 2

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

 Identify and assess the impacts of development on the site’s fauna in terms of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of key ecosystems and, where feasible, provide mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

1.3 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This report is based on current available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit:  The report is based on a project description received from the client.  A detailed faunal survey was not conducted. The faunal survey was mainly a desktop study, using information from previous ecological surveys conducted in the area and this was supplemented by recording animal species that were observed during the site survey.  Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) are difficult to find and difficult to identify, thus species described in this report do not comprise an exhaustive list. It is almost certain that additional SCCs will be found during construction and operation of the development.  Sampling could only be carried out at one stage in the annual or seasonal cycle. The survey was conducted at the end of the flowering season and therefore some early flowering plants may not have been flowering. Consequently, some plant species may have gone undetected. However, the time available in the field, and information gathered during previous surveys, was sufficient to provide enough information to decide on the status of the affected area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 3

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 THE ASSESSMENT

The study area and surrounding areas were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:  The South African Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012);  The North West Biodiversity Sector Plan (NWBSP) 2015 (READ, 2015); and  Available literature on the regional vegetation.

Further to the above, a site visit was conducted in summer on 18 and 19 February 2019 to assess the site-specific ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive ecosystems and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site visit also served to identify potential impacts of the proposed development and its impact on the surrounding ecological environment.

Information on the general area and plant species was also generated using historical records for the area. This information has been used to supplement the findings of this report.

2.2 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

Data on the known distribution and conservation status for each potential species of conservation concern has to be obtained to develop a list of ‘Species of Concern’. These species are those that may be impacted significantly by the proposed activity. In general these will be species that are already known to be threatened or at risk, or those that have restricted distributions (endemics) with a portion (at least 50%) of their known range falling within the study area i.e. strict endemic and near endemic species. Species that are afforded special protection, notably those that are protected by NEMBA (No. 10 of 2004), NWBMA (2016) Schedule 2, the National Forest Act or which occur on the South African Red Data List. According to SANBI (2019), SCCs include those belonging the following Red List categories: Extinct in the Wild (EW); Regionally Extinct (RE); Critically Endangered, Possibly Extinct (CR PE); Critically Endangered (CE); Endangered (EN); Vulnerable (VU); Near Threatened (NT); Critically Rare; Rare; Declining; or, Data deficient – Insufficient Information (DDD). This excludes species categorised as ‘Least Concern’.

2.3 SAMPLE SITE SELECTION

A sampling protocol was developed that would enable us to evaluate the existing desktop interpretations of the vegetation of the study area, to improve on them if necessary, and to add detailed information on the plant communities present. The protocol took into account the amount of time available for the study, and limitations such as the seasonality of the vegetation.

Sample plots were analysed by determining the dominant species in each plot, as well as any alien invasive species and potential SCCs occurring within the plots. Five sample points were selected for the site, as shown in Figure 3-4.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 4

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Vegetation communities were then described according to the dominant species recorded from each type, and these mapped and assigned a sensitivity score.

2.4 VEGETATION MAPPING

This section of the report explains the approach to determining the ecological sensitivity of the study area on a broad scale. The approach identifies zones of high, medium and low sensitivity according to a system developed by CES and used in numerous proposed development studies. It must be noted that the sensitivity zonings in this study are based solely on ecological (primarily vegetation) characteristics and social and economic factors have not been taken into consideration. The sensitivity analysis described here is based on 10 criteria which are considered to be of importance in determining ecosystem and landscape sensitivity. The method predominantly involves identifying sensitive vegetation or habitat types, topography and land transformation (Table 2-1).

Although very simple, this method of analysis provides a good, yet conservative and precautionary assessment of the ecological sensitivity.

Table 2-1 Criteria used for the analysis of the sensitivity of the area. MODERATE LOW SENSITIVITY HIGH SENSITIVITY CRITERIA SENSITIVITY 1 10 5 Undulating; fairly Complex and uneven 1 Topography Level, or even steep slopes with steep slopes Vegetation - Restricted to a Restricted to a 2 Extent or habitat Extensive particular region/zone specific locality / site type in the region Conservation Well conserved Not well conserved, Not conserved - has a 3 status of fauna/ independent of moderate high conservation flora or habitats conservation value conservation value value Species of One or more No endangered or conservation None, although endangered and vulnerable species, 4 concern - occasional regional vulnerable species, or some indeterminate or Presence and endemics more than 2 endemics rare endemics number or rare species Habitat Extensive areas of Reasonably extensive fragmentation preferred habitat areas of preferred Limited areas of this 5 leading to loss of present elsewhere in habitat elsewhere and habitat, susceptible to viable region not susceptible habitat susceptible to fragmentation populations to fragmentation fragmentation Moderate diversity, High species diversity, Biodiversity Low diversity, or 6 and moderately high complex plant and contribution species richness species richness animal communities Site is hidden or Site is visible from Visibility of the barely visible from any some or a few vantage Site is visible from site or landscape 7 vantage points with points but is not many or all angles or from other the exception in some obtrusive or very vantage points. vantage points cases from the sea. conspicuous.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 5

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

MODERATE LOW SENSITIVITY HIGH SENSITIVITY CRITERIA SENSITIVITY 1 10 5 Large possibility of Erosion Very stable and an Some possibility of erosion, change to the potential or area not subjected to erosion or change due 8 site or destruction due instability of the erosion. to episodic events. to climatic or other region factors. Site is difficult to Rehabilitation There is some degree Site is easily rehabilitate due to the potential of the of difficulty in 9 rehabilitated. terrain, type of habitat area or region rehabilitation of the or species required to site. reintroduce. Disturbance due There is some degree The site is hardly or to human Site is very disturbed of disturbance of the very slightly impacted 10 habitation or or degraded. site. upon by human other influences disturbance. (Alien invasives)

A Geographical Information System (GIS) map was drawn up and with the aid of a satellite image the sensitive regions and vegetation types could be plotted. The description of the sample plots helped to map the vegetation, and these descriptions as well as sensitivity ratings were illustrated on the resultant maps.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 6

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Zeerust has a local steppe climate, characterised by semi-arid conditions and low rainfall year round, with peak rainfall occurring in January (110mm) and annual rainfall averaging 583mm. The average annual temperature is 18.5ºC with the warmest month occurring in January (mean = 24.0ºC) and the coolest month in July (mean = 10.9ºC). Frost occurs relatively frequently during winter, with approximately 23 frost days annually.

The proposed development is located on a near-flat, east-facing plain on the foothills of the Klein Marico River Valley on the southern fringe of suburban Zeerust. The slope is flat to gentle, with an altitudinal range of approximately 22m along its Kort street border (Plate 3-1; Figure 3-1).

Shrub patch Flat, degraded, open savannah/grassland Evidence of dumping

Plate 3-1 Photo illustrating the topography and general vegetation of the site.

Cnr Kort/Lange street

Cnr Kort/Buiten street

Figure 3-1 Elevation profile of the proposed site. The highest point to the west (Cnr Kort/Lange

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 7

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

street) is 1 222m asl and the lowest the to the east (Cnr Kort/Buiten street) is 1 200m asl.

3.2 CURRENT LAND USE

The farm is owned by the local municipality and is currently zoned as agricultural land. The project area is in a semi-natural state, comprised of a moderate-to-highly degraded open savannah. The site appears to be used as an illegal dumping ground for rubble, garden waste and household refuse (Plate 3-2). A site camp for an adjacent development is also present on site (Plate 3-3), as well as a practice parking area for learner drivers (Plate 3-4). The area is also intersected by dirt roads, which provide access to the adjacent RDP houses.

Plate 3-2 Photo illustrating the current land use of the site as a dumping ground.

Plate 3-3 Photo illustrating the current use of the site as a site camp for the adjacent development.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 8

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3-4 Photo illustrating the current use of the site as a parking practice area for learner drivers.

3.3 NORTH WEST BIODIVERSITY SPATIAL PLAN

The NWBSP (2015) is a biodiversity and spatial planning tool, which outlines areas containing important biodiversity needed to meet national and provincial biodiversity targets. This is achieved by identifying a network of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) in the province based on a systematic biodiversity plan. In general, CBAs are described as natural or near-natural areas that are important for preserving both biodiversity pattern and ecological process, whereas ESAs are semi-natural or transformed areas that at least retain some ecological function (Table 3-1). More than half of the province is covered by CBAs (29.1%) and ESAs (27.6%) collectively, with the remainder covered by Other Natural Areas (18%), areas with no natural habitat remaining (23%) and a small portion covered by Protected Areas (2.3%).

Table 3-1 Categories in the NWBSP (2015) Category Management objectives Protected areas As per protected areas management plan CBA1 Maintain in a natural or near-natural state that maximises the retention of biodiversity pattern and ecological process:  Ecosystems and species fully or largely 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 biodiversity features that are at, or beyond, their limits of acceptable change. CBA2 Maintain in a natural or near-natural state that maximises the retention of biodiversity pattern and ecological process:  Ecosystems and species fully or largely intact and undisturbed.  Areas with intermediate irreplaceability or some flexibility in terms of meeting biodiversity targets. There are options for loss of some components of biodiversity in these landscapes without compromising the ability to achieve biodiversity targets, although loss of these sites would require alternative sites to be added to the portfolio of CBAs.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 9

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Category Management objectives  These are biodiversity features that are approaching but have not passed their limits of acceptable change. ESA1 Maintain in at least a semi-natural state as ecologically functional landscapes that retain basic natural attributes:  Ecosystem still in a natural, near-natural state or semi-natural state, and has not been previously developed.  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. ESA2 Maintain as much ecological functionality as possible (generally these areas have been substantially modified):  Maintain current land use or restore area to a natural state.  Ecosystem NOT in a natural or near-natural state  Ecosystem significantly disturbed but still able to maintain some ecological functionality.  Individual species or other biodiversity indicators are severely disturbed or reduced and these are areas that have low irreplaceability with respect to biodiversity pattern targets only;  These are areas with low irreplaceability with respect to biodiversity pattern targets only. These areas are required to maintain ecological processes especially landscape connectivity. Other Natural Areas Production landscapes and No Natural  Manage land to optimise sustainability utilisation of natural areas Habitat Remaining

According to the NWBSP (2015), the residential development will impact 5.01ha of an Ecological Support Area (ESA) 1 (Figure 3-2).

ESA 1 are “areas with low irreplaceability with respect to biodiversity pattern targets”, which includes moderately to significantly disturbed ecosystems in a natural, near-natural or semi- natural state, where “individual species or other biodiversity indicators may be severely disturbed or reduced” (READ, 2015). The management of these areas should be to “maintain in a functional state, avoid intensification of existing land uses (e.g. intensive agriculture including game breeding, settlement and mining/industry are not desired), and rehabilitate to a natural or near-natural state, where possible” (READ, 2015). The affected ESA 1 areas include hills and ridges (READ, 2015).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 10

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3-2 Biodiversity Spatial Plan for the study area.

3.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION

3.4.1 National vegetation map: expected vegetation types

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) developed the National Vegetation map as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project: “It was compiled to provide floristically based vegetation units of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland at a greater level of detail than had been available before.” The map was developed using a wealth of data from several contributors and has allowed for the best national vegetation map to date, the last being that of Acocks developed over 50 years ago. This project had two main aims:  to determine the variation in and units of southern African vegetation based on the analysis and synthesis of data from vegetation studies throughout the region, and  to compile a vegetation map. The aim of the map was to accurately reflect the distribution and variation on the vegetation and indicate the relationship of the vegetation with the environment. For this reason the collective expertise of vegetation scientists from universities and state departments were harnessed to make this project as comprehensive as possible.

The map and accompanying book describes each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species including endemic species and those that are biogeographically important. This is the most comprehensive data for vegetation types in South Africa. Only one type of vegetation type will be impacted by the residential development, Moot Plains Bushveld (Figure 3-3).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 11

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

The Moot Plains Bushveld is predominantly found in the North West and Gauteng Provinces, with the belt south of the Magaliesberg running from the Selons River Valley to Pretoria along the Magalies River and the belt north of the Magaliesberg running from Rustenburg towards the Crocodile River. The vegetation is characterised by low, thorny savannah, dominated by Vachellia species along the plains, low-slope woodlands and a graminoid-dominated herbaceous layer. It is considered vulnerable, with 13% of the targeted 19% statutorily conserved in the Magaliesberg NatureReserve. It is estimated that 28% has been transformed by agriculture and urban development.

The other vegetation type present in the general vicinity is the Zeerust Thornveld which is characterised by deciduous, thorny short thorny woodlands dominated by Senegalia and Vachellia (previously Acacia) species, with a graminoid-dominated herbaceous layer on deep, basic, clay soils between ridges. This vegetation type is listed as Least Threatened.

Figure 3-3 National Vegetation Map showing the vegetation type (Moot Plains Bushveld) that will be affected by the residential development (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

3.4.2 Vegetation type recorded on site

The proposed development site is comprised of a single, largely homogenous vegetation type, namely degraded Moot Plains Bushveld (Figure 3-4).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 12

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3-4 Vegetation map of the study area. 5.01ha of degraded Moot Plains Bushveld will be impacted by the proposed residential development

Degraded Moot Plains Bushveld This vegetation type is characterised by a moderate-to-high degree of degradation due the presence of a site camp for an adjacent development, illegal dumping and intersecting access roads. It is dominated by a patchy, discontinuously distributed herbaceous understorey of predominantly Eragrostis spp. (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). Other graminoids include Aristida congesta, Heteropogon contortus, Hyparrhenia hirta, Melinis repens, Themeda triandra and Urochloa cf mosambicensis. The woody canopy is limited to a few shrubs (0.8-1.5m) and low trees (3-4m), including Euclea undulata, Searsia lancea, Vachellia karroo and Ziziphus mucronata. There is also a relatively high species richness of wild flowers, including Aneilema aequinoctiale, Arctotis arctotoides, Chlorophytum cooperi, Felicia muricata, Geigeria burkei, Gladiolus pretoriensis, Hibiscus microcarpus, Indigofera cf filipes, Menodora heterophylla, Peliostomum virgatum, Selago densiflora, Solanum campylacanthum, Verbena tenuisecta and Wahlenbergia undulata. A few succulent species were also recorded on site, including Aloe zebrina, Bulbine cf abyssinica and the invasive Cereus jamacaru and Agave sisalana. Approximately 5.01ha of this vegetation will be impacted by the clearing, construction and operation of the proposed residential development.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 13

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Plate 3-5 Degraded patch of bushes found near the centre of the site.

Plate 3-6 Open degraded bushveld, occupying the largest area at the proposed development site.

3.4.3 Alien species recorded on site

Cereus jamacaru and Agave sisalana, listed as Category 1b and Category 2 invasive species, respectively, according to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 14

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

(Act No. 10 of 2004), were the only IAP species recorded on site. Species listed as 1b under the regulations require compulsory control as part of an invasive species control programme. No permits are issued for the use of this species and they must be removed and destroyed by the landowner in conjunction with a government sponsored invasive species management programme. Species listed as Category 2 under the regulations are deemed as potentially invasive, yet commercially important species, which require a permit for planting. Without a permit, Category 2 species are treated as Category 1B specie and the same management measures apply.

3.4.4 Species of conservation concern recorded on site

The indigenous species recorded at the site were compared to the South African Red Data List, the TOPS list and the NWBMA, No 4. of 2016. Thirty species recorded on site appeared in the South African Red Data List, however all were categorised as ‘Least Concern’ species (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). None of the species recorded on site were SCC in terms of the TOPS and NWBMA Schedule 2 lists. However, if species of conservation concern are found on site during the construction phase, then these species will require permits for their destruction and/or relocation.

3.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE FAUNA

South Africa is a diverse country, with approximately 1 539 terrestrial vertebrate faunal species of which 127 species are amphibians, 255 species are reptiles, 831 species are birds and 327 species are mammals (IUCN, 2019), spread across 1.22 million km² (StatsSA, 2011). The North West Province is home to approximately 39 amphibian species, 113 reptile species, 212 mammal species (ADU, 2019) and 553 bird species (Lepage, 2019).

3.5.1 Amphibians

Of the 39 amphibian species in North West Province, 23 amphibian species have a distribution range which includes the site (ADU, 2019; IUCN, 2019). 12 of these species have been recorded within a 30 km2 radius of the site (QDS 2526CA) (Appendix C1: Table 10-1) (ADU, 2019). No SCC are likely to be found on site and species likely to occur on site are all listed as of least concern.

3.5.2 Reptiles

Of the 113 reptile species in North West Province, approximately 59 species have a distribution range which includes the site (ADU, 2019; IUCN, 2019). Seven reptile species have been recorded within QDS 2526CA within which the site is located (Appendix C2: Table 11-1) (ADU, 2019). No SCC are likely to be found on site, and species likely to occur on site are all listed as of least concern (Bates, et al., 2014). The reptilian species that may occur on site includes common bushveld species of lizard (e.g. the Striped Skink and Common rough- scaled lizard), snake (e.g. the Brown House Snake and Mole Snake) and possibly tortoise (e.g. the Leopard tortoise). However, these are not at significant risk because this is not the only habitat available to them, with a large area of natural land available to the east (Figure 3-4). Fossorial lizards (e.g. the Thin-tailed Legless Skink and Cape Worm Lizard) and snakes

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 15

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

(e.g. Bibron’s Blind Snake and Bibron’s Burrowing Asp) may also be discovered on site during earthworks and if found should be appropriately relocated. Additionally, a number of venomous snakes common to the South African veld may also occur on site, which will require cautionary measures to be taken during construction. These may include the Black Mamba, Boomslang and Puff Adder.

3.5.3 Birds

In terms of proximity to Important Birding Areas (IBAs), the site of the proposed development is situated approximately 35km from Botsalano Nature Reserve IBA, 100km from Pilanesberg National Park IBA and 110km from Magaliesberg IBA (Figure 3-5).

Of the 553 bird species in North West Province, approximately 412 species occur within the Madikwe region (Lepage, 2019). 390 of these species may occur within 25km of the project site (Appendix C3: Table 12-1) (IUCN, 2019). Twenty species of conservation concern (10 threatened and 10 near-threatened) (Table 3-2) and three species endemic to South Africa are likely to occur in the Madikwe region and may occur on site.

Some of the near-threatened species may be found on or near the site (e.g. the Mountain Pipit, Pallid Harrier and Bateleur). However, the proposed development does not pose a significant risk to these species given their widespread distribution. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that any of the vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered SCC are nesting, breeding and/or feeding on the site given the lack of suitable and available habitat for the larger species (e.g. cliff faces and forests habitats for vultures and eagles, or agricultural land and pristine savannah for Blue Crane and Secretary Bird) and waterfowl (e.g. permanent water sources such as dams and lakes for Maccoa Duck, Lesser Flamingo, etc.), as well as the proximity of the site to the neighbouring residential areas and the associated noise, vehicular traffic and foot traffic through and around the site. Most of these species are more likely to be found nesting, breeding and/or feeding at the Botsalano Nature Reserve. Only relatively small, disturbance tolerant species, commonly found in and around urban and suburban areas in South Africa are likely to be found within the proposed development site. These may include the Red-eyed Dove, Ring-necked Dove, Speckled Pigeon, Common Myna, Speckled Mousebird, Kurrichane Thrush, Hadada Ibis, Crowned Lapwing and Guinea fowl.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 16

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3-5 Proximity of proposed development site to Important Birding Areas (IBAs).

Table 3-2 Bird SCC with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. Scientific name Common name Red list category Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture Critically endangered Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture Critically endangered Gyps coprotheres Cape Griffon Endangered Torgos tracheliotos Lappet-faced Vulture Endangered Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane Vulnerable Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle Vulnerable Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground-Hornbill Vulnerable Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck Vulnerable Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle Vulnerable Sagittarius serpentarius Secretary Bird Vulnerable Anthus hoeschi Mountain Pipit Near-threatened Ardeotis kori Kori Bustard Near-threatened Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Near-threatened Charadrius pallidus Chestnut-banded Plover Near-threatened Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Near-threatened Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon Near-threatened Glareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole Near-threatened Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew Near-threatened Phoeniconaias minor Lesser Flamingo Near-threatened Terathopius ecaudatus Bateleur Near-threatened (Lepage, 2019)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 17

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Table 3-3 Endemic birds with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. Scientific name Common name Country/Province Eastern Long-billed South Africa – Limpopo, North West, Certhilauda semitorquata Lark Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape South Africa – North West, Mpumalanga, Lamprotornis bicolor African Pied Starling Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, Western Cape South Africa – Limpopo, North West, Ploceus capensis Cape Weaver Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape (Lepage, 2019)

3.5.4 Mammals

Of the 212 mammal species in North West Province, 110 mammal species have a distribution range which includes the site (Appendix C4: Table 13-1) (ADU, 2019; IUCN, 2019). 41 of these species have been recorded in QDS 2526CA within which the site is located (ADU, 2019) and 13 SCC may occur within a 25km radius of the project site (Table 3-4) (IUCN, 2019). However, most of these SCC species are unlikely to be found on site due to no or limited suitable available habitat, with the exception of the White-tailed rat. Records from the North West Province indicate that the White-tail Rat often occur in sparse, heavily-grazed and disturbed grassland (Avenant, et al., 2016). Similarly, other large carnivores are unlikely to found within the project site given the site is neighboured by residential areas and receives moderate foot and vehicular traffic. Smaller mammals like field mice, porcupines, etc. may occur within or around the project area, although they were not observed during the site assessment.

Table 3-4 Mammal SCC with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. Red list QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name category (ADU, 2019) Carnivora Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah Vulnerable Felidae Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat Vulnerable Panthera pardus Leopard Vulnerable 1 Near Hyaenidae Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyena 1 Threatened African Clawless Near Mustelidae Aonyx capensis 1 Otter Threatened Cetartiodactyla Near Bovidae Syncerus caffer African Buffalo Threatened Giraffidae Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe Vulnerable Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius Hippopotamus Vulnerable Perissodactyla Near Ceratotherium simum White Rhinoceros Threatened Rhinocerotidae Critically Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros Endangered Pholidota Temminck's Ground Manidae Smutsia temminckii Vulnerable Pangolin Rodentia

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 18

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Red list QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name category (ADU, 2019) Near Muridae Otomys auratus Vlei Rat Threatened Nesomyidae Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat Vulnerable 3

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 19

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

4 BIODIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

4.1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of high, medium and low sensitivity (Figure 4-1).

Areas of high sensitivity include:  Process areas such as rivers, wetlands and streams that are important for ecosystem functioning, including surface and ground water as well as animal and plant dispersal;  Areas that have a high species richness;  Areas that are not significantly impacted, transformed or degraded by current land use; and  Areas that contain the majority of species of conservation concern found in the area and may contain high numbers of globally important species, or comprise part of a globally important vegetation type.

Areas of medium sensitivity include:  Areas that still provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded;  Degraded areas that still have a relatively high species richness; and  Degraded areas that still contain species of conservation concern.

Areas of low sensitivity include:  Areas that are highly impacted by current land use and provide little value to the ecosystem; and  Highly degraded areas that are unlikely to harbour any species of conservation concern.

4.2 SITE SENSITIVITY

The project site is classified as an area of low sensitivity (Figure 4-1) as it is degraded and transformed in some areas and there is some infestation of alien species. Although this site could be rehabilitated back to its original state, the cost to do this would likely be expensive and given its location in a densely populated urban area, it is unlikely to be successful.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 20

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4-1 Sensitivity map showing the site as an area of low sensitivity.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 21

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

5 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT This study provides the necessary information to assess the impacts of the project on the ecology of the area at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

This phase assesses the impacts associated with the clearing and levelling of the land for the subdivision and establishment of the erven, as well as the subsequent construction of houses.

5.1.1 Impact 1: Loss of vegetation communities

Cause and comment: Approximately 5.01ha of degraded Moot Plains Bushveld will be lost as a result of clearing for the construction of houses and establishment of gardens within each erf. The short term loss of this vegetation type may occur. Since the vegetation at the site has been disturbed by the current land use and the site is surrounded by houses the severity of the impact will be slight. The overall significance will be low negative.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 1: Loss of Degraded Moot Plains Bushveld Without Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur LOW - With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur LOW -

Mitigation and Management: The following mitigation actions are suggested:  Clearing must be kept within the proposed development site.  A written method statement should be given to each new landowner who purchases each erf to encourage them and their contractors to adhere to the following measures: o Topsoil should be stockpiled on site (and separately to the subsoil) and used to landscape the garden. o All contractors who work on site must be prohibited from making fires, harvesting plants and animals from the site and surrounds. o Residents should be encouraged to use indigenous species in their gardens.

5.1.2 Impact 2: Loss of biodiversity

Cause and comment: Clearing for the subdivision of the land and construction of the houses may result in the medium term loss of general biodiversity. Given the site is degraded, the severity of the impact will be slight.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 22

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 2: Loss of biodiversity Medium Without Mitigation Study Area Slight May occur LOW - term Medium With Mitigation Localised Slight May occur LOW - term

Mitigation Measures:  In addition to the mitigation measures listed under impact 1 it is recommended that the following mitigation measures are implemented: o Alien invasive species should be removed from the areas where development will not occur. The vacant erven should monitored for re-invasion by RMLM and/or contractor between the clearance and construction phases. An invasive alien plant management plan must be drafted and implemented by RMLM and/or contractor. o The construction area must be demarcated and no unauthorised activities must occur outside of the construction footprint.

5.1.3 Impact 3: Loss of floral species of conservation concern

Cause and comment: Although most of the species recorded on site were present in the South African Red Data List, these were all listed as ‘Least Concern’ and none of the species were listed as TOPS or NWBMA Schedule 2 species. However, there may be a few species such as geophytes that went undetected due to the time of year the assessment was done. Clearing for the subdivision of the land and construction of the houses could result in the loss of some of these species but this is unlikely to affect the population’s survival given the small area that will be affected. The overall significance of the impact is therefore low.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 3: Loss of Species of Conservation Concern Without Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight May occur LOW - With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight May occur LOW -

Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures listed under impact 1 and 2.

5.1.4 Impact 4: Habitat fragmentation

Cause and comment: Fragmentation is one of the most important impacts on vegetation as it creates breaks in previously continuous vegetation, causing a reduction in the gene pool and a decrease in species richness and diversity. This impact occurs when more and more areas are cleared for residential development, agriculture and/or road construction resulting in the isolation of

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 23

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

functional ecosystems, which results in reduced biodiversity and reduced movement due to the absence of ecological corridors.

Edge effects may occur on adjacent properties that occur along the boundary of development and roads which may further compound the impacts associated with fragmentation and further reduce population numbers to below sustainable thresholds, potentially causing local extinctions.

Since the site is located within an urban area that is already densely populated, fragmentation of the site has already occurred and as such the severity of the impact will be slight with an overall significance of low negative.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 4: Habitat fragmentation Without Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW - With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW -

Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures listed under impact 1 and 2.

5.1.5 Impact 5: Invasion of invasive alien plant species

Cause and comment: A few individuals of IAP species were recorded on site. Although few in number, neighbouring populations may be able to invade the adjacent areas more readily if disturbed as the disruption of habitats often exacerbates the infestation of alien species unless these are controlled. Areas disturbed during clearing will be vulnerable to infestation if left exposed for too long before construction commences. Similarly, areas disturbed during the construction phase will be vulnerable to infestations unless rehabilitated to prevent invasive alien plant species from establishing themselves. In the absence of mitigation, the likelihood of invasion is probable and the impact could be severe, resulting in a moderately negative overall impact. However, this impact can be mitigated to one of low significance.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 5: Invasion of Invasive Alien Plant Species Without Mitigation Permanent Study area Severe Probable MODERATE - With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur LOW -

Mitigation Measures:  An invasive alien plant management plan must be designed and implemented by RMLM and/or the contractor to monitor and remove alien species within and around the proposed site. The vacant erven should monitored for re-invasion by RMLM and/or contractor between the clearance and construction phases. This plan must designate management units and prescribe the most effective method of removing the species.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 24

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

 Disturbance should be limited to the construction footprint to prevent the establishment of invasive plants.

5.1.6 Impact 6: Soil erosion

Cause and comment: After the clearance of vegetation and before construction of houses, the soil will be disturbed and vulnerable to erosion. In the absence of mitigation, the likelihood and severity of this impact will increase the longer the soil is exposed. However, if mitigation measures are implemented this can be reduced to a low negative significance if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 6: Soil erosion Medium Without Mitigation Study Area Moderate Probable MODERATE - term With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May occur LOW -

Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures listed under impact 1. Additionally, clearing must only occur immediately prior to construction to minimise the amount of time the soil is left bare and vulnerable to erosion.

5.1.7 Impact 7: Dust

Cause and comment: During clearing and construction, dust may be generated, especially where there is exposed ground. Specific activities that may contribute to the release of dust include offloading and stockpiling of building materials such as sand, storage of excavated materials and movement of heavy vehicles. The generation of dust may be exacerbated during windy, dry periods. In addition to dust, air pollution may result from the exhaust fumes emitted by construction vehicles, especially if the vehicles have not been serviced correctly. Dust and air pollution may affect the processes of photosynthesis, respiration and transpiration in plants, potentially resulting in a localised decreases in vegetation cover, primary production and species richness.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 7: Dust Without Mitigation Short term Study Area Moderate Probable LOW - With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight Probable LOW -

Mitigation Measures:

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 25

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

 Employ dust suppression measures such as wetting of the project area during dry, windy periods.  Clearing must only occur immediately prior to construction to minimise the amount of time the soil is left bare and vulnerable to erosion.

5.1.8 Impact 8: Loss of faunal habitat

Cause and comment: The clearance of vegetation and construction of houses will remove some of micro habitats within the study area, including the established trees, grassland and underlying soil that may provide habitats for birds, small mammals and fossorial reptiles, respectively, which could have an impact on the local faunal biodiversity. However, given that this site is already highly degraded and fragmented, the impact is likely to be localised and of slight severity.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 8: Loss of Faunal habitat Without Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Definite LOW - With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Definite LOW -

Mitigation Measures:  Clearing of trees should take place in winter months, to prevent birds and bats establishing nesting grounds and starting to breed and rear young in the spring and summer months.  All clearing activities must deploy search and rescue teams in-front of clearing machinery to assist in relocating slower moving faunal species e.g. tortoises.  Where feasible, large established trees should be left and incorporated into the garden design of each erf.

5.2 OPERATION PHASE

This phase assesses the impacts associated with the operation of the residential area once developed.

5.2.1 Impact 1: Creation of garden habitats

Cause and comment: The proposed housing development may result in the creation of garden habitats and numerous new microhabitats, particularly for lizards and avifauna. This would be a low beneficial impact.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 26

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 1: Creation of garden habitats Slight Without Mitigation Permanent Localised May Occur LOW + (beneficial) Slight With Mitigation Permanent Localised May Occur LOW + (beneficial)

Mitigation Measures:  Maintenance of residential gardens.

5.2.2 Impact 2: Effects on surrounding faunal species

Cause and comment: In contrast to Impact 1 above, the proposed development and associated garden habitats may also bring undesirable pest species (e.g. rodents and invasive avifauna), as well as potentially dangerous species (e.g. snakes), into close contact with the new residents. Pests and dangerous species may pose nuisance and harm to the new resident, respectively. Similarly, inappropriate pest control (e.g. poisons and traps) could may pose harm to not only the pest species, but also inadvertently affect other faunal species. Additionally, the introduction of pets such as domestic cats to the area may have adverse effects on local birds. The severity and overall significance of this impact would be slight and low, respectively.

Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Spatial Severity of Likelihood Significance Scale Scale Impact Impact 2: Effects on surrounding faunal species Without Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight May occur LOW - With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight May occur LOW -

Mitigation measures:  Write into the title deed that annual pest control services are recommended.  Supply resident with contact details for local pest control services and snake handlers.  Appropriate, environmentally-friendly pest management should be adopted.

5.3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

The following alternatives were proposed for this development (Table 5-1).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 27

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Table 5-1 Proposed alternatives for the development Reasonable Alternative level Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Comment and Feasible

Property or location Alternative location 1 - Current  Disturbed site with  Loss of degraded YES The main determining factors proposed site (Preferred degraded vegetation vegetation (5.01 for selecting the proposed This refers to the alternative).  Located close to ha). location were:- fundamental location existing necessary , and the This site has been selected as is  Available land, which is options infrastructure such environmental risks and currently open, degraded land, owned by the applicant as access roads, impacts associated with owned by the applicant (RMLM). (RMLM). sewage line and such options. The site is easily accessible  Proximity to existing water reticulation from Kort Street and is residential neighbourhood. system. surrounded by existing  Close to existing  Is easily accessible development, namely low-to- infrastructure such as from Kort Street. middle income housing, which internal access roads,  Surrounded by will reduce unnecessary sewage system and water developed areas to ecological fragmentation of the reticulation. avoid unnecessary site. The adjacency of the site to  Disturbed site habitat existing infrastructure such as  Surrounded by developed fragmentation and sewage and water reticulation areas, limiting further edge effects, which systems will also make it more habitat fragmentation and would negatively cost effective to extend these edge effects of a pristine impact on services into the site. site on the edge of Zeerust biodiversity

Currently, the site appears to be used as an illegal dumping ground for rubble, garden waste and household refuse. A site camp for an adjacent development is also present on site, as well as a practice parking area for learner drivers. The area is also intersected by

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 28

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Reasonable Alternative level Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Comment and Feasible

dirt roads, which provide access to the adjacent RDP houses.

Alternative location 2 - Bok - Disturbed site.  Loss of degraded NO The main determining factors Street, RE of Portion 5 of the - Located close to vegetation. for selecting the proposed Farm Hazia No 240 JP existing necessary  Currently location were:- (25°33'24.4"S 26°05'12.9"E). infrastructure such occupied by  Available land, which is as access roads, informal settlers. This site was considered as is owned by the applicant sewage line and owned by the applicant (RMLM). (RMLM). water reticulation The site is easily accessible  Proximity to existing system. from Bok Street and is residential neighbourhood. - Is easily accessible surrounded by existing  Close to existing from Bok Street. development, namely low-to- infrastructure such as - Located adjacent to middle income housing, which internal access roads, developed areas to would reduce unnecessary sewage system and water avoid unnecessary ecological fragmentation of the reticulation. habitat site. The adjacency of the site to  Adjacent to developed fragmentation, which existing infrastructure such as areas. would negatively sewage and water reticulation  This alternative is currently impact on systems would also make it occupied by informal biodiversity. more cost effective to extend settlers and is therefore the these services into the site. less preferred option.

However, the area is currently widely occupied by an informal settlement

Layout Alternatives At the time of writing this report, no layout or layout alternatives This refers to different were available. However, the spatial configurations of project will include

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 29

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Reasonable Alternative level Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Comment and Feasible

an activity on a approximately 80 erven particular site. adjoining and internal municipal services, including roads, electricity and water systems.

Land Use Alternatives Alternative Land Use 1 -  Site is already  Loss of degraded YES The main determining factors Current proposed site (Preferred degraded from the vegetation for selecting the proposed This refers to different alternative). current land use. (5.01ha). location were:- land uses of a particular  Located close to site. Residential development was  High demand from the existing necessary selected because of high public for serviced stands infrastructure such demand from the public for for residential purposes. as access roads, serviced stands for residential  Proximity to existing sewage line and purposes. residential neighbourhood. water reticulation  Close to existing system. infrastructure such as  Is easily accessible internal access roads, from Kort Street. sewage system and water  Surrounded by reticulation. developed areas to  Disturbed site avoid unnecessary  Surrounded by developed habitat areas to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and habitat fragmentation and edge effects, which edge effects. would negatively

impact on biodiversity

Alternative Land Use 2 –  The same - Loss of degraded NO  The Municipality does not Recreational area advantages as listed vegetation have the budget to create above would apply (5.01ha). and maintain a recreational area at this site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 30

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Reasonable Alternative level Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Comment and Feasible

The site could be transformed - Loss of housing into a recreational area for local opportunities for youths, which may include the town sports courts and/or fields. - Would require the municipality

to maintain this area and it is unlikely they have budget allocated for this task

No-go option The site will remain The existing vegetation The vegetation on YES Ecological impacts may be undeveloped and likely continue will remain on site. site will continue to exacerbated by the current land This refers to the to be used as a dumping site. degrade due to its use of the site. current status quo and current land use. the risks and impacts associated to it. Additional invasive alien plant species will encroach onto this site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 31

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

6 IMPACT STATEMENT, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Without mitigation With mitigation

0, 0%

1, 10% 1, 10% 2, 20%

7, 70% 9, 90%

Moderate - Low - Low + Moderate - Low - Low +

Figure 6-1 Summary of the significance of impacts in the absence of mitigation measures (left) and the significance of impacts after the implementation of mitigations measures (right).

It is highly recommended that all invasive alien plant species in and around the proposed area are removed and the vacant erven should monitored for re-invasion between the clearance and construction phases.

6.2 SPECIALIST STATEMENT

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 32

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

the development area, the proposed development is considered to be ecologically acceptable, provided that mitigation measures provided in this report are implemented.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 33

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

7 REFERENCES Animal Demography Unit, 2019. FrogMAP Virtual Museum. [Online] Available at: http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=FrogMAP [Accessed 13 February 2019]. Animal Demography Unit, 2019. MammalMAP Virtual Museumhttp://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=MammalMAP. [Online] Available at: http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=MammalMAP [Accessed 13 February 2019]. Animal Demography Unit, 2019. ReptileMAP Virtual Museum. [Online] Available at: http://vmus.adu.org.za/?vm=ReptileMAP [Accessed 13 February 2019]. Avenant, N. et al., 2016. A conservation assessment of Mystromys albicaudatus. In: M. F. R. L. Child, E. Do Linh San, D. Raimondo & H. T. Davies-Mostert, eds. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South Africa: South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust. Bates, M. F. et al., 2014. Atlas and red list of the reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). IUCN, 2019. IUCN Red List. [Online] Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search/map [Accessed 13 May 2019]. Jacques, H., Reed-Smith, J. & Somers, M. J., 2015. Aonyx capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T1793A21938767. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T1793A21938767.en [Accessed 28 February 201]. Lepage, D., 2019. Checklist of the birds of Madikwe. Avibase, the world bird database. [Online] Available at: https://avibase.bsc- eoc.org/checklist.jsp?region=ZAnw09&list=clements&format=1 [13/02/2019] [Accessed 13 February 2019]. Power, R. J., 2013. The distribution and status of mammals in the North West, Mahikeng: Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation & Tourism, North West Provincial Government. Power, R. J. & Verbugt, L., 2014. The Herpetofauna of the North West: a literature survey, Mahikeng: Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism. North West Provincial Government. Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (READ), 2015. North West Biodiversity Sector Plan 2015. [Online] Available at: http://www.nwpg.gov.za/Agriculture/documents/2016/Environmental%20Policy%20Planning %20and%20Coordination/New%20Documents/North%20West%20Biodiversity%20Sector% 20Plan%202015.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2019].

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 34

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

StatsSA, 2011. Census 2011: Census in Brief. [Online] Available at: http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/Census_2011_Census_in _brief.pdf [Accessed 13 May 2019]. Stein, A. B. et al., 2016. Panthera pardus (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15954A102421779. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T15954A50659089.en [Accessed 28 February 2019]. Wiesel, I., 2015. Parahyaena brunnea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T10276A82344448. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T10276A82344448.en [Accessed 28 February 2019].

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 35

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

8 APPENDIX A: IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Five factors need to be considered when assessing the significance of impacts, namely: 1. Relationship of the impact to temporal scales - the temporal scale defines the significance of the impact at various time scales, as an indication of the duration of the impact.

2. Relationship of the impact to spatial scales - the spatial scale defines the physical extent of the impact.

3. The severity of the impact - the severity/beneficial scale is used in order to scientifically evaluate how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be on a particular affected system (for ecological impacts) or a particular affected party. The severity of impacts can be evaluated with and without mitigation in order to demonstrate how serious the impact is when nothing is done about it. The word ‘mitigation’ means not just ‘compensation’, but includes concepts of containment and remedy. For beneficial impacts, optimization means anything that can enhance the benefits. However, mitigation or optimization must be practical, technically feasible and economically viable.

4. The likelihood of the impact occurring - the likelihood of impacts taking place as a result of project actions differs between potential impacts. There is no doubt that some impacts would occur (e.g. loss of vegetation), but other impacts are not as likely to occur (e.g. vehicle accident), and may or may not result from the proposed development. Although some impacts may have a severe effect, the likelihood of them occurring may affect their overall significance.

5. Each criterion is ranked to determine the overall significance of an activity (Table 8-1). The criterion is then considered in two categories, viz. effect of the activity and the likelihood of the impact. The total scores recorded for the effect and likelihood are then read off the matrix presented in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3, to determine the overall significance of the impact. The overall significance is either negative or positive.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 36

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Table 8-1 Ranking of evaluation criteria. Temporal Scale Short term Less than 5 years Medium term Between 5-20 years Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human Long term perspective also permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change Permanent that will always be there Spatial Scale Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs Regional District and Provincial level National Country International Internationally Severity Severity Benefit Slightly beneficial to the Slight impacts on the affected Slight affected system(s) and system(s) or party(ies) party(ies) Moderate impacts on the Moderately beneficial to the Moderate affected system(s) or affected system(s) and party(ies) party(ies) Severe impacts on the A substantial benefit to the Severe/ affected system(s) or affected system(s) and

Beneficial party(ies) party(ies) Very severe change to the A very substantial benefit to the Very Severe/ affected system(s) or affected system(s) and Beneficial EFFECT party(ies) party(ies) Likelihood Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

LIKELIHOOD Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur

* In certain cases it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know

Table 8-2 Matrix used to determine the overall significance of the impact based on the likelihood and effect of the impact. Effect

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Likelihood 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 37

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Table 8-3 Description of Environmental Significance Ratings and associated range of scores. Significance Description Score Rate Low An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not LOW essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent the development being approved. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment. Moderate An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is MEDIUM insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long-term effect on the social and/or natural environment. High A serious impact, if not mitigated, may prevent the HIGH implementation of the project (if it is a negative impact). These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually a long-term change to the (natural &/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effects. Very High A very serious impact which, if negative, may be sufficient by VERY itself to prevent implementation of the project. The impact may HIGH result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are not able to be mitigated and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.

The environmental significance scale is an attempt to evaluate the importance of a particular impact. This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.

Prioritising The evaluation of the impacts, as described above is used to assess the significance of identified impacts and determine which impacts require mitigation measures.

Negative impacts that are ranked as being of “VERY HIGH” and “HIGH” significance will be investigated further to determine how the impact can be minimised or what alternative activities or mitigation measures can be implemented. These impacts may also assist decision makers i.e. numerous HIGH negative impacts may bring about a negative decision. For impacts identified as having a negative impact of “MODERATE” significance, it is standard practice to investigate alternate activities and/or mitigation measures. The most effective and practical mitigations measures will then be proposed. For impacts ranked as “LOW” significance, no investigations or alternatives will be considered. Possible management measures will be investigated to ensure that the impacts remain of low significance.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 38

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

9 APPENDIX B: BOTANICAL SPECIES LIST

Table 9-1 List of botanical species recorded on site. Scientific Name SA Red List TOPS NWBMA NEMBA IAPs Agave sisalana - - - 2 Aloe zebrina LC - - Aneilema aequinoctiale LC - - Arctotis arctotoides LC - - Aristida congesta LC - - Asparagus africanus LC - - Asparagus cf laricinus LC - - Bulbine cf abyssinica LC - - Cereus jamacaru Not Evaluated - - 1b Chlorophytum cooperi LC - - Eragrostis curvula LC - - Eragrostis lehmanniana LC - - Eragrostis superba LC - - Euclea undulata LC - - Felicia muricata LC - - Geigeria burkei Not Evaluated - - Gladiolus pretoriensis LC - - Heteropogon contortus LC - - Hibiscus microcarpus LC - - Hyparrhenia hirta LC - - Indigofera cf filipes LC - - Melinis repens LC - - Menodora heterophylla LC - - Peliostomum virgatum LC - - Polygala hottentotta LC - - Searsia lancea LC - - Selago densiflora LC - - Solanum campylacanthum LC - - Themeda triandra LC - - Urochloa cf mosambicensis LC - - Vachellia karroo LC - - Verbena tenuisecta - - Wahlenbergia undulata LC - - Ziziphus mucronata LC - -

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 39

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

10 APPENDIX C1: AMPHIBIANS

Table 10-1 Amphibians with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. QDS Red list 2526CA Scientific name Common name category (ADU, 2019) Amietia angolensis Angolan River Frog Least concern Amietia delalandii Delalande's River Frog Least concern 1 Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog Least concern Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco Least concern 1 Chiromantis xerampelina South Foam Nest Frog Least concern Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina Least concern 1 Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snorring puddle frog Least concern Phrynomantis bifasciatus Banded Rubber Frog Least concern 1 Polyntonophrynus fenoulheti Fenoulhet’s Toad Least concern Polyntonophrynus vertebralis Southern Pygmy Toad Least concern Ptychadena anchietae Plain Grass Frog Least concern Ptychadena mossambica Mozambique ridged frog Least concern Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bull Frog Least concern Schismaderma carens Red Toad Least concern 1 Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad Least concern 1 Sclerophrys garmani Olive Toad Least concern 1 Sclerophrys gutturalis Guttural Toad Least concern 1 Sclerophrys poweri Power's Toad Least concern 1 Tomopterna cryptotis Tremelo Sand Frog Least concern 1 Tomopterna krugerensis Knocking Sand Frog Least concern Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog Least concern 1 Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog Least concern Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Least concern 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 40

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

11 APPENDIX C2: REPTILES

Table 11-1 Reptiles with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. QDS Red list category 2526CA Scientific name Common name (SARCA 2014) (ADU, (Bates, et al., 2014) 2019) Lizards Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink Least Concern Acontias percivali Percival’s Legless Skink Least Concern Agama aculeata Ground agama Least Concern Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-neck chameleon Least Concern Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard Least Concern Dalophia pistillum Blunt tailed worm lizard Least Concern Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard Least Concern 1 Common Tropical House Hemidactylus mabouia Least Concern Gecko Lygodactylus capensis capensis Common Dwarf Gecko Least Concern 1 Lygodactylus nigropunctatus Black-spotted Dwarf Gecko Least Concern Meroles squamulosa Common rough scaled lizard Least Concern Mochlus sundevallii Sundevall's Writhing Skink Least Concern 1 Monopeltis capensis Cape Worm Lizard Least Concern Cape Spade-snouted Worm Monopeltis capensis Least Concern Lizard Nucras holubi Holub’s Sandveld Lizard Least Concern Nucras intertexta Spotted Sandveld Lizard Least Concern Pachydactulus capensis Cape gecko Least Concern Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Gecko Least Concern Pachydactylus turneri Turner’s thick-toed gecko Least Concern Panaspis sp. Snake-eyed skinks Least Concern Pedioplanis lineoocellata subsp. Spotted sand lizard Least Concern lineoocellata Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern 1 Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink Least Concern Trachylepis varia Variable Skink Least Concern 1 Trachylepsis striata Striped skink Least Concern Varanus albigularis Rock monitor Least Concern Varanus niloticus Water monitor Least Concern Snakes Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake Least Concern Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 41

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Atractaspis bibronii Bibron’s burrowing asp Least Concern Atractaspis duerdeni Beaked Burrowing Asp Least Concern Bitis arietans arietans Puff adder Least Concern Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake Least Concern Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red lipped herald Least Concern Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater Least Concern 1 Dendroaspis polylepis Black mamba Least Concern Dispholidus typus Boomslang Least Concern Gonionotophis capensis Cape File Snake Least Concern Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peters' threadsnake Least Concern Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Brown Water Snake Least Concern Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake Least Concern Naja annulifera Snouted cobra Least Concern Naja mossambica Mozambique spitting cobra Least Concern Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted bush snake Least Concern Prosymna ambigua Angolan Shovel-Snout Least Concern Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall’s Shovel-snout Least Concern Psammophis brevirostris Short snouted grass snake Least Concern Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Grass Snake Least Concern 1 Pseudaspis cana Mole snake Least Concern Python natalensis Southern African Python Least Concern Delalande’s Beaked Blind Rhinotyphlops lalandei Least Concern Snake Telescopus semiannulatus Eastern Tiger Snake Least Concern semiannulatus Thelotornis capensis capensis Vine snake Least Concern Tortoises and terrepins Kinixys lobatsiana Lobatse Hinged Tortoise Least Concern Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh terrapin Least Concern Psammobates oculifer Serrated/Kalahari tent tortoise Least Concern Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard tortoise Least Concern 7

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 42

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

12 APPENDIX C3: AVIFAUNA

Table 12-1 Birds with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) ACCIPITRIFORMES: Accipitridae Accipiter badius Shikra 1 Accipiter melanoleucus Black Goshawk 1 Accipiter minullus Little Sparrowhawk 1 Accipiter ovampensis Ovambo Sparrowhawk 1 Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle Vulnerable 1 Aquila spilogaster African Hawk-Eagle 1 Aquila verreauxii Verreaux's Eagle 1 Buteo buteo Common Buzzard 1 Buteo rufofuscus Jackal Buzzard 1 Circaetus cinereus Brown Snake-Eagle 1 Circaetus pectoralis Black-breasted Snake-Eagle 1 Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Near-threatened 1 Circus pygargus Montagu's Harrier 1 Circus ranivorus African Marsh-Harrier 1 Elanus caeruleus Black-winged Kite 1 Gyps africanus White-backed Vulture Critically endangered 1 Gyps coprotheres Cape Griffon Endangered 1 Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish-Eagle 1 Hieraaetus pennatus Booted Eagle 1 Hieraaetus wahlbergi Wahlberg's Eagle 1 Kaupifalco monogrammicus Lizard Buzzard 1 Melierax canorus Pale Chanting-Goshawk 1 Micronisus gabar Gabar Goshawk 1 Milvus migrans Black Kite 1 Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture Critically endangered 1 Pernis apivorus European Honey-buzzard 1 Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle Vulnerable 1 Polyboroides typus African Harrier-Hawk 1 Terathopius ecaudatus Bateleur Near-threatened 1 Torgos tracheliotos Lappet-faced Vulture Endangered 1 ACCIPITRIFORMES: Pandionidae Pandion haliaetus Osprey 1 ACCIPITRIFORMES: Sagittariidae Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird Vulnerable 1 ANSERIFORMES: Anatidae Alopochen aegyptiaca Egyptian Goose 1 Anas capensis Cape Teal 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 43

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Anas erythrorhyncha Red-billed Duck 1 Anas sparsa African Black Duck 1 Anas undulata Yellow-billed Duck 1 Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-Duck 1 Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-Duck 1 Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard 1 Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck Vulnerable 1 Plectropterus gambensis Spur-winged Goose 1 Sarkidiornis melanotos Knob-billed Duck 1 Spatula hottentota Hottentot Teal 1 Spatula smithii Cape Shoveler 1 Tadorna cana South African Shelduck 1 Thalassornis leuconotus White-backed Duck 1 BUCEROTIFORMES: Bucerotidae Lophoceros nasutus African Gray Hornbill 1 Tockus leucomelas Southern Yellow-billed Hornbill 1 Tockus rufirostris Southern Red-billed Hornbill 1 BUCEROTIFORMES: Bucorvidae Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground-Hornbill Vulnerable 1 BUCEROTIFORMES: Phoeniculidae Phoeniculus purpureus Green Woodhoopoe 1 Rhinopomastus cyanomelas Common Scimitarbill 1 BUCEROTIFORMES: Upupidae Upupa epops Eurasian Hoopoe 1 CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Apodidae Apus affinis Little Swift 1 Apus apus Common Swift 1 Apus barbatus African Swift 1 Apus caffer White-rumped Swift 1 Apus horus Horus Swift 1 Apus melba Alpine Swift 1 Cypsiurus parvus African Palm-Swift 1 CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus europaeus Eurasian Nightjar 1 Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar 1 Caprimulgus rufigena Rufous-cheeked Nightjar 1 Caprimulgus tristigma Freckled Nightjar 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Burhinidae Burhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee 1 Burhinus vermiculatus Water Thick-knee Rare/Accidental 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Charadriidae

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 44

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Charadrius asiaticus Caspian Plover 1 Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover 1 Charadrius marginatus White-fronted Plover 1 Charadrius pallidus Chestnut-banded Plover Near-threatened 1 Charadrius pecuarius Kittlitz's Plover 1 Charadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover 1 Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing 1 Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing 1 Vanellus senegallus Wattled Lapwing 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Glareolidae Cursorius rufus Burchell's Courser 1 Cursorius temminckii Temminck's Courser 1 Glareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole Near-threatened 1 Rhinoptilus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Courser 1 Smutsornis africanus Double-banded Courser 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Jacanidae Actophilornis africanus African Jacana 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Laridae Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern 1 Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern 1 Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus Gray-hooded Gull 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Recurvirostridae Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt 1 Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Rostratulidae Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-Snipe 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Scolopacidae Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper 1 Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Near-threatened 1 Calidris minuta Little Stint 1 Calidris pugnax Ruff 1 Gallinago nigripennis African Snipe 1 Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew Near-threatened 1 Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper 1 Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank 1 Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper 1 Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper 1 Tringa totanus Common Redshank Rare/Accidental 1 CHARADRIIFORMES: Turnicidae Turnix sylvaticus Small Buttonquail 1 CICONIIFORMES: Ciconiidae

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 45

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Ciconia abdimii Abdim's Stork 1 Ciconia ciconia White Stork 1 Ciconia nigra Black Stork 1 Leptoptilos crumenifer Marabou Stork 1 Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork 1 COLIIFORMES: Coliidae Colius colius White-backed Mousebird 1 Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird 1 Urocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird 1 COLUMBIFORMES: Columbidae Columba arquatrix Rameron Pigeon 1 Columba guinea Speckled Pigeon 1 Oena capensis Namaqua Dove 1 Streptopelia capicola Ring-necked Dove 1 Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove 1 Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove 1 Turtur chalcospilos Emerald-spotted Wood-Dove 1 CORACIIFORMES: Alcedinidae Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher 1 Ceryle rudis Pied Kingfisher 1 Corythornis cristatus Malachite Kingfisher 1 Halcyon albiventris Brown-hooded Kingfisher 1 Halcyon chelicuti Striped Kingfisher 1 Halcyon leucocephala Gray-headed Kingfisher 1 Halcyon senegalensis Woodland Kingfisher 1 Megaceryle maxima Giant Kingfisher 1 CORACIIFORMES: Coraciidae Coracias caudatus Lilac-breasted Roller 1 Coracias garrulus European Roller 1 Coracias naevius Rufous-crowned Roller 1 CORACIIFORMES: Meropidae Merops apiaster European Bee-eater 1 Merops bullockoides White-fronted Bee-eater 1 Merops hirundineus Swallow-tailed Bee-eater 1 Merops nubicoides Southern Carmine Bee-eater 1 Merops persicus Blue-cheeked Bee-eater 1 Merops pusillus Little Bee-eater 1 CUCULIFORMES: Cuculidae Centropus superciliosus White-browed Coucal 1 Chrysococcyx caprius Dideric Cuckoo 1 Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas's Cuckoo 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 46

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Clamator glandarius Great Spotted Cuckoo 1 Clamator jacobinus Pied Cuckoo 1 Clamator levaillantii Levaillant's Cuckoo 1 Cuculus canorus Common Cuckoo 1 Cuculus clamosus Black Cuckoo 1 Cuculus gularis African Cuckoo 1 Cuculus solitarius Red-chested Cuckoo 1 FALCONIFORMES: Falconidae Falco amurensis Amur Falcon 1 Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon 1 Falco chicquera Red-necked Falcon 1 Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel 1 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 1 Falco rupicoloides Greater Kestrel 1 Falco rupicolus Rock Kestrel 1 Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby 1 Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon Near-threatened 1 Polihierax semitorquatus Pygmy Falcon 1 GALLIFORMES: Numididae Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl 1 GALLIFORMES: Phasianidae Coturnix coturnix Common Quail 1 Coturnix delegorguei Harlequin Quail 1 Dendroperdix sephaena Crested Francolin 1 Peliperdix coqui Coqui Francolin 1 Pternistis natalensis Natal Francolin 1 Pternistis swainsonii Swainson's Francolin 1 Scleroptila gutturalis Orange River Francolin 1 GRUIFORMES: Gruidae Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane Vulnerable 1 GRUIFORMES: Heliornithidae Podica senegalensis African Finfoot 1 GRUIFORMES: Rallidae Crex egregia African Crake 1 Fulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot 1 Gallinula angulata Lesser Moorhen Rare/Accidental 1 Gallinula chloropus Eurasian Moorhen 1 Porphyrio madagascariensis African Swamphen 1 Rallus caerulescens African Rail 1 Zapornia flavirostra Black Crake 1 GRUIFORMES: Sarothruridae

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 47

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Sarothrura rufa Red-chested Flufftail 1 MUSOPHAGIFORMES: Musophagidae Corythaixoides concolor Gray Go-away-bird 1 OTIDIFORMES: Otididae Ardeotis kori Kori Bustard Near-threatened 1 Eupodotis afraoides White-quilled Bustard 1 Eupodotis ruficrista Red-crested Bustard 1 PASSERIFORMES: Acrocephalidae Acrocephalus arundinaceus Great Reed Warbler 1 Acrocephalus baeticatus African Reed Warbler 1 Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp Warbler 1 Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler 1 Hippolais icterina Icterine Warbler 1 Hippolais olivetorum Olive-tree Warbler 1 PASSERIFORMES: Alaudidae Calandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark 1 Calendulauda africanoides Fawn-colored Lark 1 Calendulauda sabota Sabota Lark 1 Certhilauda chuana Short-clawed Lark 1 Certhilauda semitorquata Eastern Long-billed Lark Endemic (country/region) 1 Chersomanes albofasciata Spike-heeled Lark 1 Eremopterix leucotis Chestnut-backed Sparrow- Lark 1 Eremopterix verticalis Gray-backed Sparrow-Lark 1 Mirafra africana Rufous-naped Lark 1 Mirafra cheniana Latakoo Lark 1 Mirafra fasciolata Eastern Clapper Lark 1 Mirafra passerina Monotonous Lark 1 Spizocorys conirostris Pink-billed Lark 1 Spizocorys starki Stark's Lark 1 PASSERIFORMES: Buphagidae Buphagus erythrorhynchus Red-billed Oxpecker 1 PASSERIFORMES: Campephagidae Campephaga flava Black Cuckooshrike 1 PASSERIFORMES: Cisticolidae Apalis thoracica Bar-throated Apalis 1 Calamonastes fasciolatus Barred Wren-Warbler 1 Camaroptera brachyura Green-backed Camaroptera 1 Cisticola aberrans Rock-loving Cisticola 1 Cisticola aridulus Desert Cisticola 1 Cisticola chiniana Rattling Cisticola 1 Cisticola fulvicapilla Piping Cisticola 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 48

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Cisticola lais Wailing Cisticola 1 Cisticola rufilatus Tinkling Cisticola 1 Cisticola textrix Cloud Cisticola 1 Cisticola tinniens Levaillant's Cisticola 1 Eremomela icteropygialis Yellow-bellied Eremomela 1 Eremomela usticollis Burnt-neck Eremomela 1 Malcorus pectoralis Rufous-eared Warbler 1 Prinia flavicans Black-chested Prinia 1 Prinia subflava Tawny-flanked Prinia 1 PASSERIFORMES: Corvidae Corvus albus Pied Crow 1 Corvus capensis Cape Crow 1 PASSERIFORMES: Dicruridae Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo 1 PASSERIFORMES: Emberizidae Emberiza capensis Cape Bunting 1 Emberiza flaviventris Golden-breasted Bunting 1 Emberiza impetuani Lark-like Bunting 1 Emberiza tahapisi Cinnamon-breasted Bunting 1 PASSERIFORMES: Estrildidae Amadina erythrocephala Red-headed Finch 1 Amadina fasciata Cut-throat 1 Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill 1 Estrilda erythronotos Black-faced Waxbill 1 Granatina granatina Violet-eared Waxbill 1 Lagonosticta rhodopareia Jameson's Firefinch 1 Lagonosticta rubricata African Firefinch 1 Lagonosticta senegala Red-billed Firefinch 1 Ortygospiza fuscocrissa African Quailfinch 1 Pytilia melba Green-winged Pytilia 1 Spermestes cucullata Bronze Mannikin 1 Sporaeginthus subflavus Zebra Waxbill 1 Uraeginthus angolensis Southern Cordonbleu 1 PASSERIFORMES: Fringillidae Crithagra atrogularis Black-throated Canary 1 Crithagra flaviventris Yellow Canary 1 Crithagra gularis Streaky-headed Seedeater 1 Crithagra mozambica Yellow-fronted Canary 1 PASSERIFORMES: Hirundinidae Cecropis abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow 1 Cecropis cucullata Greater Striped Swallow 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 49

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Cecropis semirufa Rufous-chested Swallow 1 Delichon urbicum Common House-Martin 1 Hirundo albigularis White-throated Swallow 1 Hirundo dimidiata Pearl-breasted Swallow 1 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 1 Petrochelidon spilodera South African Swallow 1 Pseudhirundo griseopyga Gray-rumped Swallow 1 Ptyonoprogne fuligula Rock Martin 1 Riparia cincta Banded Martin 1 Riparia paludicola Plain Martin 1 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow 1 PASSERIFORMES: Laniidae Corvinella melanoleuca Magpie Shrike 1 Eurocephalus anguitimens White-crowned Shrike 1 Lanius collaris Southern Fiscal 1 Lanius collurio Red-backed Shrike 1 Lanius minor Lesser Gray Shrike 1 PASSERIFORMES: Leiothrichidae Turdoides bicolor Southern Pied-Babbler 1 Turdoides jardineii Arrow-marked Babbler 1 PASSERIFORMES: Macrosphenidae Sphenoeacus afer Cape Grassbird 1 Sylvietta rufescens Cape Crombec 1 PASSERIFORMES: Malaconotidae Dryoscopus cubla Black-backed Puffback 1 Laniarius atrococcineus Crimson-breasted Gonolek 1 Laniarius ferrugineus Southern Boubou 1 Malaconotus blanchoti Gray-headed Bushshrike 1 Nilaus afer Brubru 1 Tchagra australis Brown-crowned Tchagra 1 Tchagra senegalus Black-crowned Tchagra 1 Telophorus sulfureopectus Sulphur-breasted Bushshrike 1 Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie 1 PASSERIFORMES: Monarchidae Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise-Flycatcher 1 PASSERIFORMES: Motacillidae Anthus cinnamomeus African Pipit 1 Anthus hoeschi Mountain Pipit Near-threatened 1 Anthus leucophrys Plain-backed Pipit 1 Anthus lineiventris Striped Pipit 1 Anthus similis Long-billed Pipit 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 50

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Anthus vaalensis Buffy Pipit 1 Macronyx capensis Orange-throated Longclaw 1 Motacilla aguimp African Pied Wagtail 1 Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail 1 Motacilla flava Western Yellow Wagtail 1 PASSERIFORMES: Muscicapidae Agricola infuscatus Chat Flycatcher 1 Agricola pallidus Pale Flycatcher 1 Bradornis mariquensis Mariqua Flycatcher 1 Cercomela familiaris Familiar Chat 1 Cercotrichas leucophrys Red-backed Scrub-Robin 1 Cercotrichas paena Kalahari Scrub-Robin 1 Cossypha caffra Cape Robin-Chat 1 Cossypha heuglini White-browed Robin-Chat 1 Cossypha humeralis White-throated Robin-Chat 1 Fraseria plumbea Gray Tit-Flycatcher 1 Melaenornis pammelaina Southern Black-Flycatcher 1 Melaenornis silens Fiscal Flycatcher 1 Monticola brevipes Short-toed Rock-Thrush 1 Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher 1 Myrmecocichla formicivora Southern Anteater-Chat 1 Oenanthe monticola Mountain Wheatear 1 Oenanthe pileata Capped Wheatear 1 Saxicola torquatus African Stonechat 1 Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Mocking Cliff-Chat 1 PASSERIFORMES: Nectariniidae Chalcomitra amethystina Amethyst Sunbird 1 Cinnyris afer Greater Double-collared Sunbird 1 Cinnyris mariquensis Mariqua Sunbird 1 Cinnyris talatala White-breasted Sunbird 1 Nectarinia famosa Malachite Sunbird 1 PASSERIFORMES: Oriolidae Oriolus larvatus African Black-headed Oriole 1 Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole 1 PASSERIFORMES: Paridae Melaniparus cinerascens Ashy Tit 1 Melaniparus niger Southern Black-Tit 1 PASSERIFORMES: Passeridae Gymnornis superciliaris Yellow-throated Petronia 1 Passer diffusus Southern Gray-headed Sparrow 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 51

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Passer domesticus House Sparrow Introduced species 1 Passer melanurus Cape Sparrow 1 Passer motitensis Great Rufous Sparrow 1 PASSERIFORMES: Phylloscopidae Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler 1 PASSERIFORMES: Platysteiridae Batis molitor Chinspot Batis 1 PASSERIFORMES: Ploceidae Amblyospiza albifrons Grosbeak Weaver Rare/Accidental 1 Anaplectes rubriceps Red-headed Weaver 1 Bubalornis niger Red-billed Buffalo-Weaver 1 Euplectes afer Yellow-crowned Bishop 1 Euplectes albonotatus White-winged Widowbird 1 Euplectes ardens Red-collared Widowbird 1 Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop 1 Euplectes progne Long-tailed Widowbird 1 Philetairus socius Sociable Weaver 1 Plocepasser mahali White-browed Sparrow- Weaver 1 Ploceus capensis Cape Weaver Endemic (country/region) 1 Ploceus cucullatus Village Weaver 1 Ploceus intermedius Lesser Masked-Weaver 1 Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-Weaver 1 Quelea quelea Red-billed Quelea 1 Sporopipes squamifrons Scaly Weaver 1 PASSERIFORMES: Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus barbatus Common Bulbul 1 Pycnonotus nigricans Black-fronted Bulbul 1 PASSERIFORMES: Remizidae Anthoscopus caroli African Penduline-Tit 1 Anthoscopus minutus Southern Penduline-Tit 1 PASSERIFORMES: Stenostiridae Stenostira scita Fairy Flycatcher 1 PASSERIFORMES: Sturnidae Acridotheres tristis Common Myna Introduced species 1 Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-backed Starling 1 Creatophora cinerea Wattled Starling 1 Lamprotornis australis Burchell's Starling 1 Lamprotornis bicolor African Pied Starling Endemic (country/region) 1 Lamprotornis chalybaeus Greater Blue-eared Starling Rare/Accidental 1 Lamprotornis nitens Cape Starling 1 Onychognathus morio Red-winged Starling 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 52

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) PASSERIFORMES: Sylviidae Sylvia borin Garden Warbler 1 Sylvia communis Greater Whitethroat 1 Sylvia subcaerulea Rufous-vented Warbler 1 PASSERIFORMES: Turdidae Psophocichla litsitsirupa Groundscraper Thrush 1 Turdus libonyana Kurrichane Thrush 1 Turdus smithi Karoo Thrush 1 PASSERIFORMES: Viduidae Anomalospiza imberbis Parasitic Weaver 1 Vidua chalybeata Village Indigobird 1 Vidua funerea Variable Indigobird 1 Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah 1 Vidua paradisaea Eastern Paradise-Whydah 1 Vidua purpurascens Purple Indigobird 1 Vidua regia Shaft-tailed Whydah 1 PASSERIFORMES: Zosteropidae Zosterops pallidus Orange River White-eye 1 Zosterops virens Cape White-eye 1 PELECANIFORMES: Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret 1 Ardea cinerea Gray Heron 1 Ardea goliath Goliath Heron 1 Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret 1 Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron 1 Ardea purpurea Purple Heron 1 Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron 1 Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 1 Butorides striata Striated Heron 1 Egretta ardesiaca Black Heron 1 Egretta garzetta Little Egret 1 Gorsachius leuconotus White-backed Night-Heron 1 Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern 1 Ixobrychus sturmii Dwarf Bittern 1 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 1 PELECANIFORMES: Pelecanidae Pelecanus rufescens Pink-backed Pelican 1 PELECANIFORMES: Scopidae Scopus umbretta Hamerkop 1 PELECANIFORMES: Threskiornithidae Bostrychia hagedash Hadada Ibis 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 53

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Platalea alba African Spoonbill 1 Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis 1 Threskiornis aethiopicus Sacred Ibis 1 PHOENICOPTERIFORMES: Phoenicopteridae Phoeniconaias minor Lesser Flamingo Near-threatened 1 Phoenicopterus roseus Greater Flamingo 1 PICIFORMES: Indicatoridae Indicator indicator Greater Honeyguide 1 Indicator minor Lesser Honeyguide 1 Prodotiscus regulus Wahlberg's Honeyguide 1 PICIFORMES: Lybiidae Lybius torquatus Black-collared Barbet 1 Pogoniulus chrysoconus Yellow-fronted Tinkerbird 1 Trachyphonus vaillantii Crested Barbet 1 Tricholaema leucomelas Pied Barbet 1 PICIFORMES: Picidae Campethera abingoni Golden-tailed Woodpecker 1 Campethera bennettii Bennett's Woodpecker 1 Chloropicus fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker 1 Chloropicus namaquus Bearded Woodpecker 1 Jynx ruficollis Rufous-necked Wryneck 1 PODICIPEDIFORMES: Podicipedidae Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe 1 Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe 1 Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe 1 PSITTACIFORMES: Psittacidae Poicephalus meyeri Meyer's Parrot 1 PTEROCLIFORMES: Pteroclidae Pterocles bicinctus Double-banded Sandgrouse 1 Pterocles burchelli Burchell's Sandgrouse 1 Pterocles gutturalis Yellow-throated Sandgrouse 1 Pterocles namaqua Namaqua Sandgrouse 1 STRIGIFORMES: Strigidae Asio capensis Marsh Owl 1 Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-Owl 1 Bubo lacteus Verreaux's Eagle-Owl 1 Glaucidium perlatum Pearl-spotted Owlet 1 Otus senegalensis African Scops-Owl 1 Ptilopsis granti Southern White-faced Owl 1 STRIGIFORMES: Tytonidae Tyto alba Barn Owl 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 54

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

Madikwe region Scientific name Common name Red list category (Lepage. 2019) Tyto capensis African Grass-Owl 1 STRUTHIONIFORMES: Struthionidae Struthio camelus Common Ostrich 1 SULIFORMES: Anhingidae Anhinga rufa African Darter 1 SULIFORMES: Phalacrocoracidae Microcarbo africanus Long-tailed Cormorant 1 Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant 1

412

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 55

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

13 APPENDIX C4: MAMMALS

Table 13-1 Mammals with a distribution range that includes the proposed development site. QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019) Carnivora

Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal Least Concern 1

Canidae Canis sp. Jackals and Wolves Least Concern 1 Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox Least Concern Vulpes chama Cape Fox Least Concern

Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah Vulnerable

Caracal caracal Caracal Least Concern 1

Felis catus Domestic Cat Introduced 1 Felidae Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat Vulnerable

Felis silvestris Wild Cat Least Concern Leptailurus serval Serval Least Concern Panthera pardus Leopard Vulnerable 1

Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose Least Concern 1

Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose Least Concern Helogale parvula Common Dwarf Mongoose Least Concern Common Slender Herpestidae Herpestes sanguineus Least Concern 1 Mongoose

Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose Least Concern Mungos mungo Banded Mongoose Least Concern Suricata suricatta Meerkat Least Concern Hipposideros caffer Sundevall's Roundleaf Bat Least Concern Hipposideridae Rhinolophus darlingi Darling's Horseshoe Bat Least Concern Crocuta crocuta Spotted Hyaena Least Concern

Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyena Near Threatened 1 Hyaenidae

Proteles cristata Aardwolf Least Concern 1

Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter Near Threatened 1

Mustelidae Ictonyx striatus Zorilla Least Concern Mellivora capensis Honey Badger Least Concern Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Least Concern Civettictis civetta African Civet Least Concern

Genetta genetta Common Genet Least Concern Viverridae Cape Genet (Cape Large- Genetta tigrina Least Concern 1 spotted Genet)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 56

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019) Cetartiodactyla Aepyceros melampus Impala Least Concern 1 Alcelaphus buselaphus Hartebeest Least Concern 1

Antidorcas marsupialis Springbok Least Concern 1

Connochaetes taurinus Common Wildebeest Least Concern 1 taurinus

Damaliscus lunatus Topi Least Concern

Damaliscus pygargus Blesbok Least Concern 1 phillipsi Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck Least Concern 1 ellipsiprymnus Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer Least Concern

Oryx gazella Gemsbok Least Concern 1 Bovidae

Raphicerus campestris Steenbok Least Concern

Redunca arundinum Southern Reedbuck Least Concern 1

Redunca fulvorufula Mountain Reedbuck Least Concern 1

Sylvicapra grimmia Bush Duiker Least Concern 1

Syncerus caffer African Buffalo Near Threatened

Tragelaphus angasii Nyala Least Concern 1

Tragelaphus oryx Common Eland Least Concern 1

Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Least Concern 1

Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu Least Concern 1

Giraffidae Giraffa camelopardalis Giraffe Vulnerable

Hippopotamidae Hippopotamus amphibius Hippopotamus Vulnerable

Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog Least Concern 1 Suidae Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig Least Concern Chiroptera

Hipposideridae Cloeotis percivali Percival's Trident Bat Least Concern Sauromys petrophilus Roberts's Flat-headed Bat Least Concern

Molossidae

Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat Least Concern

Nycteridae Nycteris thebaica Cape Long-eared Bat Least Concern

Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus denti Dent's Horseshoe Bat Least Concern

Eptesicus hottentotus Least Concern

Vespertilionidae Neoromicia capensis Cape Bat Least Concern

Scotophilus dinganii Least Concern

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 57

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019) Eulipotyphla Southern African Erinaceidae Atelerix frontalis Least Concern Hedgehog

Crocidura cyanea Least Concern

Crocidura fuscomurina Bicolored Musk Shrew Least Concern 1

Crocidura hirta Least Concern

Soricidae Crocidura mariquensis Least Concern

Crocidura silacea Least Concern

Suncus lixus Greater Dwarf Shrew Least Concern 1

Suncus varilla Least Concern Hyracoidea Procaviidae Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax Least Concern Lagomorpha

Lepus capensis Cape Hare Least Concern Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare Least Concern 1

Leporidae Lepus victoriae African Savanna Hare Least Concern

Pronolagus randensis Jameson's Red Rock Hare Least Concern 1

Macroscelidea

Elephantulus Short-snouted Sengi Least Concern brachyrhynchus Macroscelididae Elephantulus intufi Bushveld Sengi Least Concern Eastern Rock Elephant Elephantulus myurus Least Concern 1 Shrew Perissodactyla

Equidae Equus quagga Plains Zebra Least Concern 1

Ceratotherium simum White Rhinoceros Near Threatened Rhinocerotidae Critically Diceros bicornis Black Rhinoceros Endangered Pholidota Temminck's Ground Manidae Smutsia temminckii Vulnerable Pangolin Primates Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Least Concern 1

Chlorocebus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey Least Concern Cercopithecidae 1 pygerythrus (subspecies pygerythrus) (2008)

Papio ursinus Chacma Baboon Least Concern 1

Galagidae Galago moholi Southern Lesser Galago Least Concern Rodentia Bathyergidae Cryptomys hottentotus Southern African Mole-rat Least Concern 1

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 58

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

QDS 2526CA Family Scientific name Common name Red list category (ADU, 2019)

Gliridae Graphiurus microtis Least Concern Hystricidae Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine Least Concern 1

Aethomys ineptus Tete Veld Aethomys Least Concern 1

Aethomys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse Least Concern 1

Desmodillus auricularis Least Concern Gerbilliscus brantsii Least Concern

Gerbilliscus leucogaster Least Concern Gerbillurus paeba Least Concern Single-Striped Lemniscomys rosalia Least Concern 1 Lemniscomys Muridae Mastomys coucha Least Concern

Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Rat Least Concern

Mus indutus Least Concern

Otomys angoniensis Least Concern

Otomys auratus Vlei Rat Near Threatened

Rattus rattus House Rat Least Concern Mesic Four-striped Grass Rhabdomys dilectus Least Concern Rat

Thallomys paedulcus Least Concern Dendromus melanotis Least Concern

Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat Vulnerable

Nesomyidae Saccostomus campestris Least Concern

Steatomys krebsii Least Concern

Pedetidae Pedetes capensis Spring Hare Least Concern

Paraxerus cepapi Smith's Bush Squirrel Least Concern 1 Sciuridae

Xerus inauris Least Concern Tubulidentata

Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Aardvark Least Concern 41

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 59

Ecological Impact Assessment Report

14 APPENDIX D: SPECIALIST DECLARATION AND CURRICULUM VITAE

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services RMLM Residential Development (Kort/Buiten Street) 60

Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation

Report Prepared for

Report Number 544623/2

Report Prepared by

April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page i

Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. Ground Floor Bay Suites 1a Humewood Rd. Humerail Port Elizabeth 6001 South Africa

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.srk.co.za

Tel: +27 (0) 41 509 4800 Fax: +27 (0) 41 509 4850

SRK Project Number 544623

April 2019

Compiled by: Peer Reviewed by:

Jaco Greeff Pr Sci Nat John Brown Pr Sci Nat Engineering Geologist Partner, Principal Engineering Geologist

Brent Cock Pr Sci Nat Principal Engineering Geologist Email: [email protected], [email protected] Authors: Jaco Greeff, Brent Cock

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page ii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer ...... iv 1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Terms of reference ...... 5 2 Site description...... 5 2.1 Location ...... 5 2.2 Climate ...... 5 2.3 Topography, vegetation and existing infrastructure ...... 5 3 Nature of investigation ...... 6 4 Site geology and groundwater conditions ...... 8 4.1 Regional geology ...... 8 4.2 Ground profile ...... 8 4.2.1 In situ soil consistency ...... 9 4.3 Subsurface water conditions ...... 10 5 Geotechnical evaluation ...... 11 5.1 Engineering and material characteristics ...... 11 5.2 Problematic soils ...... 13 5.3 Suitability of the in-situ material for use during construction ...... 13 5.4 Excavatability ...... 13 5.5 Aggressiveness of the subsurface environment towards concrete, fibre cement concrete pipes and metals ...... 14 5.6 Residential site class designations ...... 14 6 Foundation recommendations and solutions ...... 15 6.1 General founding conditions ...... 15 6.2 Foundation design...... 15 6.2.1 Strip footings ...... 15 7 Drainage ...... 15 8 Special precautionary measures (if any) ...... 15 Appendices ...... 17 Appendix A: Soil Profiles ...... 18 Appendix B: Photographs ...... 20 Appendix C: DPL Profiles ...... 24 Appendix D: Laboratory Certificates ...... 26

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page iii

List of figures Figure 2-1: Site location (North up) ...... 6 Figure 2-2: Typical site conditions (Looking south)...... 6 Figure 3-1: Test pit layout (North up) ...... 7 Figure 4-1: Regional geology map (North up) ...... 8 Figure 4-2: Typical soil profile ...... 9 Figure 4-3: Combined DPL graphs ...... 10 Figure 4-4: Ferricrete at the surface ...... 11 Figure 5-1: Combined grading profiles ...... 12

List of Tables Table 3-1: Sample submission summary ...... 7 Table 5-1: Summarised laboratory results...... 12 Table 5-2: Test pit excavatability summary ...... 13 Table 5-3: SANS 1200 D earthworks classification ...... 13 Table 5-4: Residential Site Class designation...... 14

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page iv

Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this Report have been based on the information supplied to SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) by CES (hereafter referred to as ‘’the Client’’). The opinions in this Report are provided in response to a specific request from the Client to do so. SRK has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information. Whilst SRK has compared key supplied data with expected values, the accuracy of the results and conclusions from the review are entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data. SRK does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied information and does not accept any consequential liability arising from commercial decisions or actions resulting from them. Opinions presented in this report apply to the site conditions and features, as they existed at the time of SRK’s investigations, and those reasonably foreseeable. These opinions do not necessarily apply to conditions and features that may arise after the date of this Report, about which SRK had no prior knowledge nor had the opportunity to evaluate

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 5

1 Introduction SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (SRK) were appointed by CES (the Client) to conduct a geotechnical investigation to facilitate the extension of the residential area on the corner of Kort Street and Buiten Street (Portion 5 of Farm Hazia JP No 240) on the southern outskirts of Zeerust in the North West Province.

The project aims to establish a middle-income residential area. The site (5.01 hectares) is expected to be sub-divided into approximately 80 stands and sold to prospective residents. Adjacent municipal services, including water, electricity, waste removal and roads will be extended into the area.

The report is required for foundation design and NHBRC requirements.

1.1 Terms of reference Conduct a Phase 1 Geotechnical Site Investigation according to the National Department of Housing’s Generic Specification (GFSH) published in 2002. The general outline of the report is provided below:

• Site description (regional and local). • Nature of investigation • Site geology and groundwater conditions. • Geotechnical evaluation • NHBRC Site Classification. • Foundation recommendations and solutions. • Drainage. • Special precautionary measures (if any).

2 Site description 2.1 Location The site is located on the southern outskirt of Zeerust in the North-West province. The location of the site is shown in Figure 2.1.

2.2 Climate Zeerust normally receives about 439 mm of rain per year, with rainfall occurring mainly during summer1. Lowest rainfall is expected in June, peaking in January.

2.3 Topography, vegetation and existing infrastructure The site is flat lying with an average estimated fall of ground in the order of 1:100 towards the east.

The site is surrounded by existing low-cost houses, with access roads along the western, northern and eastern boundary. A temporary construction site camp was noted towards the central- to western part of the site. It is unknown at this time whether they are involved in this project.

Vegetation is characterised by open grass fields, with trace small bushes. Typical site conditions are shown in Figure 2.2.

1 http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south-africa/climate/zeerust_climate.asp

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 6

Figure 2-1: Site location (North up)

Figure 2-2: Typical site conditions (Looking south). 3 Nature of investigation Eight test pits were excavated at selected positions within the proposed area of development, using a track-loaded backhoe (TLB) excavator to a depth ranging from 1.6 m to 3.0 m below the surface. The positions of the test pits are shown in Figure 3-1.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 7

Dynamic Probe Light (DPL) penetrometer tests 2were conducted from surface at each test pit to a depth ranging from 0.5 m to 0.9 m below surface.

Disturbed soil samples were collected and submitted to a SANAS-accredited soil testing laboratory for the following tests:

• Grading analyses to determine particle size distribution, including clay content (hydrometer) and Atterberg Limits,

• Moisture content: MOD and saturated CBR (California Bearing Ratio).

• Aggressivity Test (Basson Method)

A sample submission summary is included in (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Sample submission summary Depth sample taken (m) Test TP1 TP2 TP4 TP6 TP7 TP8 Foundation Indicator 2.7 - - 1.9 - 2.5 Road Indicator & Moisture: density - 0.9 – 1.1 0.8 – 1.0 - 1.0 – 1.2 - relationship and CBR.

Aggressivity Test (Basson Method) - 0.9 0.8 - - -

Figure 3-1: Test pit layout (North up)

2 Done to determine the penetration resistance of soils.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 8

4 Site geology and groundwater conditions 4.1 Regional geology The published geological map for the area, reproduced as Figure 4-1, indicates that the site is underlain by the Timeball Hill Formation (Greyish brown “Vt”) and the Rooihoogte Formation (Orange brown with black dots “Vrs”) (Pretoria Group; Transvaal Supergroup). Both are characterised by conglomerates, siltstone/mudstone and fine-grained sandstone. Diabase (pale green “di”) intrusions and Alluvium deposits (pale yellow “Q”) are mapped within the vicinity of the site.

Figure 4-1: Regional geology map (North up)

4.2 Ground profile The site is generally underlain by alluvium described as slightly moist to moist, reddish brown, generally medium dense to dense though occasionally loose, fissured clayey sand with minor to abundant ferruginous nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. The horizon was intersected from surface to an average depth of 0.6 m below the surface.

The alluvium is underlain by the Timeball Hill Formation. The horizon is characterised by alternating zones of greyish blue banded light grey, moderately weathered, soft rock slate, and reddish brown stained yellow, highly to completely weathered, very-soft rock slate to very stiff silty fine sand, intersected to a depth ranging from 1.6 m to more than 3.0 m below the surface.

A typical soil profile is shown in Figure 4-2.

The detailed soil profiles are included in Appendix A.

Selected photographs are included in Appendix B.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 9

Figure 4-2: Typical soil profile

4.2.1 In situ soil consistency DPL tests were conducted adjacent to each of the test pits from surface to refusal or near refusal (penetration rate decreases to less than 3 mm per blow).

The soil consistency improves rapidly with depth through the ferruginised alluvium before refusing on, or within the weathered slate horizons.

Combined DPL graphs are shown in Figure 4-3

Individual DPL profiles are shown in Appendix C.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 10

Figure 4-3: Combined DPL graphs

4.3 Subsurface water conditions No subsurface seepage was intersected during the excavation or backfilling of the test pits.

The presence of ferruginous nodules within the colluvium and visible ferricrete at the surface (Figure 4-4) is inferred to represent the upper limit of a historical, fluctuating water table.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 11

Figure 4-4: Ferricrete at the surface 5 Geotechnical evaluation 5.1 Engineering and material characteristics The particle size distribution (Figure 5-1) indicates that the highly to completely weathered slate (excluding the moderately weathered, greyish blue banded light grey slate) have roughly similar grading profiles with a moderate silt content, but very low clay content. The Unified Soil Classification (USCS) is predominantly SC with occasional SC-SM. A plot of the clay content and overall PI on a van der Merwe chart indicates that the potential for heave is Low.

The detailed laboratory results are summarised in Table 5-1.

The detailed certificates are included in Appendix D.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 12 Table 5-1: Summarised laboratory results Particle Size Distribution Linear Shrinkage (whole) Shrinkage Linear USCS (ASTM D 2487) (ASTM USCS Liquid Limit (whole) Limit Liquid MAASHTO Swell MAASHTO Grading Modulus Grading Basson Index 0.425 0.425 0.075 MDD (kg/m3) 2.36 4.75 CBR 100% PI (whole) CBR 98% CBR 95% CBR 93% CBR 90% From (m) From OMC (%) OMC < 0.002 mm 0.002 < > 4.75> mm TRH14 To (m) To Origin Heave TP ID - - - -

0.425 mm 0.425 2.36 mm 2.36 mm 0.075 mm 0.002

TP2 0.9 1.1 Timeball Hill Formation 34 17 16 6 27 - 1.91 13 5 2.8 SC Low Corrosive - Aggressive 1847 15 44 32 20 14 9 0.5 G9 TP4 0.8 1 Timeball Hill Formation 39 16 8 22 15 - 2.03 6 2 0.9 SC-SM Low Corrosive - Aggressive 2087 9.2 39 27 16 11 6 0.5 G10 TP7 1 1.2 Timeball Hill Formation 26 21 11 9 33 - 1.72 14 7 3.4 SC Low - 1856 17 16 16 15 15 15 0.9 G7 TP1 2.7 Timeball Hill Formation 36 13 10 7 29 5 1.74 19 8 4.3 SC Low ------TP6 1.9 Timeball Hill Formation 42 12 11 6 26 3 1.90 14 6 3.2 SC Low ------TP8 2.5 Timeball Hill Formation 41 16 9 6 23 5 1.95 12 5 2.9 SC Low ------

Figure 5-1: Combined grading profiles

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 13

5.2 Problematic soils The following problematic soils have been identified within South Africa: expansive clays, soft clays, dispersive soils, pedogenic horizons and collapsible soils.

The ferruginous colluvium has a fissured soil structure, indicating historic soil movement (expansion during wetting and shrinkage during drying). No soil samples were collected from this horizon; however, the ferruginous clayey sand was only intersected to a maximum depth of 0.7 m and is not considered to be problematic.

5.3 Suitability of the in-situ material for use during construction The highly to completely weathered slate material is classified between a G7 and a G8 according to COLTO 1998 standards and is considered suitable for selected and subgrade material within road/pavement layer works and engineered fill.

5.4 Excavatability The excavatability of the site is assessed according to the SANS 1200 D earth works specifications (Table 5-3). The excavatability of the site is classified as soft to a depth ranging from 1.6 m to more than 3.0 m below the surface. The excavatability on site is for the most part dependent on the depth at which the greyish blue slate is intersected. Note that the TLB was able to excavate through the upper greyish blue slate intersected at a depth ranging from 0.4 m to 0.7 m below surface (TP1, TP5 to TP6 and TP8). The TLB was not able to excavate through the lower greyish blue slate layer intersected at a depth ranging from generally 1.4 m to occasionally 2.6 m below surface (TP2 to TP7). The SANS 1200 D excavatability per test pit is summarised in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Test pit excavatability summary TLB excavation depth (m) SANS 1200 D TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6 TP7 TP8 Soft 3.0 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.8 1.8 2.8 Intermediate grading into Hard rock 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Therefore, the excavatability is unlikely to prove problematic for shallow excavations e.g. average 1.7 m depth but could prove problematic for excavations deeper than this on occasion.

Table 5-3: SANS 1200 D earthworks classification

Classification Description

Restricted excavations Material which can be efficiently removed by a back-acting excavator of fly Soft wheel power >0.10 kW for each mm of tined bucket width Material which can be removed by a back-acting excavator of fly wheel power >0.10 kW for each mm of tined bucket width or with the use of Intermediate pneumatic tools before removal by a machine capable of removing soft material Hard rock Material that cannot be removed without blasting or wedging and splitting

Non-restricted excavations Material which can be efficiently removed or loaded, without prior ripping, Soft by any of the following plant:

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 14

Classification Description a bulldozer or a track-type front end loader having an approximate mass of 22 tonne and fly wheel power of 145 kW a tractor-scraper unit having an approximate mass of 28 tonne and fly wheel power of 245 kW pushed during loading by a bulldozer equivalent to that described above Material which can be efficiently ripped by a bulldozer having an Intermediate approximate mass of 35 tonne and a fly wheel power of 220 kW Material that cannot be efficiently ripped by a bulldozer having an Hard rock approximate mass of 35 tonne and a fly wheel power of 220 kW Material containing more than 40% by volume of boulders of size between Boulder Class A 0.03 m3 and 20 m3 in a matrix of soft material or smaller boulders Material containing 40% or less by volume of boulders of size between Boulder Class B 0.03 m3 and 20 m3 in a matrix of soft material or smaller boulders

5.5 Aggressiveness of the subsurface environment towards concrete, fibre cement concrete pipes and metals Two representative soil samples were collected (TP2 @ ~1.0 m and TP4 @ ~0.9 m) from the Timeball Hill Formation and submitted for Basson Index tests.

The highly to completely weathered very-soft rock slate is aggressive towards buried concrete, fibre cement concrete pipes and corrosive towards steel.

5.6 Residential site class designations The alluvium and completely weathered slate is classified as S for compressible soils characterised by fine grained soils (clayey silts and clayey sands of low plasticity), sands, sandy and gravelly soils with an expected range of total soil movement less than 10 mm.

If exposed within foundation trenches, the greyish blue, soft rock slate is classified as R i.e. stable founding material.

Table 5-4: Residential Site Class designation. EXPECTED ASSUMED CHARACTER OF RANGE OF TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL SITE TYPICAL FOUNDING MATERIAL FOUNDING SOIL MOVEMENT SETTLEMENT CLASS MATERIAL (mm) (% OF TOTAL) Rock (excluding mud rocks which may exhibit swelling to STABLE NEGLIGIBLE - R some depth) Fine grained soils with <7.5 50% H moderate to very high plasticity EXPANSIVE 7.5 - 15 50% H1 (clays, silty clays, clayey silts SOILS 15 - 30 50% H2 and sandy clays) >30 50% H3 COMPRESSIBLE <5 75% C AND Silty sands, sands, sandy and POTENTIALLY 5 - 10 75% C1 gravelly soils COLLAPSIBLE SOILS >10 75% C2 Fine grained soils (clayey silts <10 50% S and clayey sands of low COMPRESSIBLE 10 - 20 50% S1 plasticity), sands, sandy and SOILS gravelly soils >20 50% S2

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 15

EXPECTED ASSUMED CHARACTER OF RANGE OF TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL SITE TYPICAL FOUNDING MATERIAL FOUNDING SOIL MOVEMENT SETTLEMENT CLASS MATERIAL (mm) (% OF TOTAL) Contaminated soils, controlled fill, dolomitic areas, landslip, landfill, marshy areas, mine VARIABLE P waste fill, mining subsidence, reclaimed areas, uncontrolled fill, very soft silts/silty clays

6 Foundation recommendations and solutions The proposed development is indicated to consist of single-storey, middle-class residential houses of masonry design. The foundation design assessment is therefore considered to be generalized until additional details are made available.

6.1 General founding conditions The site is generally underlain by a 0.6 m thick layer of ferruginous alluvium, below which intersecting alternating layers of either greyish blue soft-rock slate or reddish brown very soft rock slate with very stiff silty fine sand occurs to depths ranging from 1.6 m to more than 3.0 m.

No sub-surface seepage was intersected during excavations. The ferricrete accretions at the surface indicate the upper limit of an historic, fluctuating water table.

The fissured soil structure of the ferruginous colluvium indicates historic drying and wetting of the near- surface soils, but this is not considered to be problematic for the foundations (as they will be carried below this material), but cognisance of this needs to be taken beneath floor slabs (compact a layer of granular soil beneath the floor slabs), and in areas of hardstand and road/pavement design.

6.2 Foundation design

6.2.1 Strip footings Conventional strip foundations will be suitable for the houses. Cast reinforced strip footings below the upper colluvial materials at a depth of about 0.7 m below the surface, that is, within/on top of the grey blue or reddish-brown slate. As a general recommendation foundation can be designed using an allowable ground bearing capacity in the order of 150 kPa when founding within the residual soils or weathered slate.

7 Drainage The flat-lying topography might lead to ponding of storm water after heavy rainfall or periods of sustained rainfall. The saturated CBR results for samples collected from the completely weathered slate show some softening of the material, though this is not considered to be severe. Management of storm water is considered important. Include measures during and post construction to prevent storm water ingress into the foundation trenches prior to casting. Ponding of water against structures should be avoided.

8 Special precautionary measures (if any) It is recommended that protective measures are put in place to protect buried concrete, fibre cement concrete pipes and steel from the corrosive nature of the founding material.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 16

Prepared by

Jaco Greeff Pr Sci Nat

Engineering Geologist

Brent Cock Pr Sci Nat

Principal Engineering Geologist

Reviewed and Approved by

John Brown Pr Sci Nat

Principal Engineering Geologist, Partner

All data used as source material plus the text, tables, figures, and attachments of this document have been reviewed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and environmental practices.

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019 SRK Consulting: Project No: 544623 Zeerust - Kort Site Page 17

Appendices

GREJ/COCB/brow 544623_2 Zeerust Phase 1 Housing Development (Kort Site) Geotechnical Investigation_FINAL April 2019

Appendix A: Soil Profiles

Test Pit ID TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6 TP7 TP8 Plant Hire Company J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire J-CAT Plant Hire Plant Type TLB TLB TLB TLB TLB TLB TLB TLB Profiled By Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Jaco Greeff Date Profiled 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 19 February 2019 544623 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION (KORT SITE) Latitude -25.571052° -25.571299° -25.571550° -25.571797° -25.572207° -25.571844° -25.571633° -25.571438° Longitude 26.092463° 26.091310° 26.090034° 26.088214° 26.088912° 26.090701° 26.091805° 26.092909°

Description Origin Excavation depth (m) Moist, brown, loose, intact fine sand with minor root material. Alluvium 0.3 Slightly moist, light brown, medium dense, intact fine sand with minor ferruginous granules 0.4 and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferruginous Alluvium Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured clayey sand with minor to abundant 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 ferruginous nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Reddish brown stained and banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered very soft-rock with patches moderately 1.4 0.6 ferruginised slate and very dense silty fine sand. Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.5 jointed, soft-rock slate. Reddish brown banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 completely weathered very soft-rock slate to very dense silty fine sand. Timeball Hill Formation Reddish brown banded greyish blue, highly to completely weathered, very thinly bedding, 3.0 2.6 occasionally relict jointed, very soft-rock slate to very dense silty fine sand. Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.8 jointed, soft-rock slate. Yellowish orange, highly weathered, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, soft-rock 1.8 2.8 slate to very dense silty fine sand. Refusal No Refusal on slate Refusal on slate Refusal on slate Refusal in slate Refusal on slate Refusal on slate No Subsurface seepage None None None None None None None None

HOLE No: TP 1 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:15

Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey, SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.60

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.30

Reddish brown banded greyish blue, highly to completely weathered, very thinly bedding, occasionally relict jointed, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

3.00 NOTES 1) Not to refusal.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26092463 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571052 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 1 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 2 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:10 Slightly moist, light brown, medium dense, intact, fine SAND with minor ferrigunised granules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.40

Reddish brown banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.40

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.60 NOTES 1) Refusal on slate.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26091310 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571299 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 2 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 3 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:10

Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey, SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.60

Reddish brown banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.30

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.60 NOTES 1) Refusal on slate.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26090034 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571550 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 3 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 4 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:10 Moist, brown, loose, intact, fine SAND with minor root material. Alluvium.

0.30

Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.60

Reddish brown stained and banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered, very soft rock with patches moderately ferruginised slate and very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.40

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.70 NOTES 1) Refusal on slate.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26088214 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571797 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 4 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 5 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:10 Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.40

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

0.90

1.40

Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.60 Yellowish orange, highly weathered, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.80 NOTES 1) Refusal in slate.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26088912 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25572207 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 5 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 6 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:15

Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.40 Reddish brown banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation. 0.60 Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

0.90

Reddish brown banded greyish blue, highly to completely weathered, very thinly bedding, occasionally relict jointed, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

2.60 Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation. 2.80 NOTES 1) Refusal on slate.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26090701 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571844 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 6 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 7 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:10 Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey, SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.60

Reddish brown banded yellow and grey, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, highly to completely weathered, very soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.60 Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.80 NOTES 1) Not to refusal.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26091805 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571633 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 7 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH HOLE No: TP 8 KORT SITE Sheet 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JOB NUMBER: 544623

Scale 0.00 1:15 Moist, reddish brown, medium dense to dense, fissured, clayey, SAND with minor to abundant ferrigunised nodules and trace ferricrete accretions. Ferrigunised Alluvium.

0.70 Greyish blue banded light grey, very thinly bedded, moderately weathered, moderately jointed, soft rock slate. Timeball Hill Formation.

1.50

Yellowish orange, highly weathered, very thinly bedded, moderately jointed, soft rock slate to very dense, silty, fine SAND. Timeball Hill Formation.

2.80 NOTES 1) Not to refusal.

2) No water seepage.

CONTRACTOR : J-CAT PLANT HIRE INCLINATION : VERTICAL ELEVATION : MACHINE : TLB DIAM : X-COORD : 26092909 DRILLED BY : DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 Y-COORD : -25571438 PROFILED BY : JACO GREEFF DATE : 19 FEBRUARY 2019 HOLE No: TP 8 TYPE SET BY : ADON DATE : 27/03/2019 15:56 SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..rgsig\544623Kortsite.txt D009 SRK Consulting dotPLOT 7018 PBpH

Appendix B: Photographs

TP 01 (01) TP 01 (02)

TP 02 (01) TP 02 (02)

TP 03 (01) TP 03 (02)

Zeerust Housing Development (Kort Site) Project No. Geotechnical Investigation 544623 Photographs

TP 04 (01) TP 04 (02)

TP 05 (01) TP 05 (02)

TP 06 (01) TP 06 (02)

Zeerust Housing Development (Kort Site) Project No. Geotechnical Investigation 544623 Photographs

TP 07 (01) TP 07 (02)

TP 08 (01) TP 08 (02)

Zeerust Housing Development (Kort Site) Project No. Geotechnical Investigation 544623 Photographs

Appendix C: DPL Profiles

Appendix D: Laboratory Certificates

WATERLAB (PTY) LTD

23B De Havilland Crescent Telephone: +2712 – 349 – 1066 Persequor Techno Park, Facsimile: +2712 – 349 – 2064 Meiring Naudé Road, Pretoria Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 283, 0020

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSES BASSON INDEX

Date received: 2019-02-21 Date completed: 2019-03-11 Project number: 151 Report number: 81093 Order number: 68126

Client name: SRK Consulting (South Africa) Contact person: Jaco Greeff Address: PO Box 55291, Northlands, 2116 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 041 509 4800 Cell: 079 273 4649 Fax: 041 509 4850

Analyses in mg/ℓ Sample Identification: (Unless specified otherwise) Kort Site 1-2 @ 0.9 Kort Site 1-4 @ 0.8 Sample Number 55976 55977 pH Value at 25°C 4.2 5.6 pHs Value at 20°C (calc) 10.6 10.6 Electrical Conductivity in mS/m at 25°C 1.3 3.8 Total Dissolved Solids* (calc) <10 25

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 8 8

Total Hardness as CaCO3 (calc) 7 7

Calcium Hardness as CaCO3 (calc) 2 2 Calcium as Ca <1 1 Magnesium as Mg <1 <1 Free & Saline Ammonia <0.1 <0.1

Ammonium as NH4 (calc) <0.3 <0.3

Sulphate as SO4 <2 6 Chloride as Cl <2 3 Langelier Index at 20°C (calc) -6.4 -5.0 Ryznar Index at 20°C (calc) 17.0 15.7 Corrosivity Ratio (calc) 0.3 1.3 Leaching Index [LCSI] (calc) 4971 3975 Spalling Index [SCSI] (calc) 1 1

Aggressiveness Index [Nc] (calc) 4971 3976

*TDS Calculated EC X 6.7 2:1 Distilled Water : Soil Extract

Important notes (see table for corrections on p.3): 1. The above aggressiveness index is only applicable for conditions of laminar flow at a mean annual temperature of 20°C. 2. For stagnant/turbulent conditions the aggressiveness index must be corrected. 3. For wet/dry cycling conditions (for example in tidal zones) the aggressiveness index must be corrected. 4. For mean annual temperatures lower/higher than 20°C the aggressiveness index must be corrected.

S. Laubscher______Assistant Geochemistry Project Manager

The information contained in this report is relevant only to the sample/samples supplied to WATERLAB (Pty) Ltd. Any further use of the above information is not the responsibility or liability of WATERLAB (Pty) Ltd. Except for the full report, parts of this report may not be reproduced without written approval of WATERLAB (Pty) Ltd.

Page 1 of 3

WATERLAB (PTY) LTD

23B De Havilland Crescent Telephone: +2712 – 349 – 1066 Persequor Techno Park, Facsimile: +2712 – 349 – 2064 Meiring Naudé Road, Pretoria Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 283, 0020

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSES BASSON INDEX

Date received: 2019-02-21 Date completed: 2019-03-11 Project number: 151 Report number: 81093 Order number: 68126

Client name: SRK Consulting (South Africa) Contact person: Jaco Greeff Address: PO Box 55291, Northlands, 2116 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 041 509 4800 Cell: 079 273 4649 Fax: 041 509 4850

Guidelines for assessing overall aggressiveness (Nc):

Nc Aggressiveness Not greater than 300 None to mild 400-700 Mild to moderate 800-1000 High = or > 1 100 Very high

Aggressiveness Towards Concrete and Fibre Cement Pipes Index Aggressive Neutral Non- Aggressive a) Stability pH (pHs) >Ph = pH 7.5 6-7 <6

Corrosiveness Towards metals Corrosivity >0.2

Sample Name Sample Number Corrosivity Indices Basson Index Kort Site 1-2 @ 0.9 55976 Corrosive Aggressive Kort Site 1-4 @ 0.8 55977 Corrosive Aggressive

S. Laubscher______Assistant Geochemistry Project Manager

Page 2 of 3

WATERLAB (PTY) LTD

23B De Havilland Crescent Telephone: +2712 – 349 – 1066 Persequor Techno Park, Facsimile: +2712 – 349 – 2064 Meiring Naudé Road, Pretoria Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 283, 0020

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSES BASSON INDEX

Date received: 2019-02-21 Date completed: 2019-03-11 Project number: 151 Report number: 81093 Order number: 68126

Client name: SRK Consulting (South Africa) Contact person: Jaco Greeff Address: PO Box 55291, Northlands, 2116 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 041 509 4800 Cell: 079 273 4649 Fax: 041 509 4850

To correct for: Multiply By: (see Notes 2 to 5 below) Turbulence LCSI 1.75 Stagnance LCSI 0.5 LCSI, SCSI, N7 Temperature (1+ [0.05 x (T-20)]) Where N7=0.2 x Cl in mg/l 0.23 x 10-6 x TDS x DTF x CPA Where: Wet-dry cycles SCSI DTF = Dry Time Fraction CPA = wet-dry cycles per annum Note 1: Only if the concrete contains embedded steel. Note 2: To preserve the correct logical relationships when dealing with the negative sub indices (ie LCSI or SCSI having minus values) they should be multiplied by the reciprocal of the relevant factor indicated in this column Note 3: If more than one correction is required, multiply by the product of the individual correction factors Note 4: Use subscript c to indicate that the index has been corrected, eg for turbulent conditions LCSIc = LCSI x 1.75 Note 5: Round off corrected indices to the nearest 100.

S. Laubscher______Assistant Geochemistry Project Manager

Page 3 of 3

SRK Report Distribution Record

Report No. 544623/2

Copy No. Electronic

Name/Title Company Copy Date Authorised by Aidan Gouws CES Electronic 09 May 2019 Brent Cock Project file SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd Electronic 09 May 2019 Brent Cock

Approval Signature:

This report is protected by copyright vested in SRK (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. It may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the written permission of the copyright holder, SRK.

HERITAGE SCREENER CTS Reference CTS19_008 Number:

SAHRA Ref:

Client: EOH-CES

Date: 6 February 2019

Title: Proposed establishment of Kort Street Township on portion 5 of farm Hazia JP No 240, Zeerust, North West Province

Figure 1a. Satellite map indicating the location of the proposed development in the North West Province RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation by The heritage resources in the area proposed for development are sufficiently recorded. CTS Heritage Due to the location and nature of the proposed development, it is unlikely that significant heritage resources will be impacted by the Specialists development and as such, it is recommended that no further heritage studies are required, however the HWC Fossil Finds Procedure must be implemented throughout the construction phase.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

1. Proposed Development Summary

Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality (RMLM) proposes to facilitate the extension of the residential area on the corner of Kort and Buiten Street – RE Portion 5 of Farm Hazia JP No 240, Zeerust, North West Province. The project aims to establish a middle income residential area. The 5.01 ha area will be subdivided into approximately 80 stands. Stands will be sold to prospective residents who will then construct their own housing. Adjacent municipal services, including water, electricity, waste removal and roads will be extended into the area. The proposed site is a green field’s site zoned for agriculture and comprised of degraded indigenous vegetation. The clearing of indigenous vegetation and transformation of open space into residential housing requires an environmental licencing. The municipality will be responsible for the clearing and pegging of the site, as well as the extension of services.

2. Application References

Name of relevant heritage authority(s) SAHRA Name of decision making authority(s) North West Department: Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development

3. Property Information

Latitude / Longitude 25°34'17.34"S 26° 5'29.20"E Erf number / Farm number Portion 5 of Farm Hazia JP No. 240 Local Municipality Ramotshere Moiloa District Municipality Ngaka Modiri Molema Previous Magisterial District Marico Province North West Current Use Open Space Current Zoning Agriculture Total Extent 5.01ha

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

4. Nature of the Proposed Development

Total Surface Area 5.01 ha Depth of excavation (m) <3m Normal excavation for foundation purposes and installation of services. Height of development (m) The anticipated height is two storey at most Expected years of operation before decommission NA

5. Category of Development

x Triggers: Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act Triggers: Section 38(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act 1. Construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier over 300m in length. 2. Construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length. 3. Any development or activity that will change the character of a site-

2 x a) exceeding 5 000m in extent b) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof c) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years

2 4. Rezoning of a site exceeding 10 000m 5. Other (state):

6. Additional Infrastructure Required for this Development

Connections to stormwater, sewerage, water, roads, electricity and other municipal infrastructure

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

7. Mapping (please see Appendix 3 and 4 for a full description of our methodology and map legends)

Figure 1b. Overview Map. Satellite image (2019) indicating the proposed development area at closer range. CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 1c. Overview Map. Satellite image (2019) indicating the proposed development area at closer range. CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2. Previous HIAs Map. Previous Heritage Impact Assessments surrounding the proposed development area within 10km, with SAHRIS NIDS indicated. Please see Appendix 2 for full reference list.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated. Please See Appendix 4 for full description of heritage resource types.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3a. Heritage Resources Map. Inset CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4.1. SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity Map. Indicating the fossil sensitivity underlying the study area. Please See Appendix 3 for full guide to the legend.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4.2. Geology Map. Indicating the geology underlying the study area. Extract from CGS 1:250 000 Rustenburg geological map 2526 CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4.3. Geology Map. Indicating the geology underlying the study area. Extract from CGS 1:250 000 Rustenburg geological map 2526 (Quarternary Alluvial Sands - pale yellow bird wings) CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

8. Heritage statement and character of the area This application is for the proposed development of a new township to the south of Zeerust on Portion 5 of the Farm Hazia 240, in the North West Province. The town of Zeerust was built on the Farm Hazia 240 in 1867. The historic core of Zeerust therefore has Victorian origins, however the proposed development area is located some distance from this historic core of the town located along the Klein Marico River. The only known declared Provincial Heritage Site within Zeerust is the Church of St John the Baptist, Zeerust, Marico District (Figure 3, SAHRIS Site ID 26792) which is located more than 2km from the proposed development area.

The area proposed for development has not been surveyed for any heritage assessments, however approximately seven heritage assessments have been completed within 10km of the area proposed for development (Figure 2, Appendix 2). In Pelser’s (2013) assessment of an area located to the southwest of Zeerust, he identified “a number of Late Iron Age stone walled sites and features were identified during the survey in the area. The sites are located on hills and outcrops and in the area… The sites probably form part of a large LIA settlement complex, representing individual settlement units or homesteads with features such as cattle kraals (livestock enclosures), hut bays and other related features. It possibly date to the same time period as the Hurutshe settlement complexes at Kaditshwene and other sites close to Zeerust, and around the late 18th to early 19th century.” (SAHRIS NID 138494). These archaeological resources have high heritage significance. Pelser’s sites are mapped in Figure 3a and described in Appendix 1. In Huffman’s (2003) assessment of another site located to the southwest of Zeerust, in addition to evidence of iron age settlements, he identified a scatter of Early Stone Age artefacts of low heritage significance (SAHRIS NID 7024). Previously, historic graves have been identified on a plot located on Voortrekker Road within Zeerust town. The two graves were located in the courtyard or garden of a historical Freemason’s Lodge, and were exhumed in 2006 (SAHRIS NID 8329). Based on the heavily disturbed nature of the proposed development area on a flat plane bordering on the town of Zeerust, it is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on significant archaeological heritage. As per Pelser (2013), the known Iron Age sites from this area are located on hills and outcrops.

The area proposed for development is underlain by quarternary alluvial sediments (Figure 4.3) of moderate palaeontological sensitivity according to the SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity Map (Figure 4.1). According to Bamford (2013), referring to the Pretoria Group as a whole, the underlying geology of the area consist of “predominantly mudrocks, quartzites with some basal lavas and have been submitted to low grade metamorphism (Eriksson et al., 2006). The rocks are more than 2200 million years old and this predates macro- and land fossils.” (SAHRIS NID 138490). Quaternary alluvial sediments are known to preserve mammalian and other vertebrate fossils as well as freshwater molluscs, transported plant debris and archaeological resources. Significant direct impacts on underlying Precambrian bedrocks of the Timeball Hill Formation (Pretoria Group, Transvaal Supergroup), which may contain stromatolites (fossil microbial mounds) within carbonate facies (Almond 2017), are not anticipated. Due to the heavily disturbed nature of the proposed development area, located on a flat plane bordering on the town of Zeerust, it is unlikely that the proposed development will have a significant impact on palaeontological heritage resources. A Palaeontology Chance Finds Procedure to be implemented throughout the construction phase is appended to this report RECOMMENDATION: The heritage resources in the area proposed for development are sufficiently recorded. Due to the location and nature of the proposed development, it is unlikely that significant heritage resources will be impacted by the development and as such, it is recommended that no further heritage studies are required, however the Chance Fossil Finds Procedure must be implemented throughout the construction phase. Desktop Palaeontological Screening Assessment reviewed by Dr John Almond (palaeontologist) and proposed palaeontological recommendations endorsed.

Signed: Dr John Almond Date: 13 February 2019

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 1 List of heritage resources within the 10km Inclusion Zone Site ID Site no Full Site Name Site Type Grading 69178 KAME004 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 004 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69180 KAME005 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 005 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69183 KAME006 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 006 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69185 KAME007 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 007 Stone walling Grade IIIb 26792 9/2/238/0006-001 Church of St John the Baptist, Zeerust, Marico District Building Grade II 69171 KAME001 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 001 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69174 KAME002 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 002 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69176 KAME003 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 003 Stone walling Grade IIIb 70271 KAME013 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 013 Stone walling Grade IIIb 69236 KAME009 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 009 Artefacts Grade IIIc 69249 KAME011 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 011 Artefacts Grade IIIc 69258 KAME015 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 015 Archaeological Grade IIIa 69234 KAME008 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 008 Artefacts Grade IIIc 69282 KAME014 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 014 Structures Grade IIIc 70266 KAME010 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 010 Artefacts Grade IIIc 70269 KAME012 KAMEELDOORN 271JP/ 012 Stone walling Grade IIIb

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 2 Reference List Heritage Impact Assessments

Nid Report Type Author/s Date Title ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) REPORT FOR A PROPOSED 75MW PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR FACILITY ON THE REMAINDER OF KAMEELDOORN 271JP, PORTION 15 OF KAMEELDOORN 271JP & 138494 AIA Phase 1 Anton Pelser 01/10/2013 PORTION 14 OF KRUISRIVIER 270JP, ZEERUST, NORTHWEST PROVINCE INTEGRATED HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) REPORT FOR A PROPOSED 75MW PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR FACILITY ON THE REMAINDER OF KAMEELDOORN 271JP, PORTION 15 OF KAMEELDOORN 271JP & 138506 HIA Phase 1 Anton Pelser 01/10/2013 PORTION 14 OF KRUISRIVIER 270JP, ZEERUST, NORTHWEST PROVINCE 169744 HIA Phase 1 Anton Pelser 31/01/2014 Phase 1 HIA Report for the Proposed Zeerust Chicken Abattoir in Zeerust, North West Province Archaeological Impact Assessment on Portion 1 of the Farm Kameeldoorn 271 JP, Zeerust District, North West 6764 AIA Phase 1 Jaco van der Walt 01/11/2008 Province 7024 AIA Phase 1 Thomas Huffman 01/04/2008 Kameeldoorn Archaeological Survey, Zeerust Anton Pelser, Anton 8329 AIA Phase 1 van Vollenhoven 01/11/2007 A Report on the Preliminary Investigation of Two Historical Graves on Plot 1242, Zeerust, North west Province 138490 PIA Desktop Marion Bamford 04/09/2013 Palaeontological Impact Assessment for proposed Photovoltaic facility near Zeerust. Desktop Study Proposed access roads for the Zeerust PV Plant on Remainder of Portion 5 of Hazia 240JP & Portion 15 of Kameeldoorn 271JP near Zeerust, Northwest Province. Recommended exemption from further palaeontological PIA LoE John Almond 2017 studies

ALMOND, J.E. 2017. Proposed access roads for the Zeerust PV Plant on Remainder of Portion 5 of Hazia 240JP & Portion 15 of Kameeldoorn 271JP near Zeerust, Northwest Province. Recommended exemption from further palaeontological studies, 8 pp. Natura Viva cc.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 3 - Keys/Guides Key/Guide to Acronyms AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (KwaZulu-Natal) DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (National) DEADP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) DEDEAT Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Eastern Cape) DEDECT Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism (North West) DEDT Department of Economic Development and Tourism (Mpumalanga) DEDTEA Department of economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (Free State) DENC Department of Environment and Nature Conservation (Northern Cape) DMR Department of Mineral Resources (National) GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Gauteng) HIA Heritage Impact Assessment LEDET Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (Limpopo) MPRDA Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, no 28 of 2002 NEMA National Environmental Management Act, no 107 of 1998 NHRA National Heritage Resources Act, no 25 of 1999 PIA Palaeontological Impact Assessment SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System VIA Visual Impact Assessment

Full guide to Palaeosensitivity Map legend RED: VERY HIGH - field assessment and protocol for finds is required ORANGE/YELLOW: HIGH - desktop study is required and based on the outcome of the desktop study, a field assessment is likely GREEN: MODERATE - desktop study is required BLUE/PURPLE: LOW - no palaeontological studies are required however a protocol for chance finds is required GREY: INSIGNIFICANT/ZERO - no palaeontological studies are required WHITE/CLEAR: UNKNOWN - these areas will require a minimum of a desktop study.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 4 - Methodology

The Heritage Screener summarises the heritage impact assessments and studies previously undertaken within the area of the proposed development and its surroundings. Heritage resources identified in these reports are assessed by our team during the screening process.

The heritage resources will be described both in terms of type: ● Group 1: Archaeological, Underwater, Palaeontological and Geological sites, Meteorites, and Battlefields ● Group 2: Structures, Monuments and Memorials ● Group 3: Burial Grounds and Graves, Living Heritage, Sacred and Natural sites ● Group 4: Cultural Landscapes, Conservation Areas and Scenic routes and significance (Grade I, II, IIIa, b or c, ungraded), as determined by the author of the original heritage impact assessment report or by formal grading and/or protection by the heritage authorities.

Sites identified and mapped during research projects will also be considered.

DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE INCLUSION ZONE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION The extent of the inclusion zone to be considered for the Heritage Screener will be determined by CTS based on: ● the size of the development, ● the number and outcome of previous surveys existing in the area ● the potential cumulative impact of the application.

The inclusion zone will be considered as the region within a maximum distance of 50 km from the boundary of the proposed development.

DETERMINATION OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY The possible impact of the proposed development on palaeontological resources is gauged by: ● reviewing the fossil sensitivity maps available on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) ● considering the nature of the proposed development ● when available, taking information provided by the applicant related to the geological background of the area into account

DETERMINATION OF THE COVERAGE RATING ASCRIBED TO A REPORT POLYGON Each report assessed for the compilation of the Heritage Screener is colour-coded according to the level of coverage accomplished. The extent of the surveyed coverage is labeled in three categories, namely low, medium and high. In most instances the extent of the map corresponds to the extent of the development for which the specific report was undertaken.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Low coverage will be used for: ● desktop studies where no field assessment of the area was undertaken; ● reports where the sites are listed and described but no GPS coordinates were provided. ● older reports with GPS coordinates with low accuracy ratings; ● reports where the entire property was mapped, but only a small/limited area was surveyed. ● uploads on the National Inventory which are not properly mapped.

Medium coverage will be used for ● reports for which a field survey was undertaken but the area was not extensively covered. This may apply to instances where some impediments did not allow for full coverage such as thick vegetation, etc. ● reports for which the entire property was mapped, but only a specific area was surveyed thoroughly. This is differentiated from low ratings listed above when these surveys cover up to around 50% of the property.

High coverage will be used for ● reports where the area highlighted in the map was extensively surveyed as shown by the GPS track coordinates. This category will also apply to permit reports.

RECOMMENDATION GUIDE The Heritage Screener includes a set of recommendations to the applicant based on whether an impact on heritage resources is anticipated. One of three possible recommendations is formulated:

(1) The heritage resources in the area proposed for development are sufficiently recorded - The surveys undertaken in the area adequately captured the heritage resources. There are no known sites which require mitigation or management plans. No further heritage work is recommended for the proposed development.

This recommendation is made when: ● enough work has been undertaken in the area ● it is the professional opinion of CTS that the area has already been assessed adequately from a heritage perspective for the type of development proposed

(2) The heritage resources and the area proposed for development are only partially recorded - The surveys undertaken in the area have not adequately captured the heritage resources and/or there are sites which require mitigation or management plans. Further specific heritage work is recommended for the proposed development.

This recommendation is made in instances in which there are already some studies undertaken in the area and/or in the adjacent area for the proposed development. Further studies in a limited HIA may include: ● improvement on some components of the heritage assessments already undertaken, for instance with a renewed field survey and/or with a specific specialist for the type of heritage resources expected in the area ● compilation of a report for a component of a heritage impact assessment not already undertaken in the area

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

● undertaking mitigation measures requested in previous assessments/records of decision.

(3) The heritage resources within the area proposed for the development have not been adequately surveyed yet - Few or no surveys have been undertaken in the area proposed for development. A full Heritage Impact Assessment with a detailed field component is recommended for the proposed development.

Note: The responsibility for generating a response detailing the requirements for the development lies with the heritage authority. However, since the methodology utilised for the compilation of the Heritage Screeners is thorough and consistent, contradictory outcomes to the recommendations made by CTS should rarely occur. Should a discrepancy arise, CTS will immediately take up the matter with the heritage authority to clarify the dispute.

The compilation of the Heritage Screener will not include any field assessment. The Heritage Screener will be submitted to the applicant within 24 hours from receipt of full payment. If the 24-hour deadline is not met by CTS, the applicant will be refunded in full.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, Cape Town, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com