Terrestrial Ecological Scan Investigation As Part of The

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL SCAN INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION ACTIVITIES OF QK MEATS LOCATED ON PORTION 303 OF THE FARM KLIPRIVIERSBERG 106-IR AND ERF 115 WITHIN CITY DEEP, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Prepared for

Nali Sustainability Solutions

March 2019

Prepared by: Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd Report author C. van Schalkwyk Report reviewer N. Cloete (Pr.Sci.Nat) Report Reference: WUL 260001 Date: March 2019

Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd CC Reg No 2016/241418/07 Vat Reg. No. 4270277074 PO Box 751779 Gardenview 2047

Tel: 011 616 7893 Fax: 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected] WUL 260001 March 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the site assessment two habitat units were identified that were associated with the proposed expansion activities of QK Meats located on Portion 303 of the Farm Klipriviersberg 106-IR and Erf 115 within City Deep, namely Degraded Grassland Habitat and Freshwater Habitat. Since the study area is situated within a high-density industrial area, with increased levels of anthropogenic activities, the floral and faunal ecology associated with the study area has been degraded, and the floral and faunal sensitivity of the habitat units ranges from moderately-low to low.

The overall ecological importance in terms of flora and fauna of the Degraded Grassland Habitat as well as the Freshwater Habitat were rated moderately-low as a result of historical and ongoing surrounding industrial developments. According to GDARD’s Floral Red List for the QDS 2628AA, Hypoxis hemerocallidea (considered declining) was the only floral species with a 60% probability of occurrence within the study area. During the site assessment, this floral species was not observed in any of the habitat units. Furthermore, due to lack of suitable habitat it is highly unlikely that any faunal SCC will occur on site.

The impacts associated with the proposed development from both a floral and faunal perspective is low for the Degraded Grassland habitat, while medium-low to low for the Freshwater Habitat for all phases of the development prior to mitigation taking place. With mitigation fully implemented, the significance of all impacts can be reduced.

It is the opinion of the ecologists that from a terrestrial ecological perspective, the proposed development activity be considered favorably. However, all essential mitigation measures and recommendations presented in this report should be adhered to, to ensure that the ecology within the study area of influence is protected or adequately rehabilitated where necessary, in order to minimise the deviations from the Present Ecological State.

Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd was appointed to conduct a terrestrial ecological assessment for the proposed expansion activities of QK Meats located on Portion 303 of the Farm Klipriviersberg 106-IR and Erf 115 within City Deep, Gauteng Province. The proposed development will entail the expansion of the existing facility located on Erf 98 to 104, City Deep Ext. 4, onto Erf 115, City Deep Ext. 4, and Portion 303 of Klipriviersberg 106-IR (hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’). The N17 National Highway borders the study area to the south and to the north is the existing QK Meats facility and other industrial developments.

Specific outcomes required from this report include the following:  To define the Present Ecological State (PES) of the terrestrial ecological resources associated with the study area;  To determine and describe habitats, communities and the ecological state of the study area;  To conduct a faunal and floral Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) assessment, including the potential for such species to occur within the study area;  To identify and consider all sensitive landscapes including rocky ridges, natural grasslands, wetlands and any other ecologically important features, if present; and  To determine the environmental impacts that the construction of the proposed development might have on the terrestrial ecology associated with the study area, as well as potential impacts on the ecology due to activities related to the proposed development and to develop mitigation and management measures for all phases of the development.

ii WUL 260001 March 2019

Floral results:  Two main habitat units were identified during the field assessment namely Degraded Grassland Habitat and Freshwater Habitat;  The Degraded Grassland Habitat unit has been impacted upon by varying degrees as a result of historic and current anthropogenic activities that have caused extensive alien invasive proliferation in the majority of the study area;  The Freshwater Habitat span the length of the northern boundary extending to a portion of the eastern boundary of the study area. Hardened infrastructure established adjacent to the system, has largely altered the floral ecology of the system, which is dominated by alien invasive plant species;  The Probability of Occurrence (POC) of South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) and the GDARD, listed plants species for the Quarter Degree Square (QDS) 2628AA was calculated and was found to be lo;  The species Hypoxis hemerocallidea has a POC of 60% and is the most likely to occur within the study area;  Provided that all mitigation measures are adhered to, the proposed development is deemed unlikely to pose a conservation threat to floral habitat and species in the region.

Faunal results:  High levels of historic and ongoing anthropogenic activities associated with the study area and the surrounding areas led to the disturbance and transformation of the natural faunal habitat within the study area;  Only commonly occurring faunal species adapted to disturbed environments were observed within the vicinity of the study area such as Bostrychia hagedash (Hadeda ibis), Serinus flaviventris (Yellow canary) Acridotheres tristis (Common Myna), Ploceus velatus (Southern Masked Weaver), Streptopelia capicola (Cape Turtle Dove), Danaus chrysippus aegyptius (African Monarch) and Rattus (Black Rat).  Despite the severe habitat degradation, the Freshwater Habitat may offer foraging habitat to common avifauna species.  No faunal SCC was observed during the field assessments, although several species of conservation concern are expected for the Gauteng Province, the likelihood of occurrence is deemed low due to the extensive anthropogenic activities associated with the study area; and  Provided that all mitigation measures are adhered to and the small extent of the proposed development footprint area, the proposed development is deemed unlikely to pose a conservation threat to faunal habitat and species in the region.

Terrestrial impact assessment: Based on the impact assessment of potential impacts on floral and faunal habitat, diversity and SCC associated with the study area, it is evident that during the construction and operational phases, the perceived impact on SCC, habitat and diversity is of medium-low to low significance prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. In consideration of mitigation, it is assumed that a high level of mitigation takes place, but which does not lead to prohibitive costs. With mitigation measures fully implemented all impacts can be reduced to low and very-low significance levels.

Table A: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the construction phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

Table B: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the operational phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

iii WUL 260001 March 2019

Table C: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the rehabilitation phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

Table D: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the construction phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

Table E: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the operational phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

Table F: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the rehabilitation phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

Sensitivity: The section below summarises the findings of the terrestrial sensitivity assessment based on:  the presence or potential occurrence for floral and faunal SCC,  habitat integrity and levels of disturbance,  threat status of the habitat type,  the presence of unique landscapes, and  overall levels of diversity.

The table below presents the sensitivity of the identified habitat units along with an associated conservation objective and implications for the proposed development.

iv WUL 260001 March 2019

A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for development. Habitat Unit Sensitivity Conservation Objective Development Implications This habitat unit is of moderately low ecological importance and sensitivity predominantly due to degradation of the floral ecology and AIP proliferation. The habitat unit does however still provide suitable habitat for a variety of common faunal species, particularly avifauna. The proposed development is not considered Degraded Grassland Optimise development potential to pose a detrimental risk on the floral Moderately - Habitat while improving biodiversity ecology of this Degraded Grassland low integrity of surrounding natural Habitat and can be significantly reduced habitat and managing edge effects. should all mitigation measures be implemented. However, cognisance must be taken of edge effect management so as to limit disturbances to the surrounding habitat. If any floral SCCs are encountered prior to construction GDARD should be contacted in order to obtain permits for the relocation thereof. Although the Freshwater Habitat is considered to be highly modified and associated with high levels of alien vegetation, it still serves as a movement corridor for faunal species to and from the study area and is indicated to be part of an ESA by the Gauteng Conservation Optimise development potential Plan (2011) Development activities in this Moderately - Freshwater Habitat while improving biodiversity area are however unlikely to have a low integrity of surrounding natural significant impact on the receiving habitat and managing edge effects. environment since this habitat unit is of moderately low ecological importance. Mitigation measures proposed in the operational and rehabilitation phase should be incorporated to minimise the potential future impacts on the surrounding area.

v WUL 260001 March 2019

DOCUMENT GUIDE

The table below provides the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) Regulations 2014 (as amended in 2017) for Specialist Reports and also the relevant sections in the reports where these requirements are addressed. NEMA Regulations (2017) - Appendix 6 Relevant section 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 Appendix J (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report, including a curriculum vitae; Appendix J (b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the Appendix J competent authority; (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Section 1.2 (cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; Section 3.1 and 4.1 (cB) a description of existing impacts on site, cumulative impacts of the proposed Section 7 development and levels of acceptable change; (d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to Section 1.3 the outcome of the assessment; (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the Appendix B and C specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a Section 6 site plan identifying alternatives; (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 6 (h) a map superimposing the activity, including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site, including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 6 (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 1.3 (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the Section 7 and Appendix I proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the environment or activities; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 7.3 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 7 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; Section 7

(n) a reasoned opinion -

(i) as to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; Section 8

(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and Section 8 (ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in Section 7 the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of N/A preparing the specialist report (p) a summary and copies, if any, comments received during any consultation process and, N/A where applicable all responses thereto; and (q) any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A

vi WUL 260001 March 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii DOCUMENT GUIDE ...... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... viii GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... ix ACRONYMS ...... x 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ...... 1 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 1 1.4 Legislative Requirements and Provincial Guidelines ...... 2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2 3 ASSESSMENT APPROACH ...... 6 3.1 General Approach ...... 6 3.2 Sensitivity Mapping ...... 6 4 RESULTS OF THE DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...... 6 4.1 Analyses of Relevant Databases ...... 6 5 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 12 5.1 Terrestrial Habitat Units ...... 12 5.2 Floral Assessment Results ...... 14 5.3 Faunal Assessment Results ...... 17 5.4 Floral Species of Conservation Concern Assessment ...... 20 5.5 Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Assessment ...... 20 5.6 Alien and Invasive Plant Species ...... 21 6 SENSITIVITY MAPPING ...... 22 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 24 7.1 Floral Impact Assessment ...... 24 Floral Assessment Summary ...... 25 7.2 Faunal Impact Assessment ...... 26 Faunal Assessment Summary ...... 27 7.3 Integrated Impact Mitigation ...... 28 8 CONCLUSION ...... 31 9 REFERENCES ...... 32 APPENDIX A - Legislative Requirements and Indemnity ...... 34 APPENDIX B - Floral Method of Assessment ...... 36 APPENDIX C - Faunal Method of Assessment ...... 38 APPENDIX D - Impact Assessment Methodology ...... 40 APPENDIX E - Vegetation Type ...... 44 APPENDIX F - Species List ...... 45 APPENDIX G - Floral SCC ...... 48 APPENDIX H - Faunal SCC ...... 50 APPENDIX I - Impact Assessments ...... 52 APPENDIX J - Declaration and Specialists CV’s ...... 56

vii WUL 260001 March 2019

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Digital satellite image depicting the study area in relation to surrounding areas...... 3 Figure 2: Location of the study area depicted on a 1:50 000 topographical map in relation to the surrounding area...... 4 Figure 3: The draft layout plan for the proposed development (CBA Specialist Engineers)...... 5 Figure 4: Critically Endangered and Vulnerable Ecosystems associated with the study area according to the National Threatened Ecosystems Database (2011) ...... 9 Figure 5: CBA and ESA associated with the study area according to the Gauteng Conservation Plan V3.3 (2011)...... 10 Figure 6: River Buffer and Wetland associated with the study area according to the Gauteng Conservation Plan V3.3 (2011)...... 11 Figure 7: Habitat units associated with the proposed developments...... 13 Figure 8: Sensitivity associated with the proposed activities...... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of the conservation characteristics of the study area...... 8 Table 2: Summary of results of the floral assessment associated with the study area. .... 14 Table 3: Field assessment results pertaining to faunal species associated with the study area...... 17 Table 4: Dominant alien vegetation species identified during the field assessment...... 21 Table 5: A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for development...... 22 Table 6: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the construction phase...... 26 Table 7: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the operational phase...... 26 Table 8: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the rehabilitation phase...... 26 Table 9: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the construction phase...... 27 Table 10: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the operational phase...... 28 Table 11: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the rehabilitation phase...... 28 Table 12: A summary of the mitigatory requirements for floral and faunal resources...... 28

viii WUL 260001 March 2019

GLOSSARY OF TERMS A species that is not an indigenous species; or an indigenous species translocated or intended to be translocated to a place outside its natural distribution range in nature, but Alien and Invasive species not an indigenous species that has extended its natural distribution range by natural means of migration or dispersal without human intervention. CBA A CBA is an area considered important for the survival of threatened species and includes (Critical Biodiversity Area) valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, untransformed vegetation and ridges. Species that are only found within a pre-defined area. There can, therefore, be sub- Endemic species continental (e.g. southern Africa), national (South Africa), provincial, regional or even within a particular mountain range. ESA An ESA provides connectivity and important ecological processes between CBAs and is (Ecological Support Area) therefore important in terms of habitat conservation. Vegetation occurring naturally within a defined area, regardless of the level of alien Indigenous vegetation (as infestation and where the topsoil has not been lawfully disturbed during the preceding ten per the definition in (NEMA) years. Means any species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural distribution range; they threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species or have demonstrable Invasive species potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species; and may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health RDL (Red Data listed) Organisms that fall into the Extinct in the Wild (EW), critically endangered (CR), species Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) categories of ecological status. The term SCC in the context of this report refers to all RDL (Red Data), and IUCN SCC (Species of (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) listed threatened species as well as Conservation Concern) protected species of relevance to the project.

ix WUL 260001 March 2019

ACRONYMS

BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act CR Critically Endangered EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EN Endangered EW Extinct in the Wild GIS Geographic Information System GDARD Gauteng Department: Agriculture and Rural Development GPS Global Positioning System IBA Important Bird Area IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature MAP Mean Annual Precipitation MAPE Mean Annual Potential for Evaporation MASMS Mean Annual Soil Moisture Stress MAT Mean Annual Temperature MFD Mean Frost Days NBA National Biodiversity Assessment (2011) NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004) NT Near Threatened PES Present Ecological State POC Probability of Occurrence POSA Plants of Southern Africa PRECIS Pretoria Computer Information Systems QDS Quarter Degree Square (1:50,000 topographical mapping references) RDL Red Data List RE Regionally Extinct SABAP 2 Southern African Bird Atlas 2 SACAD South Africa Conservation Areas Database SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SAPAD South Africa Protected Area Database SCC Species of Conservation Concern TSP Threatened Species Programme VU Vulnerable

x WUL 260001 March 2019

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd was appointed to conduct a terrestrial ecological screening assessment for the proposed expansion activities of QK Meats located on Portion 303 of the Farm Klipriviersberg 106-IR and Erf 115 within City Deep, Gauteng Province. The proposed development will entail the expansion of the existing facility located on Erf 98 to 104, City Deep Ext. 4, onto Erf 115, City Deep Ext. 4, and Portion 303 of Klipriviersberg 106-IR (hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’).

The N17 National Highway borders the study area to the south and to the north is the existing QK Meats facility and other industrial developments. The surrounding area is significantly developed and includes major roads, industrial and residential developments.

Prior to the site investigation, a detailed background study was undertaken, during which the relevant national and provincial spatial databases were consulted. This report, after consideration and the description of the ecological integrity of the study area, will guide the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP), regulatory authorities and developing proponents, by means of the presentation of results and recommendations, as to the ecological viability of the proposed development activities.

1.2 Scope of Work

Specific outcomes in terms of this report are outlined below:  To define the Present Ecological State (PES) of the terrestrial ecological resources associated with the study area;  To determine and describe habitats, communities and the ecological state of the study area;  To conduct a faunal and floral Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) assessment, including the likelihood of occurrence calculations for these species to occur within the study area;  To identify and consider all sensitive landscapes including rocky ridges, wetlands and any other ecologically important features; and  To determine the environmental impacts that the construction of the proposed development might have on the terrestrial ecology associated with the study area, as well as potential impacts on the ecology due to activities related to the proposed development and to develop mitigation and management measures for all phases of the development. 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this report:  The ecological assessment is confined to the study area and does not include the neighbouring and adjacent properties; these were however considered as part of the desktop assessment;

1 WUL 260001 March 2019

 With ecology being dynamic and complex, some aspects (some of which may be important) may have been overlooked. It is, however, expected that most floral and faunal communities had been accurately assessed and considered;  Due to the cryptic nature and habits of most faunal taxa, and high level of surrounding anthropogenic activities, it is unlikely that all species would have been observed during the field assessment of limited duration. Therefore, site observations were compared with literature studies where necessary;  Sampling by its nature means that not all individuals are assessed and identified. Some species and taxa within the study area may have been missed during the assessment; and  The data presented in this report are based on one field assessment, undertaken in March 2019. A more accurate assessment would require that assessments take place in all seasons of the year.

1.4 Legislative Requirements and Provincial Guidelines

The following legislative requirements and relevant provincial guidelines were taken into consideration during the assessment. A detailed description of these legislative requirements is presented in Appendix B:  The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA);  The National Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) (NWA);  National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) (NEMBA);  The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (GDARD) Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 3 (GDARD, 2014); and  Conservation of Agricultural Resource Act, 1983 (Act 43 of 1983) (CARA).

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development will entail the expansion of the existing QK Meats facility located on Erf 98 to 104, City Deep Ext. 4, onto Erf 115, City Deep Ext. 4, and Portion 303 of Klipriviersberg 106-IR (Figure 1 and 2).

The draft layout plan indicating the proposed expansion activities is depicted in Figure 3. The proponent wishes to develop buildings on the property which may be used as warehouses and/or distribution centres as part of the existing QK Meats operation. Additionally, three culvert crossings are proposed which will enable access to the property from the existing facility across the freshwater resource that borders the property to the north.

2 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 1: Digital satellite image depicting the study area in relation to surrounding areas.

3 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 2: Location of the study area depicted on a 1:50 000 topographical map in relation to the surrounding area.

4 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 3: The draft layout plan for the proposed development (CBA Specialist Engineers).

5 WUL 260001 March 2019

3 ASSESSMENT APPROACH

3.1 General Approach

In order to accurately determine the PES of the study area and capture comprehensive data with respect to the terrestrial ecology, the following methodology was used:  Maps and digital satellite images were consulted prior to the field assessment to determine broad habitats, vegetation types and potentially sensitive sites. The results of these analyses were then used to focus the field work on specific areas of concern and to identify areas where target specific investigations were required;  A literature review with respect to habitats, vegetation types and species distribution was conducted;  Relevant databases considered during the assessment of the study area included the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) Threatened Species Programme (TSP), the Gauteng Conservation Plan V3 (2011), Mucina and Rutherford (2012), National Biodiversity Assessment, Important Bird Areas in conjunction with the South African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP2), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  An on-site visual assessment of the study area was conducted in March 2019 in order to confirm the assumptions made during the consultation of the maps and to determine the ecological status of the study area. A thorough ‘walk through’ on foot was undertaken, to identify the occurrence of the dominant floral and faunal species and floral habitat diversities;  Specific methodologies for the assessment, in terms of fieldwork and data analysis of faunal and floral ecological assemblages, are presented in Appendices B and C; and  For the methodologies relating to the impact assessment and development of the mitigation measure, please refer to Appendix D of this report.

3.2 Sensitivity Mapping

The ecological features of the study area were considered, and sensitive areas were delineated with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS). A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to project these features onto aerial photographs and topographic maps.

4 RESULTS OF THE DESKTOP ANALYSIS

4.1 Analyses of Relevant Databases

The following section contains data accessed as part of the desktop assessment and is presented as a “dashboard-style” below (Table 1). The dashboards aim to present concise summaries of the data on as few pages as possible in order to allow for integration of results by the reader to take place. Where required, further discussion and interpretation are provided.

6 WUL 260001 March 2019

It is important to note that although all desktop data sources used provide useful and often verifiable, high-quality data, the various databases used do not always provide an entirely accurate indication of the study area’s actual site characteristics at the scale required to inform the environmental authorisation and/or water use licencing processes. However, this information is considered to be useful as background information to the study. Thus, this data was used as a guideline to inform the assessment and to focus on areas and aspects of increased conservation importance.

7 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table 1: Summary of the conservation characteristics of the study area. CONSERVATION DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE STUDY AREA (VARIOUS DATABASES) DETAILS OF THE STUDY AREA IN TERMS OF MUCINA & RUTHERFORD (2012) The study area falls within an area that is currently not protected. Ecosystem types are Biome The study area falls within the Grassland Biome. categorised as “not protected”, “poorly protected”, “moderately protected” and “well protected” based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that occurs within a protected area recognised Bioregion The study area falls within the Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion. NBA (2011) in the Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act 57 of 2003), and compared with the biodiversity target for that ecosystem type. Ecosystems where less than 5% of the biodiversity target has been met, Vegetation Type Soweto Highveld Grassland is considered hardly protected (not protected). Climate Cool-temperate, summer-rainfall region According to the National Threatened Ecosystems (2011) database, a small portion of the National Threatened northern as well as the southern boundary of the study area forms part of the remaining extent Ecosystems (2011) MAP* (mm) 662 of the Critically Endangered Kliprivier Highveld Grassland Ecosystem (Figure 4). MAT* (°C) 14.8 According to the Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA) Database, there are no IBA’s within IBA (2015) 10 km of the study area. MFD* (Days) 41 According to the South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD Q4, 2018), the MAPE* (mm) 2060 Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve is located approximately 6.4 km southwest and the Melville MASMS*(%) 75 SACAD (2018); Koppies Nature Reserve ± 10km northwest of the study area. Furthermore, according to Altitude (m) 1420-1760 m SAPAD (2018), NPAES NPAES (2009), the Bill Stewart Municipal Nature Reserve is situated approximately 7,1 km Mpumalanga, Gauteng and in a small extent Free State and North West Distribution (2009). northeast of the study area, while the Harvey Municipal Nature reserve is located approximately Province. 6.7 km to the north. There are no other protected or conservation areas situated within 10 km Endangered. Target 24%. Only a handful of patches statutorily conserved Conservation of the study area according to the various databases utilised. or privately conserved. DETAIL OF THE STUDY AREA IN TERMS OF THE GAUTENG CONSERVATION PLAN (C-PLAN V3.3, 2011) (FIGURE Shale, sandstone or mudstone of the Madzaringwe Formation (Karoo 5 & 6) Supergroup) or the intrusive Karoo Suite dolerites which feature prominently in the area. In the south, the Volksrust Formation (Karoo The majority of the study area falls within an area considered to be an Ecological Support Area Geology & Soils ECOLOGICAL Supergroup) is found, and in the west, the rocks of the older Transvaal, (ESA). An ESA provides connectivity and important ecological processes between CBAs and SUPPORT AREA (ESA) Ventersdorp and Witwatersrand Supergroups are most significant. Soils is therefore important in terms of habitat conservation. are deep, reddish on flat plains and are typically Ea, Ba and Bb land types. A small portion of the study area located along the southern boundary of the study area falls CRITICAL within a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). This CBA is considered important in terms of “Orange” Gently to moderately undulating landscape on the Highveld plateau BIODIVERSITY AREA listed plant habitat and for Primary Vegetation. A CBA is an area considered important for the supporting short to medium-high, dense, tufted grassland dominated (CBA) survival of threatened species and includes valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, Vegetation & landscape almost entirely by Themeda triandra and accompanied by a variety of untransformed vegetation and ridges. features (Dominant Floral other grasses such as Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Taxa in Appendix B) Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothrix. In places not disturbed, WETLAND BUFFERS According to the Gauteng C-Plan (2011), the entire study area falls within a wetland buffer. only scattered small wetlands, narrow stream alluvia, pans and occasional The Gauteng C-Plan (2011) indicates the presence of a non-perennial river buffer which RIVER BUFFERS ridges or rocky outcrops interrupt the continuous grassland cover. traverses the northern portion of the study area. CBA = Critical Biodiversity Area; DWS = Department of Water and Sanitation; EI = Ecological Importance; ES = Ecological Sensitivity; ESA = Ecological Support Area; m.a.m.s.l = Metres above Mean Sea Level; MAP = Mean Annual Precipitation; MBSP = Municipal Biodiversity Summary Project; NFEPA = National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas; PES = Present Ecological State WMA = Water Management Area

8 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 4: Critically Endangered and Vulnerable Ecosystems associated with the study area according to the National Threatened Ecosystems Database (2011)

9 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 5: CBA and ESA associated with the study area according to the Gauteng Conservation Plan V3.3 (2011).

10 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 6: River Buffer and Wetland associated with the study area according to the Gauteng Conservation Plan V3.3 (2011).

11 WUL 260001 March 2019

5 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS

5.1 Terrestrial Habitat Units

Following the assessment of the study area and the associated habitat, it has been concluded that there are two main habitat units that will be impacted. The habitat units are described below:

Degraded Grassland Habitat This habitat unit traverses the majority of the study area. The vegetation type associated with the study area is the Soweto Highveld Grassland vegetation type. It is however evident that this vegetation type has been transformed by anthropogenic activities such as infilling, dumping and infrastructure development of roads and industrial areas in the immediate vicinity. This has resulted in the establishment of Alien Invasive Plant (AIP) species and has altered the floral community composition. This habitat does however still provide suitable habitat for a variety of common, widespread faunal species.

Freshwater Habitat Two drainage lines with riparian characteristics span the length of the northern boundary extending to a portion of the eastern boundary of the study area. For further information on the freshwater feature, refer to the freshwater report compiled by Water Use Licence Associates (WUL report reference 260001, 2019). Hardened infrastructure including roads and industrial facilities established adjacent to the system, has largely altered the floral ecology of the system. The drainage lines were dominated by AIP species such as Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Cortaderia selloana and Mirabilis jalapa. Despite the severe habitat degradation, this habitat unit still provides suitable habitat for a variety of faunal species, particularly common, widespread avifaunal species.

12 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 7: Habitat units associated with the proposed developments.

13 WUL 260001 March 2019

5.2 Floral Assessment Results

Table 2: Summary of results of the floral assessment associated with the study area. Degraded Grassland Habitat Unit Floral Sensitivity Low Freshwater Habitat Floral Sensitivity Moderately Low

Degraded Grassland Habitat Sensitivity Graph: Freshwater Habitat Sensitivity Graph:

Floral SCC Floral SCC 5 5 4 4 3 3 Presence of Presence of 2 Floral 2 Floral Unique Unique Diversity Diversity Landscape 1 Landscape 1 0 0

Habitat Conservation Habitat Conservation Integrity Status Integrity Status

14 WUL 260001 March 2019

The top images are representative photographs of the Degraded Grassland Habitat, with the bottom images representing the Freshwater Habitat Representative imagery of the Degraded Grassland Habitat unit:

Representative imagery of the Freshwater Habitat unit:

Floral SCC Discussion No floral SCC was observed within the study area at the time of the assessment. Although several SCCs are expected to occur within 5km of the study site and within the Quarter Degree Square (QDS) 2628AA in which the study site is situated, the likelihood of occurrence is deemed to be low due to the habitat degradation and urban expansion activities. The terrestrial species diversity has been negatively affected by edge effects from the surrounding urban area, illegal disposal of waste, infilling and recreational activities. From the results obtained, it is evident that of all the species listed for the QDS, the species Hypoxis hemerocallidea is the most likely to occur within the study area. However, no SCC was encountered during the site assessment, and the probability of any such species occurring within the study area is unlikely, due to the ongoing anthropogenic activities which have degraded the study area. Floral Ecological Discussion Habitat modification of the study area has taken place with the floral diversity of the Degraded Grassland Habitat considered to be low. Various alien and invasive floral species listed under NEMBA as category invaders were encountered within this habitat unit namely Acacia mearnsii (Black Wattle), Acacia dealbata (Silver Wattle), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Murray red gum) and Melia azedarach (Syringa). Indigenous floral species such as Digitaria velutina, Eragrostis curvula and Pennisetum clandestinum considered to be common and wide spread were also present throughout the site. Portions of the habitat unit were associated with a high abundance of herbaceous AIP species Mirabilis jalapa, Tagetes minuta, and Ipomea purpurea.

15 WUL 260001 March 2019

The floral ecology of the riparian habitat associated with the Freshwater Habitat is considered largely modified with the majority of species observed considered AIPs or garden ornamentals such as Mirabilis jalapa (Heart-leaf four-o'clock), Ipomoea purpurea (Common morning-glory), Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Murray red gum), and Cortaderia selloana (Pampas grass) amongst others. As such although vegetation cover of the system was present, the floral species diversity is considered to be moderately low. The Gauteng Conservation Plan of 2011 considered the majority of the Degraded Grassland habitat unit to be an ESA, while a small portion on the southern boundary is considered to be a CBA, with particular importance for orange listed plant habitat, and for primary vegetation. It is however unlikely that the study area will provide habitat for orange listed plant species, and primary vegetation due to the degraded nature of the study area as well as continuous ongoing anthropogenic-related activities. Furthermore, the study area can no longer provide habitat for primary vegetation due to the AIP proliferation that has taken place. The Gauteng C plan further identified a wetland and river buffer along the northern boundary of the study area. It was however evident during the site visit that this feature is currently degraded due to the presence of AIPs and removal of Eucalyptus camaldulensis. According to the National Threatened Ecosystems (2011) database, a small portion on the southern boundary of the Degraded Grassland Habitat unit forms part of the remaining extent of the Critically Endangered Kliprivier Highveld Grassland Ecosystem. However, based on the field assessment this area was found to be severely disturbed as a result of edge effects and illegal dumping associated with historic and ongoing anthropogenic activities. As such the vegetation which remains within this area can no longer be classified as Kliprivier Highveld Grassland, as it comprised mainly of alien invasive species such as Acacia mearnsii, Acacia dealbata, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Mirabilis jalapa, and grass species often associated with disturbed areas such as Digitaria velutina, Panicum maximum and Pennisetum clandestinum. The conservation importance of the Degraded Grassland Habitat is considered to be of a moderately low level, while the Freshwater Habitat is considered to be of an intermediate level as the habitat unit no longer meet the criteria of a CBA but do still provide ecological connectivity to surrounding natural areas. The Degraded Grassland Habitat is considered to have a low significance in terms of landscape uniqueness, while the Freshwater Habitat is considered to have an intermediate significance in terms of landscape uniqueness, both habitat units provide marginal habitat for floral species. Overall the study area has been degraded by historic and current anthropogenic disturbances, resulting in a proliferation of alien invasive species in disturbed areas, limiting the diversity and abundance of species indigenous to the vegetation type. Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: The overall sensitivity of the floral habitat units ranges from moderately low to low. Anthropogenic activities and proliferation of alien plant species have resulted in the degradation of the available habitat and subsequent floral species loss. Although extensive habitat modifications have occurred, it is nonetheless imperative that the development footprint is restricted to the study area, and edge effects strictly managed, to limit the impact on the surrounding natural area. Furthermore, it is recommended that landscaping of the project should make use of indigenous grassland species in areas where soil disturbance will take place.

The Degraded Grassland Habitat and Freshwater Habitat have been negatively impacted upon due to historic and current anthropogenic activities resulting mainly from urban-related activities. This has resulted in alien plant proliferation within the habitat units. Both habitat units are considered to be of Moderately-low ecological importance in terms of floral diversity. The impact resulting in a loss of floral SCC is considered to be of low significance for the proposed development. The loss of habitat is further considered to be low, as both habitat units provide habitat for more common floral species. Overall, based on the results of the impact assessment as discussed in section 7 of the report, the construction of the proposed development poses a moderately-low risk to the floral ecology of the study area. All possible steps must be taken to ensure that the disturbance footprints for the proposed development be kept to a minimum and that no activities occur outside of the designated areas. Impacts can, however, be reduced if all mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 6 are to be implemented and strictly adhered to by all parties associated with the project during all phases of the development.

16 WUL 260001 March 2019

5.3 Faunal Assessment Results

Table 3: Field assessment results pertaining to faunal species associated with the study area. Degraded Grassland Habitat Faunal Sensitivity Moderately Low Freshwater Habitat Faunal Sensitivity Moderately Low

Degraded Grassland Habitat Sensitivity Graph: Freshwater Habitat Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal Sensitivity Faunal Sensitivity Faunal SCC Faunal SCC 5 5 4 4 3 3 Habitat 2 Faunal Habitat 2 Faunal Availability 1 Diversity Availability 1 Diversity 0 0

Habitat Food Habitat Food Integrity Availability Integrity Availability

17 WUL 260001 March 2019

Image on the left: Bostrychia hagedash (Hadeda ibis) Image on the right: Serinus flaviventris (Yellow canary)

Faunal SCC Discussion No faunal SCC was encountered during the field assessment within the study area. Due to AIP proliferation present within the study area, it has altered the preferred habitat for Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog, NT) which has lowered the probability of this species utilising the study area for shelter and foraging. It is furthermore considered unlikely that any other faunal SCC will utilise the study area, due to the area situated within high-density industrial and residential developments associated with increased levels of anthropogenic activities well as the loss of habitat continuity. This has subsequently led to habitat degradation of this area, thereby limiting available habitat and food sources for such species. Faunal Ecological Discussion Faunal species diversity was considered to be moderately low throughout the study area, which can be attributed mainly to the high levels of habitat disturbance and modification observed. Furthermore, due to the urban landscape and infrastructure such as roads in the immediate vicinity, it is considered highly unlikely that larger mammal species will utilise this area. Only common faunal species well adapted to increased anthropogenic activities were observed during the field assessment and include species such as Bostrychia hagedash (Hadeda ibis), Serinus flaviventris (Yellow canary) Acridotheres tristis (Common Myna), Ploceus velatus (Southern Masked Weaver), Streptopelia capicola (Cape Turtle Dove), Danaus chrysippus aegyptius (African Monarch) and Rattus (Black Rat).

Food availability varied in terms of availability to species within both the Degraded Grassland Habitat and the Freshwater Habitat. Food availability to insects that feed on plant material was relatively high, and as such these insects provide a food source for birds. The flowering alien plant species, although considered to be an ecological problem, provide nectar resources to several species of the order Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies). Habitat intactness is considered to be moderately low for the Degraded Grassland Habitat. The surrounding area is mostly comprised of industrial and residential developments, and are no longer connected to a larger open space area. Therefore, the integrity of the habitat has been degraded as a result of general habitat disturbance through increased anthropogenic activities. The integrity of the Freshwater Habitat is considered to be moderately low, as a result of the presence of an overflowing sewer “manhole” identified on site which augments the flow of water within drainage line, removal of Eucalyptus camaldulensis as well as proliferation of alien invasive plant species within the riparian zone of the drainage lines, solid waste disposal and erosion along the drainage line.

Habitat availability is considered to be moderately low for the Degraded Grassland Habitat, while the habitat availability of the Freshwater Habitat is considered intermediate. Although habitat depredation and transformation has occurred and alien floral species were abundant, the study area is still capable of providing habitat to some faunal species, particularly along the Freshwater Habitat, albeit common, widespread species. However, it is unlikely that the study area will be able to support any faunal SCC.

18 WUL 260001 March 2019

Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: The overall sensitivity of the faunal habitat units associated with the study area is considered to be moderately low for the various habitat units. Continued habitat degradation as a result of AIP proliferation and anthropogenic activities over the years has resulted in an altered floral community and subsequently a decrease in faunal species abundance and diversity. Continued development of hardened infrastructure such as roads and industrial developments further limits faunal species movement/ dispersal to and from the study area.

The proposed development, therefore, poses a moderately low to low level of risk to the faunal ecology and species conservation of the area. Connectivity for faunal movement should as far as possible be retained, through green spaces where possible. Removal and control of floral AIP species, through the implementation of an AIP Control Plan and subsequent follow up activities, can enhance the floral ecology of the area, and subsequently, provide improved habitat and increased food sources for faunal species.

19 WUL 260001 March 2019

5.4 Floral Species of Conservation Concern Assessment

Threatened species are species that are facing a high risk of extinction. Any species classified in the IUCN categories Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU) is a threatened species. Floral SCC are species that have a high conservation importance in terms of preserving South Africa's high floristic diversity and include not only threatened species but also those classified in the categories Extinct in the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), Near Threatened (NT), Critically Rare, Rare and Declining.

An assessment considering the presence of any floral SCC, as well as suitable habitat to support any such species, was undertaken. The GDARD conservation lists were acquired for the Quarter Degree Squares (QDS) 2628AA and are listed in Appendix G.

From the results obtained, it is evident that of all the species listed for the QDS, the species Hypoxis hemerocallidea is the most likely to occur within the study area. However, this species (Hypoxis hemerocallideea) nor any other floral SCC were encountered during the site assessment, and the probability of any such species occurring within the study area is unlikely, due to the ongoing anthropogenic activities which have transformed the study area.

Should any floral SCC, however, be encountered during any phase of the proposed development, a suitably qualified specialist is to be consulted in terms of the best way forward, and if necessary, the relevant provincial departments contacted in terms of acquiring the necessary plant relocation/removal permits.

5.5 Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Assessment

During field assessments, it is not always feasible to identify or observe all species within an area, largely due to the secretive nature of many faunal species, possible low population numbers or varying habits of species. As such, and to specifically assess an area for faunal SCC, a Probability of Occurrence (POC) matrix is used, utilising a number of factors to determine the probability of faunal SCC occurrence within the study area. Species listed in Appendix H whose known distribution ranges and habitat preferences include the study area were taken into consideration.

Several species of conservation concern are expected to occur in the Gauteng province although due to the largescale transformation by urban and recreational activities the likelihood of occurrence for these species is deemed low. AIP proliferation present within the study area has altered preferred habitat for Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog, NT) which has lowered the probability of this species utilising the study area for shelter and foraging.

The terrestrial species diversity has been negatively affected by urban encroachment and development activities. Only common avifaunal species were observed in the study area which included Bostrychia hagedash (Hadeda Ibis), Serinus flaviventris (Yellow canary), Streptopelia senegalensis (Laughing dove) and Streptopelia semitorquata (Red-eyed Dove).

20 WUL 260001 March 2019

During the site investigation, no faunal SCC was observed. Furthermore, due to the degraded nature of the study area as well as the high levels of anthropogenic activity associated with high-density urban areas, it is deemed unlikely that any faunal SCC will occur or utilise the affected habitats. However, as a precaution it is recommended that should any faunal SCC listed in Appendix H of this report be encountered during the construction phase of the proposed development, a biodiversity specialist should be consulted in order to advise on the best way forward in order to ensure that no impacts or losses of faunal SCC occur.

5.6 Alien and Invasive Plant Species

During the ecological assessment, dominant alien and invasive floral species were identified and are listed in the table below.

Table 4: Dominant alien vegetation species identified during the field assessment.

Species English name Country of Origin Category* Trees/ shrubs/herbs Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle South Eastern Australia/ Tasmania 2 Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle South-eastern Australia/ Tasmania 2 Cestrum laevigatum Cestrum Brazil, South America 1b Datura stramonium Jimson weed Tropical America. 1b Eucalyptus camaldulensis Murray red gum Australia 1b Melia azedarach Syringa India 1b Mirabilis jalapa Heart-leaf four- Tropical America 1b o'clock Solanum sisymbriifolium Dense-thorned Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and 1b bitter apple Paraguay in South America Forbs Verbena bonariensis Tall Verbena South America 1b N/L = Not Listed and not categorised * National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004): Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, GN R586 of 2016 Category 1a – Invasive species that require compulsory control. Category 1b – Invasive species that require control by means of an invasive species management programme. Category 2 – Commercially used plants that may be grown in demarcated areas, provided that there is a permit and that steps are taken to prevent their spread. Category 3 – Ornamentally used plants that may no longer be planted. Existing plants may remain, except within the flood line of watercourses and wetlands, as long as all reasonable steps are taken to prevent their spread (Bromilow, 2001).

The central and western sections of the study area are proliferated with alien vegetation, mainly in the form of Acacia mearnsii, Eucalyptus grandis and Mirabilis jalapa. All open space areas as indicated by the proposed master layout plan where alien species, as noted within this section of the report, occur must be removed according to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004): Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, GN R586 of 2016 during construction activities. Special mention is made of the Freshwater Habitat, where it is recommended to rehabilitate and remove alien and invasive species, as per the rehabilitation plan. The removal must take place in a phased manner. This will ensure sustainable removal of alien floral species and the replacement of indigenous riparian vegetation to improve the ecological function and sensitivity of this system.

21 WUL 260001 March 2019

6 SENSITIVITY MAPPING

The figure below conceptually illustrates the areas considered to be of increased faunal and floral ecological sensitivity. The areas are depicted according to their sensitivity in terms of the presence or potential for floral and faunal SCC, habitat integrity, levels of disturbance and overall levels of diversity. The table below presents the sensitivity of each area along with an associated conservation objective and implications for the proposed development. Table 5: A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for development. Habitat Unit Sensitivity Conservation Objective Development Implications This habitat unit is of moderately low ecological importance and sensitivity predominantly due to degradation of the floral ecology and AIP proliferation. The habitat unit does however still provide suitable habitat for a variety of common faunal species, particularly avifauna. The proposed development is not considered Degraded Grassland Optimise development potential to pose a detrimental risk on the floral Moderately - Habitat while improving biodiversity ecology of this Degraded Grassland low integrity of surrounding natural Habitat and can be significantly reduced habitat and managing edge effects. should all mitigation measures be implemented. However, cognisance must be taken of edge effect management so as to limit disturbances to the surrounding habitat. If any floral SCCs are encountered prior to construction GDARD should be contacted in order to obtain permits for the relocation thereof. Although the Freshwater Habitat is considered to be highly modified and associated with high levels of alien vegetation, it still serves as a movement corridor for faunal species to and from the study area and is indicated to be part of an ESA by the Gauteng Conservation Optimise development potential Plan (2011) Development activities in this Moderately - Freshwater Habitat while improving biodiversity area are however unlikely to have a low integrity of surrounding natural significant impact on the receiving habitat and managing edge effects. environment since this habitat unit is of moderately low ecological importance. Mitigation measures proposed in the operational and rehabilitation phase should be incorporated in order to minimise the potential future impacts on the surrounding area.

22 WUL 260001 March 2019

Figure 8: Sensitivity associated with the proposed activities.

23 WUL 260001 March 2019

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The table below serves to summarise the significance of the perceived impacts on the floral and faunal ecology of the study area. Individual impacts identified are presented in Section 6.1, 6.2 and Appendix I of this report. A summary of all potential construction and operational phase impacts are provided in Section 6.1.1 and 6.2.1.

All the required mitigatory measures needed to minimise the impact are presented in Section 6.3. Activities and aspects register Construction Operational and Rehabilitation Phases Increased introduction and proliferation of alien and invasive Site clearing leading to vegetation removal and compaction of plant species due to poor rehabilitation and maintenance soils altering floral and faunal habitat. activities Vegetation clearance and construction activities leading to Inadequate rehabilitation of areas where soils have been disturbance and compaction of soils and, hence, a decreased compacted, leading to limited vegetation regrowth which, in potential for floral species to re-establish turn, will prevent the return of faunal species Failure to implement a rehabilitation and alien floral control plan, resulting in the spread of alien and invasive plant species Inadequate implementation of rehabilitation leading to to areas outside the development footprint, and thereby increased alien invasive plant proliferation and loss of resulting in further habitat loss for faunal species and terrestrial habitat for native species biodiversity loss for floral species. The disturbance caused to vegetation and soils, as well as increased human-related activities during construction, causing alien and invasive plant species proliferation - leading to loss of floral biodiversity Potential indiscriminate disposal of construction material within areas where no construction is planned, thereby leading to further habitat disturbance. Increased movement of vehicles and construction personnel causing soil compaction and / or erosion particularly within the

Freshwater Habitat; thus, reducing available habitat for fauna and hampering the ability of vegetation to re-establish. Failure to remove and control alien plant species within the

construction footprint Possible increased fire frequency leading to a loss or alteration

of floral and faunal habitat

7.1 Floral Impact Assessment

Impact on Floral Diversity and Habitat

The proposed expansion of the existing QK Meats facility is predominantly located within areas of low floral species diversity and fragmented floral habitat. The Gauteng Conservation Plan of 2011 consider the majority of the study area to be an ESA, which allows for habitat connectivity to natural areas upstream and downstream of this feature. A small portion on the southern boundary is considered to be an important CBA, with particular importance for orange listed plant habitat, and primary vegetation. It is however unlikely that the study area will provide habitat for orange listed plant species, and primary vegetation due to the degraded nature of the study area as well as continuous ongoing anthropogenic-related activities and AIP proliferation.

24 WUL 260001 March 2019

According to the National Threatened Ecosystems (2011) database, a small portion on the southern boundary of the Degraded Grassland Habitat form part of the remaining extent of the Critically Endangered Kliprivier Highveld Grassland Ecosystem. However, based on the field assessment this area was found to be severely disturbed as a result of edge effects and illegal dumping associated with historic and ongoing anthropogenic activities.

The proposed activities associated with the expansion are likely to impact upon the floral diversity of the immediate area should appropriate mitigatory measures not be applied. Failure to implement mitigation measures will result in a decrease and alteration of floral diversity as well as additional introduction and proliferation of alien and invasive plant species which will further contribute to habitat loss. At present, alien plant diversity is deemed to be moderately high within the majority of the study area. It is, however, important to maintain the current levels of floral diversity and habitat through ensuring that these existing alien and invasive plant species are monitored and controlled.

Impact on Floral SCC

The proposed activities have a very low likelihood of impacting floral SCC as no floral SCCs were recorded at the time of the survey. Hypoxis hemerocallidea have a 60% probability of occurrence within this habitat unit; although not observed during the assessment, if encountered prior to construction a registered ecologist should be contacted.

Possible latent impacts

Even with mitigation, latent impacts on the receiving floral ecological environment are deemed possible. The following points highlight the key latent impacts that have been identified and which are relevant to the study area and proposed development:  Further loss of floral habitat;  Loss of, and altered floral species diversity; and  Continued alien and invasive plant invasion.

Possible cumulative impacts

The proposed expansion of the existing QK Meats facility is associated mainly with industrial areas which have had an encroaching impact on the habitat units associated with the study area, thus the greatest threat to the floral ecology of the larger area is the continued spread and proliferation of AIP species, resulting in further overall loss of floral diversity within the surrounding area. Edge effects from the development should, therefore, be managed throughout all phases of the development, to limit the impact on surrounding natural areas.

Floral Assessment Summary

25 WUL 260001 March 2019

premise that all mitigation measures, as stipulated in this report, are adhered to and implemented. Should such actions not be adhered to, it is highly likely that post mitigation impact scores will increase.

Table 6: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the construction phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

Table 7: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the operational phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

Table 8: A summary of the impact significance on floral resources in the rehabilitation phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on floral habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Impact on floral SCC Low Very Low

7.2 Faunal Impact Assessment

Impact on Faunal Diversity and Habitat

Despite the floral habitat degradation of the study area, the area still provides habitat for a variety of faunal species albeit common, widespread species, well adapted to urban areas. Although the Freshwater Habitat potentially provides habitat for a larger variety of faunal species, as well as movement of smaller faunal species to and from the area, the Freshwater Habitat is currently considered to be in a highly modified state (refer to the freshwater report compiled by Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd, WUL 260001, Freshwater Ecological Assessment for the Proposed Expansion Activities of QK Meats Located on Portion 303 of the Farm Klipriviersberg 106-Ir And Erf 115 Within City Deep, Gauteng Province, 2019), and as such faunal species diversity is limited to common, widespread species. High levels of anthropogenic-related activities associated with the area are the primary contributor to the altered faunal diversity associated with the area. This, together with IAP proliferation, will continue to impact on the species diversity of the area. Construction activities will, therefore, result in further loss of faunal habitat from the area. Mitigation efforts should be aimed at limiting edge effects from construction activities and implement an AIP management plan.

26 WUL 260001 March 2019

Impact on Faunal SCC

No faunal SCC was identified within the study area, and there is a low probability of such species occurring permanently within this area due to lack of suitable habitat and the area being enclosed and no longer connected to a larger open space area, rendering faunal SCC movement through the area highly unlikely.

Probable Latent Impacts

Even with mitigation, latent impacts on the receiving faunal ecological environment are deemed possible. The following points highlight the key latent impacts that have been identified and which are relevant to the study area and proposed development:  Continued loss of faunal habitat; and  Continued loss of and altered faunal species diversity.

Possible cumulative Impacts

Much of the study area has already been degraded and disturbed, with high levels of anthropogenic activities. The proposed development will result in the clearance of vegetated areas and further isolation and displacement of faunal species. Furthermore, ineffective control and monitoring of edge effects can result in the additional spread of AIP species to the areas surrounding the study area, which will further alter faunal habitat and subsequently faunal diversity within this area.

Faunal Assessment Summary

The tables below serve to summarise the findings of the impact assessment undertaken with reference to the perceived impacts stemming from the proposed development activities as found in Appendix I. The tables below indicate the significance of the perceived impacts prior to the implementation of mitigation measures and following the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigated results of the impact assessment have been calculated on the premise that all mitigation measures as stipulated in this report are adhered to and implemented. Should such actions not be adhered to, it is highly likely that post mitigation impact scores will increase.

Table 9: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the construction phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

27 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table 10: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the operational phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium-Low Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

Table 11: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the rehabilitation phase. Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Degraded Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low Freshwater Habitat Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Low Very Low Impact on faunal SCC Low Very Low

7.3 Integrated Impact Mitigation

The majority of the study area has already been subjected to varying degrees of disturbance. The table below highlights the key integrated mitigation measures that are applicable to all the development activities in order to suitably manage and mitigate the ecological impacts, both faunal and floral, that are associated with the construction and operation phases of the proposed development. Provided that all management and mitigation measures are implemented, as stipulated in this report, the overall risk to floral and faunal diversity, habitat and SCC can be adequately mitigated and minimised.

Table 12: A summary of the mitigatory requirements for floral and faunal resources. Project phase Construction Phase Impact Summary Loss of faunal and floral habitat, species and SCC Proposed mitigation and management measures: - The construction footprint must be kept as small as possible in order to minimise the impact on the surrounding environment. - Contractor laydown areas are to remain outside of the delineated Freshwater Habitat and the associated GDARD setback area as mentioned in the Freshwater Ecological Assessment report (WUL report reference 260001, 2019); - Should any floral/faunal SCC, albeit highly unlikely, be affected by the construction of the facility, they are to be marked and where possible, relocated to suitable habitat surrounding the disturbance footprint by a qualified specialist. GDARD should be consulted as to the way forward, and the relevant permits are applied for if deemed necessary by GDARD - No collection of floral SCC, should any be found, or any other plant material must be allowed by construction personnel; Management - Edge effect control needs to be implemented within construction areas, with specific Measures consideration to erosion control and alien floral species management; - No hunting or trapping of faunal species is to be allowed by construction personnel; - Removal of vegetation should be restricted to what is necessary; - Informal fires by construction personnel should be prohibited, and no uncontrolled fires whatsoever should be allowed; - Appropriate sanitary facilities must be provided during the construction phase, and all waste must be removed to an appropriate waste facility; - Alien vegetation must be removed and controlled within the study area during both the construction and operational phases, with specific mention of Category 1b and 2 species in line with the NEMBA Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (2016); - Care should be taken during the construction and operation of the proposed development to limit edge effects impacting on the Freshwater Habitat. This can be achieved by:  Demarcating all footprint areas during construction activities;

28 WUL 260001 March 2019

 No construction rubble or cleared alien invasive species are to be disposed of within these areas, and should be taken to a registered waste disposal facility;  All soils compacted as a result of construction activities should be ripped, profiled and reseeded;  Manage the spread of alien and invasive plant species proliferation, which may affect sensitive habitat within surrounding areas. Specific mention in this regard is made to Category 1b and Category 2 species identified within the development footprint areas (refer to Appendix F of this report); and - Upon completion of construction activities, it must be ensured that no bare areas remain and that indigenous species be used to revegetate the disturbed area. Recommended seed mix: Reclamation mixtures for rehabilitation of damaged veld and disturbed areas – available from http://mayford.co.za/veld-grass/.

Project phase Operational Phase Impact Summary Loss of faunal and floral habitat, species and SCC Proposed mitigation and management measures: - The operational footprint must be kept as small as possible in order to minimise the impact on the surrounding environment; - The Freshwater Habitat should remain demarcated, and sufficient refuse bins should be provided to limit disposal of industrial waste into the Freshwater Habitat. It should be clearly communicated to employees that no disposal of waste should be allowed in the Freshwater Management Habitat Measures - Ongoing alien and invasive plant monitoring and control should take place throughout the operational phase of the development, and the project perimeters should be regularly checked during the operational phase for alien and invasive plant proliferation to prevent spread into surrounding natural areas; - Vehicles should be restricted to travelling only on designated roadways to limit the ecological footprint; and - No hunting/trapping or collecting of faunal species is allowed. Project phase Rehabilitation Phase Impact Summary Loss of faunal and floral habitat, species and SCC Proposed mitigation and management measures: - Proliferation of AIP species is expected within any disturbed area and, as there is already an extensive proliferation of AIPs within the majority of the study area, these species should be eradicated and controlled to prevent their spread beyond the development footprint area; - Alien vegetation within, or close to, the Freshwater Habitat should be manually removed, and chemical control is not recommended in order to prevent chemical contamination of the Freshwater Habitat - It is advised that an AIP control plan be implemented in order to avoid any negative latent effects caused by the inappropriate removal of alien vegetation. - Alien and invasive plant monitoring and control should be undertaken for at least six months post construction, to ensure all rehabilitated and reseeded areas have become established with indigenous species - Upon completion of construction activities, it must be ensured that no bare areas remain Management and that indigenous grassland species are reintroduced Measures - The footprint and movement of people during maintenance activities must be monitored to ensure that edge effects do not affect the surrounding habitat. - Maintenance vehicles should be restricted to travelling only on designated roadways to limit the ecological footprint. In the event of a breakdown, maintenance of vehicles must take place with care, and the recollection of spillage should be practised near the surface area to prevent ingress of hydrocarbons into topsoil; - After alien species have been cleared, disturbed areas need to be revegetated with indigenous species in order to help stabilise the soil surface and to ensure that alien species do not colonise the disturbed areas; - After revegetation, all disturbed areas should be suitably barricaded to allow for undisturbed recovery; - Measures to stabilise the banks of the Freshwater Habitat need to be implemented to prevent erosion

29 WUL 260001 March 2019

- It must be ensured that stormwater is managed on-site in a suitable manner so as to not increase the risk of erosion - Erosion berms and hessian sheets are to be used in areas where soils are susceptible to high levels of erosion such as the Freshwater Habitat - It is advised that a qualified landscape architect be consulted as to the landscaping of the project. The following should be taken into consideration during the landscaping of the proposed development: - All bare areas should be planted with indigenous species, as opposed to exotic garden ornamentals.

30 WUL 260001 March 2019

8 CONCLUSION

During the field assessment, two habitat units were encountered, namely Degraded Grassland Habitat and Freshwater Habitat. Both habitat units are considered to be of moderately low ecological importance. Hypoxis hemerocallidea have a 60% probability of occurrence within these habitat units. If observed prior to construction a qualified ecologist and the GDARD need to be contacted for relevant permits for the relocation thereof.

No faunal SCC was encountered during the field assessment, although several species of conservation concern are expected to occur in the Gauteng province and relevant QDS (2628AA), however, due to extensive urban and recreational activities the likelihood of occurrence is deemed to be low.

It is the opinion of the ecologists that this study provides the relevant information required in order to implement Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) and to ensure that the best long-term use of the ecological resources in the study area will be made in support of the principle of sustainable development. Based on the terrestrial impact assessment of potential impacts on floral and faunal SCC within the study area, it is evident that impacts are of moderately-low to low significance prior to mitigation and of very low significance following the implementation of mitigation measures. It is recommended that, from a terrestrial ecological perspective, the proposed activity be considered exceptable, provided that the recommended mitigation measures for the identified impacts (as outlined in Section 7) are adhered to.

31 WUL 260001 March 2019

9 REFERENCES

Alexander, G and Marais, J 2008 Second Edition. A guide to the reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Barnes, K.N. (Ed). 2000. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg, RSA. Birdlife, 2017: BirdLife South Africa Checklist of Birds in South Africa 2017 Branch, B. 1998. Third Edition. Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles in Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Branch, W.R. (Ed). 1988. South African Red Data Book of Reptiles and Amphibians. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 151 Bromilow, C. (2001). Revised Edition, First Impression. Problem Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria, RSA. Carruthers, V. 2001. Frogs and frogging in Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Chittendan, H. (2007). Roberts Bird Guide. A comprehensive field guide to over 950 bird species in southern Africa. John Voeckler Bird Book Fund. Cape Town. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) 43 of 1983. Endangered Wildlife Trust (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A conservation Assessment. EWT 2016; 2016 Red List of Mammals of South Africa. Evans, R.A., and R.M. Love. 1957. The step-point method of sampling: A practical tool in range research. Journal of Range Management 10:208-212. Henning, G.A & Henning, S.F. (1989). South African Red Data Book of Butterflies. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 158. Henning, B.J. & van der Walt, N. 2008. An Environmental Report on the Flora and Fauna for the proposed re-routing of a section of the N11 road to the north of Mokopane, Limpopo Province. IBA: Marnewick MD, Retief EF, Theron NT, Wright DR, Anderson TA. 2015. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas of South Africa. Johannesburg: BirdLife South Africa. Online available: http://bgis.sanbi.org/IBA/project.asp IUCN (2018). http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Leeming, J. 2003. Scorpions of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Leroy, A. & Leroy, J. Second Edition. 2003. Spiders of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Marais, J. 2004. A complete guide to the Snakes of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Minerals and Petroleum Resource Development Act (MPRDA) (Act 28 of 2002) Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J., & Kloepfer, D. (Eds). 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (Eds). (2006). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, RSA. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) 10 of 2004. NBA: Driver A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. & Maze, K. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. Online available: http://bgis.sanbi.org/NBA/project.asp Owensby, C.E. 1973. Modified step-point system for botanical composition and basal cover estimates. Journal of Range Management 26:302-303.

32 WUL 260001 March 2019

Picker. M., Griffiths. C. & Weaving. A. (2004). New Edition. Field Guide to Insects of South Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA. Raimondo, D., von Staden, L., Foden., W., Victor, JE., Helme, NA., Turner, RC., Kamundi, DA., Manyama, PA. (eds) (2009). Red List of South African Plants Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. SABAP2. 2016. The South Africa Bird Atlas Project 2 database. SACAD: Department of Environmental Affairs. 2017. South Africa Conservation Areas Database (SAPAD_OR_2016_Q4). Online available: [http://egis.environment.gov.za] SANBI POSA (2009) The South African National Biodiversity Institute is thanked for the use of data from the National Herbarium, Pretoria (PRE) Computerised Information System (PRECIS). SAPAD: Department of Environmental Affairs. 2017. South Africa Protected Areas Database (SAPAD_OR_2016_Q4). Online available: [http://egis.environment.gov.za] Sinclair, I., Hockey, P. & Tarboton, W. 2002. Third Edition. Sasol Birds of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town, RSA Smithers, R. H. N. 2000. Third Edition. Edited by Peter Apps. The Mammals of the Southern African. A Field Guide. Struik Publishers, Cape Town, RSA. Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP) 2. 2015. Online available: http://sabap2.adu.org.za/. The South African National Biodiversity Institute - Biodiversity GIS (BGIS) [online]. URL: http://bgis.sanbi.org as retrieved in 2016 Threatened Ecosystems: National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act: National list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection (G 34809, GoN 1002). 2011. Department of Environmental Affairs. Online available: http://bgis.sanbi.org/ecosystems/project.asp Threatened Species Programme (2005). Red Data List of South African Plant Species. Available online: http://www.redlist.org. Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2004). Second Edition, Third Print. Guide to Grasses of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria, RSA. Van Wyk, B. and Malan, S. (1998) Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. Van Wyk, B., van Oudtshoorn, B. and Gericke, N. 2009. Medicinal Plants of South Africa. Briza Publications, Pretoria. Walker, C. 1988. Fourth Edition. Signs of the Wild. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Water Use Licence Associates (2019). Freshwater Ecological Assessment for The Proposed Expansion Activities of QK Meats Located on Portion 303 of the Farm Klipriviersberg 106-Ir And Erf 115 within City Deep, Gauteng Province. Bedfordview, Johannesburg, pp.1-72. Woodhall, S. (2005). Field Guide to Butterflies of South Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA

33 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX A - Legislative Requirements and Indemnity

The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No.107 of 1998) (NEMA)

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act 107 of 1998) and the associated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (GN R326 of 2017) and well as listing notices 1, 2 and 3 (GN R327, R325 and R324 of 2017), state that prior to any development taking place which triggers any activity as listed within the abovementioned regulations, an environmental authorisation process needs to be followed. This could follow either the Basic Assessment process or the EIA process depending on the nature of the activity and scale of the impact.

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No.10 of 2004) (NEMBA).

The objectives of this act are (within the framework of NEMA) to provide for:  The management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic of South Africa and of the components of such diversity;  The use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner;  The fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of the benefits arising from bio prospecting involving indigenous biological resources;  To give effect to ratify international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding to the Republic;  To provide for cooperative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and  To provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act. This act alludes to the fact that management of biodiversity must take place to ensure that the biodiversity of the surrounding areas are not negatively impacted upon, by any activity being undertaken, in order to ensure the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of the benefits arising from indigenous biological resources. Furthermore, a person may not carry out a restricted activity involving either: a) A specimen of a listed threatened or protected species; b) Specimens of an alien species; or c) A specimen of a listed invasive species without a permit.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) (CARA)

Removal of the alien and weed species encountered in the application area must take place in order to comply with existing legislation (amendments to the regulations under the CARA, 1983 and Section 28 of the NEMA, 1998). Removal of species should take place throughout the construction and operation, phases.

GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments Version 3 (GDARD, 2014b).

The biodiversity assessment must comply with the minimum requirements as stipulated by GDARD Version 3 of 2014 and must contain the following information:  A location and description of the application site and proposed activities;  Photographic record and description of the site characteristics and inventories of the faunal and floral species observed on site, with special mention to Red Listed species;  Sensitivity map displaying all sensitive areas and associated buffers as listed in the Sensitivity Mapping Rules for Biodiversity Assessments section of GDARD V3 (2014); and  A list of recommendations and mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental impacts that the proposed development might have on the terrestrial ecology associated with the site.

34 WUL 260001 March 2019

Indemnity and Terms of use of this Report

The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information. The report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken and Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd and its staff reserve the right to modify aspects of the report including the recommendations if and when new information may become available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation. Although Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd exercises due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd accepts no liability and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd and its directors, managers, agents and employees against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expensed arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by Water Use Licence Associates (Pty) Ltd and by the use of the information contained in this document. This report must not be altered or added to without the prior written consent of the author. This also refers to electronic copies of this report which are supplied for the purposes of inclusion as part of other reports, including main reports. Similarly, any recommendations, statements or conclusions drawn from or based on this report must make reference to this report. If these form part of a main report relating to this investigation or report, this report must be included in its entirety as an appendix or separate section to the main report.

35 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX B - Floral Method of Assessment

Floral Species of Conservational Concern Assessment

Prior to the field visit, a record of floral SCC and their habitat requirements was acquired from SANBI for the Quarter Degree Square in which the study area is situated, as well as relevant regional, provincial and national lists. Throughout the floral assessment, special attention was paid to the identification of any of these SCC as well as the identification of suitable habitat that could potentially support these species.

The Probability of Occurrence (POC) for each floral SCC was determined using the following calculations wherein the distribution range for the species, specific habitat requirements and level of habitat disturbance were considered. The accuracy of the calculation is based on the available knowledge about the species in question, with many of the species lacking in-depth habitat research.

Each factor contributes an equal value to the calculation. Distribution Outside of known Inside known distribution range distribution range Site score EVC 1 score 0 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat availability No habitat Habitat available available Site score EVC 1 score 0 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat disturbance 0 Very low Low Moderate High Very high Site score EVC 1 score 5 4 3 2 1 0 [Distribution + Habitat availability + Habitat disturbance] / 15 x 100 = POC%

Vegetation Surveys Vegetation surveys were undertaken by first identifying different habitat units and then analysing the floral species composition that was recorded during detailed floral assessments using the step point vegetation assessment methodology. Different transect lines were chosen throughout the entire study area within areas that were perceived to best represent the various plant communities. Floral species were recorded, and a species list was compiled for each habitat unit. These species lists were also compared with the vegetation expected to be found within the relevant vegetation types as described in Section 4, which serves to provide an accurate indication of the ecological integrity and conservation value of each habitat unit (Evans & Love, 1957; Owensby, 1973).

Floral Habitat Sensitivity The floral habitat sensitivity of each habitat unit was determined by calculating the mean of five different parameters which influence floral communities and provide an indication of the overall floristic ecological integrity, importance and sensitivity of the habitat unit. Each of the following parameters are subjectively rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = lowest and 5 = highest):  Floral SCC: The confirmed presence or potential for floral SCC or any other significant species, such as endemics, to occur within the habitat unit;  Unique Landscapes: The presence of unique landscapes or the presence of an ecologically intact habitat unit in a transformed region;  Conservation Status: The conservation status of the ecosystem or vegetation type in which the habitat unit is situated based on local, regional and national databases;

36 WUL 260001 March 2019

 Floral Diversity: The recorded floral diversity compared to a suitable reference condition such as surrounding natural areas or available floristic databases; and  Habitat Integrity: The degree to which the habitat unit is transformed based on observed disturbances which may affect habitat integrity. Each of these values contributes equally to the mean score, which determines the floral habitat sensitivity class in which each habitat unit falls. A conservation and land-use objective is also assigned to each sensitivity class which aims to guide the responsible and sustainable utilization of the habitat unit in question. In order to present the results use is made of spider diagrams to depict the significance of each aspect of floral ecology for each vegetation type. The different classes and land-use objectives are presented in the table below:

Table B1: Floral habitat sensitivity rankings and associated land-use objectives.

Score Rating significance Conservation objective 1> and <2 Low Optimise development potential. Optimise development potential while improving 2> and <3 Moderately low biodiversity integrity of surrounding natural habitat and managing edge effects. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat 3> and <4 Intermediate unit and surrounds while optimising development potential. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat 4> and <5 Moderately high unit, limit development and disturbance. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat 5 High unit; no-go alternative must be considered.

37 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX C - Faunal Method of Assessment

A reconnaissance ‘walk through’ on foot was undertaken to determine the general habitat types found throughout the study area. Special emphasis was placed on areas that may potentially support faunal SCC. Sites were investigated on foot in order to identify the occurrence of the dominant faunal communities, species and habitat diversities. The presence of any faunal inhabitants of the study area was also assessed through direct visual observation or identifying such species through calls, tracks, scats and burrows.

It is important to note that faunal species have varied life cycles, breeding patterns, and are subject to seasonal fluctuations. As such, it is unlikely that all faunal species will have been recorded during the site assessment. However, even though some faunal species may not have been identified during the sight assessment when taking into consideration the available background species lists, observed habitat units and the degree of transformation, it is possible to establish a relatively accurate understanding of faunal assemblages that are most likely to be associated with the study area.

Faunal Species of Conservational Concern Assessment The Probability of Occurrence (POC) for each faunal SCC was determined using the following four parameters:  Species distribution;  Habitat availability;  Food availability; and  Habitat disturbance.

The accuracy of the calculation is based on the available knowledge about the species in question. Therefore, it is important that the literature available is also considered during the calculation. Each factor contributes an equal value to the calculation.

Scoring Guideline Habitat availability No Habitat Very low Low Moderate High 1 2 3 4 5 Food availability No food available Very low Low Moderate High 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat disturbance Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 Distribution/Range Historically Recently Not Recorded Recorded Recorded 1 3 5 [Habitat availability + Food availability + Habitat disturbance + Distribution/Range] / 20 x 100 = POC% Faunal Habitat Sensitivity The sensitivity of the study area for each faunal class (i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates) was determined by calculating the mean of five different parameters which influence each faunal class and provide an indication of the overall faunal ecological integrity, importance and sensitivity of the study area for each class. Each of the following parameters are subjectively rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = lowest and 5 = highest):  Faunal SCC: The confirmed presence or potential for faunal SCC or any other significant species, such as endemics, to occur within the habitat unit;  Habitat Availability: The presence of suitable habitat for each class;  Food Availability: The availability of food within the study area for each faunal class;

38 WUL 260001 March 2019

 Faunal Diversity: The recorded faunal diversity compared to a suitable reference condition such as surrounding natural areas or available faunal databases; and  Habitat Integrity: The degree to which the habitat is transformed based on observed disturbances which may affect habitat integrity.

Each of these values contributes equally to the mean score, which determines the suitability and sensitivity of the study area for each faunal class. A conservation and land-use objective is also assigned to each sensitivity class which aims to guide the responsible and sustainable utilisation of the study area in relation to each faunal class. The different classes and land-use objectives are presented in the table below:

Table C1: Faunal habitat sensitivity rankings and associated land-use objectives.

Score Rating significance Conservation objective 1> and <2 Low Optimise development potential. Optimise development potential while improving 2> and <3 Moderately low biodiversity integrity of surrounding natural habitat and managing edge effects. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat unit and 3> and <4 Intermediate surrounds while optimising development potential. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat unit, 4> and <5 Moderately high limit development and disturbance. Preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the habitat 5 High unit; no-go alternative must be considered.

39 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX D - Impact Assessment Methodology

Ecological Impact Assessment Method

In order for the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to allow for sufficient consideration of all environmental impacts, impacts were assessed using a common, defensible method of assessing significance that will enable comparisons to be made between risks/impacts and will enable authorities, stakeholders and the client to understand the process and rationale upon which risks/impacts have been assessed. The method to be used for assessing risks/impacts is outlined in the sections below. The first stage of risk/impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of receptors and resources, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are presented below.  An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organisation for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or infrastructure that is possessed by an organisation.  An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment’1. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an impact.  Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, for example, disturbance due to noise and health effects due to poorer air quality. In the case where the impact is on human health or wellbeing, this should be stated. Similarly, where the receptor is not anthropogenic, then it should, where possible, be stipulated what the receptor is.  Receptors can comprise, but are not limited to, people or human-made systems, such as local residents, communities and social infrastructure, as well as components of the biophysical environment such as wetlands, flora and riverine systems.  Resources include components of the biophysical environment.  Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place.  Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will impact on the receptor.  Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact (increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; threat to environmental and health standards.  Spatial extent refers to the geographical scale of the impact.  Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in the resource or receptor. The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically according to the defined criteria. Refer to the Table D1. The purpose of the rating is to develop a clear understanding of influences and processes associated with each impact. The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the consequence of the impact and when summed can obtain a maximum value of 15. The frequency of the activity and the frequency of the impact together comprise the likelihood of the impact occurring and can obtain a maximum value of 10. The values for likelihood and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance-rating matrix and are used to determine whether mitigation is necessary2. The assessment of significance is undertaken twice. Initial, significance is based on only natural and existing mitigation measures (including built-in engineering designs). The subsequent assessment takes into account the recommended management measures required to mitigate the impacts. Measures such as demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of land, are considered post-mitigation.

1 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 2 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation.

40 WUL 260001 March 2019

The model outcome of the impacts was then assessed in terms of impact certainty and consideration of available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied in line with South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances of uncertainty or lack of information, by increasing assigned ratings or adjusting final model outcomes. In certain instances, where a variable or outcome requires rational adjustment due to model limitations, the model outcomes have been adjusted. Table D1: Criteria for assessing the significance of impacts LIKELIHOOD DESCRIPTORS Probability of impact RATING Highly unlikely 1 Possible 2 Likely 3 Highly likely 4 Definite 5 Sensitivity of receiving environment RATING Ecology not sensitive/important 1 Ecology with limited sensitivity/importance 2 Ecology moderately sensitive/ /important 3 Ecology highly sensitive /important 4 Ecology critically sensitive /important 5 CONSEQUENCE DESCRIPTORS Severity of impact RATING Insignificant / ecosystem structure and function unchanged 1 Small / ecosystem structure and function largely unchanged 2 Significant / ecosystem structure and function moderately altered 3 Great / harmful/ ecosystem structure and function largely altered 4 Disastrous / ecosystem structure and function seriously to critically altered 5 Spatial scope of impact RATING Activity specific/ < 5 ha impacted / Linear developments affected < 100m 1 Development specific/ within the site boundary / < 100ha impacted / Linear developments affected < 2 100m Local area/ within 1 km of the site boundary / < 5000ha impacted / Linear developments affected < 3 1000m Regional within 5 km of the site boundary / < 2000ha impacted / Linear developments affected < 3000m 4 Entire habitat unit / Entire system/ > 2000ha impacted / Linear developments affected > 3000m 5 Duration of impact RATING One day to one month 1 One month to one year 24 One year to five years 3 Life of operation or less than 20 years 4 Permanent 5

41 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table D2: Significance Rating Matrix. CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 Frequencyimpact)of 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135

LIKELIHOOD(Frequency + activity of 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Table D3: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings. Significance Value Negative Impact Management Positive Impact Management Rating Recommendation Recommendation

Critically consider the viability of proposed projects 126- Very high Improve current management of existing projects Maintain current management 150 significantly and immediately Comprehensively consider the viability of proposed 101- projects High Maintain current management 125 Improve current management of existing projects significantly Consider the viability of proposed projects Medium-high 76-100 Maintain current management Improve current management of existing projects Maintain current management and/or Actively seek mechanisms to minimise impacts in Medium-low 51-75 proposed project criteria and strive for line with the mitigation hierarchy continuous improvement Where deemed necessary seek mechanisms to Maintain current management and/or Low 26-50 minimise impacts in line with the mitigation proposed project criteria and strive for hierarchy continuous improvement Maintain current management and/or proposed Maintain current management and/or Very low 1-25 project criteria and strive for continuous proposed project criteria and strive for improvement continuous improvement

The following points were considered when undertaking the assessment:  Risks and impacts were analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence encompassing:  Primary project site and related facilities that the client and its contractors develop or controls;  Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for any existing project or condition and other project-related developments; and  Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location.  Risks/Impacts were assessed for all stages of the project cycle including:  Pre-construction;  Construction; and  Operation.  If applicable, transboundary or global effects were assessed.  Individuals or groups who may be differentially or disproportionately affected by the project because of their disadvantaged or vulnerable status were assessed.  Particular attention was paid to describing any residual impacts that will occur after rehabilitation.

42 WUL 260001 March 2019

Mitigation Measure Development

The following points present the key concepts considered in the development of mitigation measures for the proposed development.  Mitigation and performance improvement measures and actions that address the risks and impacts3 are identified and described in as much detail as possible.  Measures and actions to address negative impacts will favour avoidance and prevention over minimisation, mitigation or compensation.  Desired outcomes are defined, and have been developed in such a way as to be measurable events with performance indicators, targets and acceptable criteria that can be tracked over defined periods, with estimates of the resources (including human resource and training requirements) and responsibilities for implementation.

Recommendations

Recommendations are developed to address and mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed development. These recommendations include general management measures which apply to the proposed development as a whole. Mitigation measures have been developed to address issues in all phases throughout the life of the operation from planning, through to construction and operation.

3 Mitigation measures should address both positive and negative impacts

43 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX E - Vegetation Type

Soweto Highveld Grassland

Table E1: Dominant and typical floristic species of Soweto Highveld Grassland (Mucina & Rutherford, 2012). Plant Community Species Graminoids: Andropogon appendiculatus (d), Brachiaria serrata (d), Cymbopogon pospischilii (d), Cynodon dactylon (d), Elionurus muticus (d), Eragrostis capensis (d), E. chloromelas (d), E. curvula (d), E. plana (d), E. planiculmis (d), E. racemosa (d), Heteropogon contortus (d), Hyparrhenia hirta (d), Setaria nigrirostris (d), S. Graminoids sphacelata (d), Themeda triandra (d), Tristachya leucothrix (d), Andropogon schirensis, Aristida adscensionis, A. bipartita, A. congesta, A. junciformis subsp. galpinii, Cymbopogon caesius, Digitaria diagonalis, Diheteropogon amplectens, Eragrostis micrantha, E. superba, Harpochloa falx, Microchloa caffra, Paspalum dilatatum. Hermannia depressa (d), Acalypha angustata, Berkheya setifera, Dicoma anomala, Euryops gilfillanii, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Graderia subintegra, Haplocarpha scaposa, Helichrysum miconiifolium, H. nudifolium var. nudifolium, H. rugulosum, Herbs Hibiscus pusillus, Justicia anagalloides, Lippia scaberrima, Rhynchosia effusa, Schistostephium crataegifolium, Selago densiflora, Senecio coronatus, Vernonia oligocephala, Wahlenbergia undulata. Haemanthus humilis subsp. hirsutus, H. montanus. Herbaceous Climber: Rhynchosia Geophytic Herbs totta Anthospermum hispidulum, A. rigidum subsp. pumilum, Berkheya annectens, Felicia Low Shrubs muricata, Ziziphus zeyheriana. *(d) – Dominant species for the vegetation

44 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX F - Species List

Table F1: Dominant floral species encountered in the study area. Alien species are indicated with an asterisk (*). Also indicated are species falling within an alien invasive category as per the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004): Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2016. Grasses and sedges Forbs and groundcovers Trees and shrubs Cortaderia selloana 1b *Bidens pilosa *Acacia mearnsii 2 Cyperus esculentus *Erigeron bonariensis *Acacia dealbata 2 Digitaria longifolia *Ipomea purpurea 1b *Agave sisalana 2 Digitaria velutina *Tagetes minuta *Eucalyptus camaldulensis 1b Eragrostis curvula *Verbena bonariensis 1b *Melia azedarach 1b Panicum maximum *Mirabilis jalapa *Cestrum laevigatum 1b Pennisetum clandestinum *Eucalyptus camaldulensis 1b *Solanum sisymbriifolium 1b Celtis africana *Datura stramonium 1b 1a: Category 1a – Invasive species that require compulsory control. 1b: Category 1b – Invasive species that require control by means of an invasive species management programme. 2: Category 2 – Commercially used plants that may be grown in demarcated areas, provided that there is a permit and that steps are taken to prevent their spread. 3: Category 3 – Ornamentally used plants that may no longer be planted; existing plants may remain, except within the flood line of watercourses and wetlands, as long as all reasonable steps are taken to prevent their spread (Bromilow, 2001).

45 WUL 260001 March 2019

Avifaunal species observed

Scientific name Common Name IUCN Red List Status

Cynius talatala White breasted Sunbird LC Lybius torquatus Black Collared Barbet LC Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing dove LC

Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove LC Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop LC Pycnonotus tricolor Dark-capped Bulbul LC Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove LC Columba livia Rock Dove LC Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret LC Corythaixoides concolor Grey Go-away-bird LC Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda Ibis LC Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing LC Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver LC Acridotheres tristis Common Myna LC Columba guinea Speckled Pigeon LC Cossypha caffra Cape Robin-chat LC Passer melanurus Cape sparrow LC Passer domesticus House Sparrow LC Serinus flaviventris Yellow canary LC LC = Least concerned. NT = Near Threatened, NYBA = Not yet been assessed by the IUCN. Amphibian species observed or previously recorded by SAFAP for the relevant QDS (2628AA)

Scientific name Common Name IUCN Red List Status

Ametia fuscigula Cape river frog NYBA Amietia delalandii Delalande’s river frog LC Kassina senegalensis Senegal land frog LC Schismaderma carens African red toad LC Sclerophrys gutturalis Guttural toad LC

LC = Least concerned

Insect species observed Scientific Name Common Name IUCN Red List Status Papilio demodocus Citrus Swallowtail NYBA Pontia helice helice Common meadow white NYBA Danaus chrysippus aegyptius African Monarch NYBA Vanessa cardui Painted lady NYBA NYBA = Not Yet Been Assessed, LC = Least Concern

46 WUL 260001 March 2019

Mammal species observed Scientific Name Common Name IUCN Red List Status Mus musculus House mouse NYBA Rattus Black Rat LC NYBA = Not Yet Been Assessed, LC = Least Concern

47 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX G - Floral SCC

Table G1: Floral SCC for the QDS 2628AA as obtained from GDARD, with additional information on their threat status as defined in The Red List of South African Plants (http://redlist.sanbi.org/index.php). The Potential of Occurrence (POC) of these floral SCC within the study area is also provided. National Provincial POC Family Species Threat Habitat Status % status Deep black turf in open woodland Stenostelma Apocynaceae NT NT mainly in the vicinity of drainage 40 umbelluliferum lines Grassland or open woodland, Asteraceae Callilepis leptophylla LC Declining often on rocky outcrops or rocky 33 hill slopes Amongst rocks on steep hills and ridges, at the edge of thick bush Cineraria Asteraceae NT NT or under trees on a range of rock 0 austrotransvaalensis types: quartzite, dolomite and shale, 1400-1700 m Grassland, amongst rocks and along seepage lines, exclusively Asteraceae Cineraria longipes VU VU 20 on basalt koppies on south-facing slopes South-facing rock crevices on ridges, restricted to Gold Reef Adromischus Mountain Bushveld in the Crassulaceae umbraticola subsp. NT NT 0 northern parts of its range, and umbraticola Andesite Mountain Bushveld in the south Crassula Critically Lower rocky slopes in sheltered Crassulaceae arborescens subsp. Not Listed 0 Rare ravines undulatifolia Fabaceae Indigofera hybrida VU Not Listed Dry highveld grassland 6 Fabaceae Pearsonia bracteata NT NT Plateau grassland 0 Damp marshy area and vleis from Gunneraceae Gunnera perpensa LC Declining 13 coast to 2400 m Occurs in a wide range of habitats, including sandy hills on the margins of dune forests, open, Hypoxis Hypoxidaceae LC Declining rocky grassland, dry, stony, 60 hemerocallidea grassy slopes, mountain slopes and plateaus. Appears to be drought and fire tolerant Open shallow soil over rocks in Mesembryanthemaceae Khadia beswickii VU VU 6 grassland Grassy slopes and rock ledges, Orchidaceae Holothrix randii NT NT 6 usually southern aspects Leucadendron Most prominent in Boland Granite Proteaceae EN Not Listed 0 daphnoides Fynbos Low and medium altitudes, usually along mountain ranges Bowiea volubilis and in thickly vegetated river Hyacinthaceae VU VU 20 subsp. volubilis valleys, often under bush clumps and in boulder screes, sometimes found scrambling at the margins

48 WUL 260001 March 2019

National Provincial POC Family Species Threat Habitat Status % status of karroid, succulent bush in the Eastern Cape. Occurs in bushy kloofs at the coast and inland in KwaZulu-Natal. In Gauteng, Mpumalanga and North West Province it is often found in open woodland or on steep rocky hills usually in well-shaded situations. Tolerates wet and dry conditions, growing predominantly in summer rainfall areas with an annual rainfall of 200-800 mm South-facing slopes, in shallow soils among crystalline or Delosperma conglomerate quartzitic rocks, in Aizoaceae EN EN 6 purpureum sun or in partial shade, rarely in shade, in grassland with some trees Damp, open grassland and Hyacinthaceae Eucomis autumnalis LC Declining sheltered places from the coast to 13 2450 m Well-drained grasslands at Orchidaceae Habenaria bicolor NT NT 6 around 1600 m in South Africa Open grassland on dolomite or in Orchidaceae Habenaria mossii EN EN 6 black, sandy soil. Orchidaceae Holothrix micrantha CR PE CR Grassy cliffs, 1500-1800 m 6 CR PE= Critically Endangered Potentially Extinct, CR = Critically Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern

49 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX H - Faunal SCC

TableH1: RDL Mammal Species for the Gauteng Province (GDARD 2014).

Regional Scientific Name Common name IUCN Status GDARD Status (EWT, 2016) Neamblysomus julianae Juliana’s Golden Mole EN EN VU Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Mouse EN VU EN Atelerix frontalis Southern African Hedgehog LC NT NT Hydrictis maculicollis Spotted-necked Otter NT VU NT Miniopterus schreibersii Scheiber’s Long-Fingered Bat NT Unlisted NT Myotis tricolor Temminck’s Hairy Bat LC LC NT Rhinolophus blasii Blasius’s/Peak-Saddle Horseshoe Bat LC NT VU Rhinolophus clivosus Horseshoe Bat LC LC NT Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s Horseshoe Bat LC LC NT Rhinolophus hildebrandtii Hildebrandt’s Horseshoe Bat LC Unlisted NT VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, NT = Near Threatened, LC= Least Concern

Table H2: RDL Avifaunal Species for the Gauteng Province (GDARD 2014).

Regional Status GDARD Scientific Name Common name IUCN Status (Birdlife, Status 2017) Gyps coprotheres Cape Vulture EN EN VU Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane VU NT VU Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel LC Unlisted - Tyto capensis African Grass-Owl LC VU VU Circus ranivorus African Marsh-Harrier LC EN VU Circus ranivorus White-backed Night Heron LC EN VU Eupodotis senegalensis White-bellied Korhaan LC VU VU Podica senegalensis African Finfoot LC VU VU Mirafra cheniana Melodious Lark NT LC NT Sagittarius serpentarius Secretary bird VU VU NT Ciconia nigra Black Stork LC VU - Eupodotis caerulescens Blue Korhaan NT LC NT Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle VU EN - Phoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo NT NT - Phoenicopterus roseus Greater Flamingo LC NT - Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher LC NT NT

50 WUL 260001 March 2019

VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern, EN = Endangered, Ad mon = Additional Monitoring, End and N-end = Endemic and Near endemic

Table H3: RDL Invertebrates Species for the Gauteng Province (GDARD 2014) Scientific Name Common name IUCN Status GDARD Status Lepidochrysops praeterita Highveld Blue Butterfly NYBA VU Chrysoritis aureus Heidelberg Copper NYBA VU Ichnestoma stobbiai Stobbia’s Fruit Chafer Beetle NYBA VU Aloeides dentatis Roodepoort Copper Butterfly NYBA VU VU = Vulnerable, NYBA = Not yet been assesses

Table H4: RDL Reptile Species for the Gauteng Province (GDARD 2014) Scientific Name Common name IUCN Status GDARD Status Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake NT NT NT = Neat Threatened

Avifaunal Species for the pentad 2610_2805 and 2610_2800 within the QDS 2628AA. http://sabap2.adu.org.za/pentad_info.php?pentad=2610_2805§ion=species http://sabap2.adu.org.za/pentad_info.php?pentad=2610_2800§ion=species

51 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX I - Impact Assessments

Impact assessment pertaining to the proposed expansion of the existing facility

The following tables highlight the perceived impact pertaining to the relevant habitats affected by the proposed activities and associated infrastructure habitat units. Table I1: Impact on floral habitat and species diversity of the Degraded Grassland Habitat

Unmanaged – Degraded Grassland Habitat Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 42 phase 3 2 3 1 3 6 7 (Low)

Operational 42 phase 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 (Low)

Rehabilitation 35 2 2 2 1 4 5 7 (Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 24 phase 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

Operational 24 phase 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

Rehabilitation 24 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

Table I2: Impact on floral SCC within the Degraded Grassland Habitat

Unmanaged - Degraded Grassland Habitat SCC Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 30 2 2 2 1 3 5 6 phase (Low) Operational 28 2 2 2 1 4 4 7 phase (Low) Rehabilitation 28 2 2 2 1 4 4 7 (Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 15 2 2 2 1 2 3 5 phase (Very Low) Operational 15 2 2 2 1 2 3 5 phase (Very Low) 15 Rehabilitation 2 2 2 1 2 3 5 (Very Low)

52 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table I3: Impact on floral habitat and species diversity of the Freshwater Habitat

Unmanaged – Freshwater Habitat Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 54 phase 3 2 3 2 3 7 8 (Medium- Low) Operational 54 phase 3 2 3 2 4 6 9 (Medium- Low) Rehabilitation 30 3 2 2 2 4 5 6 (Low)

Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 36 2 1 2 1 3 6 6 phase (Low) Operational 36 2 1 2 1 3 6 6 phase (Low) 18 Rehabilitation 2 1 2 1 3 3 6 (Very Low)

Table I4: Impact on floral SCC species within the Freshwater Habitat

Unmanaged – Freshwater Habitat SCC Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 28 phase 2 1 3 1 3 4 7 (Low)

Operational 28 2 1 2 1 4 4 7 phase (Low)

Rehabilitation 28 2 1 2 1 4 4 7 (Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 18 2 1 2 1 3 3 6 phase (Very Low) Operational 18 2 1 2 1 3 3 6 phase (Very Low) 18 Rehabilitation 2 1 2 1 3 3 6 (Very Low)

53 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table I5: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity – Degraded Grassland Habitat

Unmanaged - Faunal Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration Phase of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment 32 Construction 3 3 4 1 3 4 8 (Low) 32 Operational 3 3 3 1 4 4 8 (Low) 32 Rehabilitation 3 3 3 1 4 4 8 (Low) Faunal – Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of Phase of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale impact environment 24 Construction 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low) 24 Operational 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low) 24 Rehabilitation 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

Table I6: Impact on Faunal SCC – Degraded Grassland Habitat

Unmanaged – Faunal SCC Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale impact environment Construction 32 phase 2 3 3 1 3 4 7 (Low)

Operational 32 2 3 2 1 4 4 7 phase (Low)

Rehabilitation 32 2 3 2 1 4 4 7 (Low) Managed Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale impact environment Construction 24 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 phase (Very Low) Operational 24 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 phase (Very Low) 24 Rehabilitation 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

54 WUL 260001 March 2019

Table I7: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity – Freshwater Habitat

Unmanaged - Faunal Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration Phase of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment 54 Construction 3 3 4 2 3 6 9 (Medium- Low) 54 Operational 3 3 3 2 4 6 9 (Medium-Low) 45 Rehabilitation 3 3 3 2 4 5 9 (Low) Faunal – Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of Phase of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale impact environment 35 Construction 2 2 3 1 3 5 7 (Low) 30 Operational 2 2 2 1 3 5 6 (Low) 24 Rehabilitation 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

Table I8: Impact on Faunal SCC – Freshwater Habitat

Operational 35 2 3 2 1 4 5 7 phase (Low)

Rehabilitation 35 2 3 2 1 4 5 7 (Low) Managed Sensitivity of Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale impact environment Construction 24 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 phase (Very Low) Operational 24 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 phase (Very Low) 24 Rehabilitation 2 2 2 1 3 4 6 (Very Low)

55 WUL 260001 March 2019

APPENDIX J - Declaration and Specialists CV’s

Declaration Declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority I, Nelanie Cloete, declare that -  I act as the independent specialist in this application;  I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;  I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;  I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the relevant legislation and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;  I will comply with the applicable legislation;  I have not, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;  I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;  All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct I, Carami van Schalkwyk, declare that -  I act as the independent specialist in this application;  I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;  I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;  I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the relevant legislation and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;  I will comply with the applicable legislation;  I have not, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;  I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;  All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct

56 WUL 260001 March 2019

WATER USE LICENCE ASSOCIATES (WULA) – SPECIALIST CONSULTANT INFORMATION

CURRICULUM VITAE OF NELANIE CLOETE PERSONAL DETAILS

Position in Company Environmental Scientist

Date of Birth 6 June 1983

Nationality South African

Languages English, Afrikaans

Joined SAS 2011

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Professional member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) Member of the South African Association of Botanists (SAAB) Member of the International Affiliation for Impact Assessments (IAIAsa) South Africa group Member of the Grassland Society of South Africa (GSSA) Member of the Botanical Society of South Africa (BotSoc)

EDUCATION Qualifications MSc Environmental Management (University of Johannesburg) 2013 MSc Botany (University of Johannesburg) 2007 BSc (Hons) Botany (University of Johannesburg) 2005 BSc (Botany and Zoology) (Rand Afrikaans University) 2004 Short Courses Certificate – Department of Environmental Science in Legal context of Environmental 2009 Management, Compliance and Enforcement (UNISA) Introduction to Project Management - Online course by the University of Adelaide 2016 Integrated Water Resource Management, the National Water Act, and Water Use 2017 Authorisations, focusing on WULAs and IWWMPs

COUNTRIES OF WORK EXPERIENCE South Africa – Gauteng, Mpumalanga, North West, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Free State Africa - Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC

57 WUL 260001 March 2019

SELECTED PROJECT EXAMPLES Wetland Assessments  Consideration of potential wetland features on the proposed residential developments, Gauteng Province.  Riparian Vegetation Index determination and wetland delineation for infrastructure development, Gauteng Province.  Wetland assessment along the proposed Powerline route, Delareyville, North West Province.  Wetland delineation in the vicinity of a proposed mining development site, New Denmark Mine, Mpumalanga Province.  Wetland and rehabilitation assessment report for the Koppies Mine, Free State Province. Water Use Authorisations (WULA / GA Applications) and Risk Matrix Assessments  A Water Use License Application for the mixed developments, Gauteng Province.  A Water Use License Application for the Riba Cross Shopping Centre development and WWTW, Limpopo Province.  A Water Use License Application for the proposed upgrade of the Lesotho border road, Free State Province.  A Water Use License Application for the Refengkgotso Waste Water Treatment Works, Free State Province.  A Water Use License Application for the Eskom Powerline upgrade, Mpumalanga Province.  A Water Use License Application for abstraction of water from a groundwater resource, North West.  A General Application Registration and Risk Matrix Assessment for numerous mixed-use and infrastructure developments, Gauteng and North West Province.  Registration and validation process for existing borehole use within the Heidelberg area, Gauteng Province. Environmental Monitoring - Environmental Control Officer (ECO) functions  Aquatic ECO role for the construction of an attenuation dam in Centurion, Gauteng Province.  Environmental ECO role for a residential development in Midrand, Gauteng Province.  Environmental and Aquatic ECO role for a residential development and bridge construction in Krugersdorp, Gauteng Province.

58 WUL 260001 March 2019

WATER USE LICENCE ASSOCIATES (WULA) – SPECIALIST CONSULTANT INFORMATION CURRICULUM VITAE OF CARAMI VAN SCHALKWYK PERSONAL DETAILS Position in Company Intern Date of Birth 25 June 1996 Nationality South African Languages English, Afrikaans Joined SAS December 2018 EDUCATION

Qualifications BSc (Hons) Ecological Interactions and Ecosystem Resilience (North West 2018 University) BSc Botany and Zoology (North West University) 2017

COUNTRIES OF WORK EXPERIENCE South Africa – Gauteng, Northern Cape, Kwazulu-Natal SELECTED PROJECT EXAMPLES

Background Information, Mapping and Desktop Studies  Watercourse rehabilitation and management plan for the watercourses on portion 19 of the farm Elandsfontein 412 IR, Heidelberg, Gauteng Province  Watercourse impact assessment as part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the proposed Hyperion solar development 1, near Kathu, Northern Cape Province  Fresh water resource and aquatic ecological assessment as part of the section 24G rectification process for the unauthorised upgrade of the Heiner Hinze dam, close to Paulpietersburg, KwaZulu Natal Province  Fresh water resource and aquatic ecological assessment as part of the section 24g rectification process for the unauthorised development of the Dieter Hinze dam, near Paulpietersburg, KwaZulu-Natal Province  Freshwater resource assessment as part of the environmental assessment and authorisation process for the Kitwe TSF retreatment project, Kitwe, Zambia  Faunal, floral, wetland and aquatic assessment as part of the water use licencing process for the proposed Zimpande colliery near Newcastle, Kwazulu-Natal Province  Freshwater resource assessment as part of the water use license and environmental authorisation process for the existing Mondi limited Richards bay mill, KwaZulu-Natal Province  Freshwater resource assessment as part of the environmental and social impact assessment requirements for the proposed streamwalk / Radisson Blu hotel Harare development in Harare, Zimbabwe  Terrestrial ecological assessment and alternatives analysis as part of the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed development of a new Tailings Storage Facility at the Assmang Dwars River chrome mine, Limpopo Province  Faunal and floral ecological assessment as part of the environmental impact assessment and authorisation process for the proposed Lehlabile Mine near Leandra, Mpumalanga Province.  Freshwater resource and aquatic ecological assessment scoping report as part of the environmental authorisation and water use licensing process for the proposed Royal Sheba mining project near Barberton, Mpumalanga Province  Faunal and floral ecological assessment as part of the environmental impact assessment process for the proposed Erasmus Park phase 2 township development, Erasmusrand, Gauteng