FAUNAL AND FLORAL ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED ERASMUS PARK PHASE 2 TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT, ERASMUSRAND, GAUTENG.

Prepared for

Nali Sustainability Solutions

February 2019

Section C: Faunal Assessment

Prepared by: Scientific Terrestrial Services Report author: C. Hooton Report reviewer: K. Marais (Pr. Sci. Nat) Report Reference: STS 180084 Date: February 2019

Scientific Terrestrial Services CC CC Reg No 2005/122329/23 PO Box 751779 Gardenview 2047 Tel: 011 616 7893 Fax: 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected] STS 180084 February 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From the faunal assessment it can be concluded that there are four habitat units encompassed within the study area, namely Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland, Rocky Grassland, Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland and Freshwater Habitat. These habitat range from moderately-low to moderately high sensitivities Based on the impact assessment, the impacts on faunal habitat, diversity and SCC within the different habitat units varies from low to high significance during the construction and the operational phase of the project prior to mitigation taking place. With effective mitigation implemented, all impacts may be reduced to very-low to medium-low levels. It is the opinion of the ecologists that this study provides the relevant information required in order to implement an Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) plan 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.

Scientific Terrestrial Services (STS) was appointed to conduct a faunal and floral ecological assessment for the proposed Erasmus Park development on the remaining extent of the farm Waterkloof 378 JR, Erasmusrand, Gauteng Province (hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’).

Specific outcomes required from this report include the following:  To provide inventories of faunal species as encountered within the study area;  To determine and describe habitat types, communities and the ecological state of the study area and to rank each habitat type based on conservation importance and ecological sensitivity;  To identify and consider all sensitive landscapes including rocky ridges, primary grasslands, wetlands and/ or any other special features;  To conduct a Red Data Listed (RDL) species assessment as well as an assessment of other Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), including potential for such species to occur within the study area;  To provide detailed information to guide the activities associated with the proposed development activities associated within the study area; and  To ensure the ongoing functioning of the ecosystem in such a way as to support local and regional conservation requirements and the provision of ecological services in the local area.

In order to achieve the objectives of the report, the following assessment procedure/methodology was used:  A desktop study to gain background information on the physical habitat, as well as generating potential faunal biodiversity lists for the focus area and surrounding region;  Digital satellite imagery were consulted prior to the field assessment to guide priority areas for ground truthing;  Previous studies undertaken were reviewed;  The site visit was initiated by means of a visual, on-site assessment of the study area;  A field assessment that identified the dominant faunal species that occur within the study area;  A description of the sensitivity of the project footprint;  Data analyses and reporting of all findings; and  An impact statement was provided.

The following general summary is presented of the literature review and desktop analysis:  According to the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (2011) the study area is located in the Critically Endangered Witwatersberg Pretoria Mountain Bushveld Ecosystem;  The National Biodiversity Assessment (2011) database indicates that the area in which the study area is located is currently poorly protected;

ii STS 180084 February 2019

 According to the South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD Q4, 2018) and the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES,2009) the Rietvlei Nature Reserve (NR) is situated ±3.7 km southeast of the study area, while the Groenkloof NR is located ± 3.1 km to the northwest. NPAES (2009) also indicate the Moreleta Kloof Municipal NR ± 2.6 km east of the study Area; and  According to the Gauteng Conservation Plan (C-Plan V3.3, 2011), The majority of the study area, with the exception of a few scattered patches is classified as a CBA, considered important in terms of “Red” and “Orange” listed plant habitat and for Primary Vegetation.

The following general conclusions were drawn upon completion of the field assessment:  Four habitat units were identified during the field assessment, Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland, Rocky Grassland, Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland and Freshwater Habitat;  The Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland habitat unit is the dominant vegetation type within the study area. Although degraded by uncontrolled burning and anthropogenic activities, is still considered important for faunal species in the region, providing habitat and food resources, whilst ensuring habitat connectivity between the other habitat units;  The Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland is locate in two areas of the study area. This habitat unit provides important areas for avifauna to build nests and roost, whilst providing small mammals and reptiles important areas of refuge;  The Rocky Grassland has been degraded as a result of surrounding construction activities and is not considered highly important to faunal species, providing limited food resources and areas of refuge. Along the border of the Rocky Grassland and Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland small reptiles, Trachylepis punctatissima (Montane Speckled Skink) and Pachydactylus capensis (Cape Gecko), were observed under some rocks. Such species were not observed under any other rocks and structures in the remaining Rocky Grassland habitat;  The Freshwater habitats were noted to have an increased level of vegetation coverage as a result of increased soil moisture content. Additionally, these habitats had the highest diversity and abundance of faunal species. These habitats provide the highest levels of food and water resources to faunal classes and as such are of increased importance, the loss of which will result in a significant impact to faunal species in the study area;  Although no faunal SCC was observed during the field assessment, it is considered possible that the following species may occur in the study area, namely Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog), Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole) and Homoroselaps dorsalis (Striped Harlequin Snake); and  Overall the study area comprises of varying levels of habitat sensitivities (moderately-low, intermediate and moderately high). The proposed development activities will have varying degrees of impact on faunal species and habitat.

iii STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Impact Assessment: The tables below summarise the findings indicating the significance of the impact before mitigation takes place and the likely impact if management and mitigation takes place. In the consideration of mitigation, it is assumed that a high level of mitigation takes place, but which does not lead to prohibitive costs.

A summary of the results obtained from the impact assessment for the study area. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Unmanaged Managed Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-low Low Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-high Medium-low Rocky Grassland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-low Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Low Low Freshwater Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Very-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-low Low OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Unmanaged Managed Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-low Low Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-high Medium-low Rocky Grassland Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-low Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Low Low Freshwater Habitat 1.1: Impact on Habitat Integrity and Species Diversity for Faunal Species Medium-high Medium-low 1.2: Impact on Faunal Species of Conservation Concern Medium-low Low

iv STS 180084 February 2019

SENSITIVITY From an ecological perspective, habitat sensitivity is considered to range from moderately-low to moderately-high levels. The table below indicates the sensitivity of the habitat units along with an associated conservation objective and implications for development.

Table 1A. A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for development. Habitat Unit Sensitivity Conservation Objective Development Implications Preserve and enhance Development in these habitat units should be biodiversity of the habitat planned with the aim of creating natural open space Degraded Grassland unit and surrounds while areas so as to provide habitat for faunal species optimising development whilst optimising development potential. Intermediate Senegalia caffra – potential. Additionally, the development footprint should be Vachellia karroo kept as small as possible whilst care must be taken to limit edge effects on the surrounding natural areas, notably that of the freshwater habitat. Optimise development Activities in this habitat unit are unlikely to potential while improving significantly impact on faunal species within the Moderately biodiversity integrity of study area. Care must be taken to limit edge effects Rocky Grassland Low surrounding natural on the surrounding natural areas. habitat and managing edge effects. Preserve and enhance the Any disturbance of sensitive faunal habitat must be biodiversity of the habitat actively avoided. In this regard, maintaining unit, limit development migratory corridors and connectivity along the and disturbance. freshwater system is deemed essential. It is important that the terrestrial connectivity between the freshwater habitats is maintained, notably between the artificial depression and watercourse Moderately with riparian woodland. Freshwater Habitats High If development will take place within close proximity of this habitat unit, care must be taken to prevent any negative impacts on vegetation and as such edge effects on this, and surrounding habitats, should be limited. Moreover, all mitigation measure must be correctly implemented as set out within this report. Preserve and enhance Although considered to be of intermediate biodiversity of the habitat sensitivity and artificially created, the artificial unit and surrounds while depression does provide habitat and food optimising development resources to several faunal species. It is potential. recommended that if possible, no development Artificial Depression Intermediate occurs in this habitat unit and that a linkage corridor between this habitat unit and the water course is maintained in order to ensure habitat connectivity.

It is the opinion of the ecologists that this study provides the relevant information required in order to implement an Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) plan 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.

v STS 180084 February 2019

DOCUMENT GUIDE

The Document Guide below is for reference to the procedural requirements for environmental authorisation applications in accordance to GN267 of 24 March 2017, as it pertains to NEMA.

No. Requirement Section in report a) Details of - (i) The specialist who prepared the report Section A: Appendix D (ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Section A: Appendix D b) A declaration that the specialist is independent Section A: Appendix D c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1 cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report Section A cB) A description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed Section 5 development and levels of acceptable change d) The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to Section 2.1 the outcome of the assessment e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the Appendix A and B specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used f) Details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the Section 3 and 4 proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Section 4 h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated structure and infrastructure on Section 4 the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers i) A description of any assumption made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge Section 1.2 j) A description the findings and potential implication\s of such findings on the impact of the Section 5 proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment or activities k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 5 l) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation Section 5 m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation Section 5 n) A reasoned opinion - (i) As to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised Section 5 (iA) Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities Section 5 (ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be Section 5 authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in 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 of 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 STS 180084 February 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 2

Sensitivity Mapping ...... 3

Faunal Habitat ...... 3 Mammals...... 7 Avifauna ...... 9 Amphibians ...... 11 Reptiles ...... 13 Insects ...... 15 Arachnids ...... 17 Faunal Species of Conservational Concern Assessment ...... 19

Assessment Summary...... 25 Integrated Impact Mitigation ...... 26

vii STS 180084 February 2019

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Field assessment results pertaining to mammal species within the study area...... 7 Table 2: Field assessment results pertaining to avifaunal species within the study area...... 9 Table 3: Field assessment results pertaining to amphibian species within the study area...... 11 Table 4: Field assessment results pertaining to reptile species within the study area...... 13 Table 5: Field assessment results pertaining to insect species within the study area...... 15 Table 6: Field assessment results pertaining to arachnid species within the study area...... 17 Table 7: A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for the proposed development...... 20 Table 8: Aspects and Activities register considering faunal resources ...... 24 Table 9: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the construction phase...... 25 Table 10: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the operational phase...... 25 Table 11: A summary of the mitigatory requirements for faunal resources...... 26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area ...... 4 Figure 2: Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area ...... 4 Figure 3: Rocky Grassland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area...... 5 Figure 4: Freshwater Habitat Unit encountered within the study area...... 5 Figure 5: Habitat units encountered within the study area...... 6 Figure 6: Sensitivity map for the study area...... 21

viii STS 180084 February 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 (Critical Biodiversity Area) includes valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, untransformed vegetation and ridges. ESA An ESA provides connectivity and important ecological processes between CBAs and is (Ecological Support Area) therefore important in terms of habitat conservation. The IBA Programme identifies and works to conserve a network of sites critical for the IBA (Important Bird and long-term survival of bird species that: are globally threatened, have a restricted range, Biodiversity Area) are restricted to specific biomes/vegetation types or sites that have significant populations. 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.

ACRONYMS

Ad mon Additional Monitoring EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity EN Endangered GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System IBA Important Bird Area IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LC Least Concern NT Near Threatened NYBA Not yet been assessed PES Present Ecological State POC Probability of Occurrence QDS Quarter Degree Squares SABAP Southern African Bird Atlas SCC Species of Conservation Concern STS Scientific Terrestrial Services VU Vulnerable

ix STS 180084 February 2019

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Scientific Terrestrial Services (STS) was appointed to conduct a faunal and floral ecological assessment for the proposed Erasmus Park development on the remaining extent of the farm Waterkloof 378 JR, Erasmusrand, Gauteng Province (hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’).

The study area is situated approximately 9.5 km southeast of the Pretoria CBD and approximately 5 km due north of the Irene Farm Village Shopping Centre. The N1 National Highway forms the eastern boundary of the study area, the M10 forms the northern boundary, while the Albertina Sisulu (R21) Freeway is situated approximately 200m West of the study area. The study area is situated within a high residential urban setting.

The purpose of this report is to define the faunal ecology of the study area as well as mapping and defining areas of increased Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) and to define the Present Ecological State (PES) of the study area. The objective of this study:

 To provide inventories of faunal species as encountered within the study area;  To determine and describe habitat types, communities and the ecological state of the study area and to rank each habitat type based on conservation importance and ecological sensitivity;  To identify and consider all sensitive landscapes including rocky ridges, wetlands and/ or any other special features;  To conduct a Red Data Listed (RDL) species assessment as well as an assessment of other Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), including potential for such species to occur within the study area;  To provide detailed information to guide the activities associated with the proposed development activities associated within the study area; and  To ensure the ongoing functioning of the ecosystem in such a way as to support local and regional conservation requirements and the provision of ecological services in the local area.

1 STS 180084 February 2019

1.2 Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this report:  The faunal assessment is confined to the study area and does not include the neighboring and adjacent properties; these were however considered as part of the desktop assessment;  With ecology being dynamic and complex, some aspects (some of which may be important) may have been overlooked. It is, however, expected that most faunal communities have been accurately assessed and considered and therefore the information provided in this report is considered sufficient to allow informed decision making to take place and facilitate integrated environmental management;  Due to the nature and habits of most faunal taxa, the high level of surrounding anthropogenic activities, it is unlikely that all species would have been observed during a 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 therefore have been missed during the assessment; and  As part of the assessment, a field assessment was undertaken on the 14th of January 2019, to determine the ecological status of the study area, and to “ground-truth” the results of the desktop assessment. A more accurate assessment would require that assessments take place in all seasons of the year. However, on-site data was significantly augmented with all available desktop data and specialist experience in the area, and the findings of this assessment are considered to be an accurate reflection of the ecological characteristics of the study area.

ASSESSMENT APPROACH

The results presented in this report form part of the field investigation undertaken on the 14th of January 2019. The field investigation initially entailed a reconnaissance ‘walkabout’ to determine the general habitat types found throughout the study area. Following this, specific study sites were selected that were considered to be representative of the habitats found within the area, with special emphasis being placed on areas that may potentially support faunal SCC. These sites were further investigated on foot in order to identify the occurrence of fauna within the study area.

2 STS 180084 February 2019

A detailed explanation of the method of assessment is provided in Appendix A of this report. For the methodologies relating to the impact assessment and development of the mitigation measure, please refer to Appendix B of this section of the report.

The faunal categories covered in this assessment are mammals, avifauna, reptiles, amphibians, general insects and arachnids.

Sensitivity Mapping

All the ecological features associated with the study area were considered, and sensitive areas were assessed. In addition, identified locations of protected species were marked by means of Global Positioning System (GPS). A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to project these features onto satellite imagery and/or topographic maps. The sensitivity map should guide the final design and layout of the proposed development activities.

FAUNAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Faunal Habitat

During the field assessment, four habitat units were identified within the study area, i.e. the Vachellia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland, Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland, Freshwater Habitat and Rocky Grassland. For a more detailed description and discussion of these habitat units see Section B (Floral Report).

The study area is listed as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) and is considered important for the survival of threatened species and includes valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, untransformed vegetation and ridges (GDARD, 2014a). According to the GDARD C-plan CBAs include natural or near-natural terrestrial and aquatic features that were selected based on an area's biodiversity characteristics, spatial configuration and requirement for meeting both biodiversity pattern and ecological process targets. CBAs include irreplaceable sites where no other options exist for meeting targets for biodiversity features, as well as best- design sites which represent an efficient configuration of sites to meet targets in an ecologically sustainable way that is least conflicting with other land uses and activities. These areas need be maintained in the appropriate condition for their category. Some CBAs are degraded or irreversibly modified but are still required for achieving specific targets, such as cultivated lands for threatened species.

3 STS 180084 February 2019

Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland This habitat unit comprises pockets of Senegalia caffra and Vachellia karroo dominated woodlands within the study area, forming a mixed open woodland structure (Figure 1). These woodland areas provide habitat for several insect, small mammal and avifaunal species. Faunal species are likely to utilise this habitat unit as an area of refuge and for breeding. Several footpaths were noted through this habitat, whilst several areas are being used as temporary accommodation sites by the vagrants.

Figure 1: Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area

Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland This habitat unit was notably utilised by a diversity of avifauna and insects. It is further considered likely that small mammals, reptiles and arachnids will also favour this habitat unit for foraging purposes. Several footpaths and disturbed areas from anthropogenic activities were noted in this habitat unit, and it appears that in some areas dumping of construction rubble and old household waste has occurred (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area

Rocky Grassland The rocky grassland observed within the study area has become degraded over time as a result of surrounding urbanisation (Figure 3). However, a number of small reptiles and invertebrates where still observed within this habitat unit. The rocky substrate and shallow soil

4 STS 180084 February 2019

makes this habitat unsuitable for burrowing faunal species, whilst the lower tuft density translates to fewer areas of refuge. However, it is likely that small mammals will forage in this habitat unit at night when the cover of darkness ensures a lower risk of detection by predators.

Figure 3: Rocky Grassland Habitat Unit encountered within the study area.

Freshwater Habitat This habitat includes two different freshwater resources that were identified in the study area:

 Watercourse with Riparian Woodland (Figure 4, right); and  Artificial Depression (Figure 4, left).

The freshwater habitat provides important niche habitats to faunal species, notably to species that are reliant on permanent waterbodies. Additionally, the freshwater habitat provides an important source of water to faunal species within the larger study area, whilst the larger trees associated with the watercourse provide suitable nesting and roosting areas for avifaunal species. Vegetation associated with freshwater resources tends to be more productive in terms of growth for a longer period, and as such these areas provide a more secure and long term habitat as well as increased levels of food resources.

Figure 4: Freshwater Habitat Unit encountered within the study area.

5 STS 180084 February 2019

Figure 5: Habitat units encountered within the study area.

6 STS 180084 February 2019

Mammals

Table 1: Field assessment results pertaining to mammal species within the study area. Faunal Class: Mammal Habitat Sensitivity Intermediate Mammal Notes on photograph: Top: Cryptomys hottentotus (Common Mole Rat) mounds were observed within the study area. Bottom: Overview of the onsite habitat. Mammal Sensitivity Graph:

7 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal No mammals listed as SCC were encountered during the field Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ assessment however the study area does fall within the known The study area is deemed to be of intermediate sensitivity for mammal species, providing habitat distribution ranges of the SCC: Atelerix frontalis (Southern African and food resources to small species tolerant of increased urban activities and edge effects. Larger Hedgehog, EN) and Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole, mammals may have once utilised the area, however it is considered unlikely that they will occur EN). On-site habitat was deemed suitable for these species, within the study area at the present time. The study area falls within the outer edge of the distribution predominantly in the southern and eastern portions of the study area range of Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole, EN) according to the IUCN. Although this were the deeper soils and suitable habitats are prevalent. species is well documented from the Bronberg region to the east of the study area, it is possible that Neamblysomus julianae is well known from the Bronberg Ridge area this species may occur within the study area although their presence remains undetected. The loss east of Pretoria, however it remains possible that individuals may still of habitat within the study area will have an impact upon the current diversity and abundance of occur in other natural areas surrounding Pretoria. As such, development mammal species, possibly resulting in a notable population decline of these species in the study plans associated with the study area must remain recognizant of this and area. As such, all mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 5 must be adhered to in order to ensure that remedial and mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 5 manage threats to mammal species, notably the SCC. are adhered to. Faunal Diversity Mole hills, most likely caused by Cryptomys hottentotus (Common Mole Rat) were observed within the study area, notably the central areas were the soil was deeper and less rocky. Additionally, scat belonging to that of Lepus saxatilis (Scrub Hare) was also observed. Due to the isolated location, high human occurrence and usage of the study area as well as the close proximity of the study area to surrounding urbanized areas, it is unlikely that medium sized mammals such as Sylvicapra grimmia (Common Duiker) will utilise or occur within the study area. Small mammals such as Rattus (Black Rat), Mus musculus (House Mouse) and Rhabdomys pumilio (Four-striped Grass Mouse) are expected to occur within the study area, as these species are well suited to and often found within such environments, notably within the urban edge. Food Availability The mammal species observed and most likely to occur within the study area are all herbivores and granivores, relying predominantly on the herbaceous layer, flowering and seed producing plant species and subterranean root structures as a source of food. The vegetation component of the study area is capable of providing for these needs and as such, is deemed to have suitable food resources to support these species.

Habitat Integrity The study area is located within the urban edge and is largely isolated in terms of connectivity to larger open space areas, with the exception of the remaining habitat to the west of the study area. Habitat connectivity occurs only with the remaining open space areas to the west which, even then are isolated as the area in its entirety (study area and open space are to the west) are surrounded by roads and urban areas. The continued movement of people through the area, harvesting of natural materials (grass and wood), dumping of garden refuse, waste materials and rubble, alien plant proliferation and the overall use of the study area in an urban context have all contributed to the degradation of the habitat integrity. Habitat Availability Habitat within the study area remains available for small mammals which are tolerant of increased urban activities and disturbances. The habitat within the study area would, provided all human incursions and activities were limited, be capable of supporting a small number of species such as Sylvicapra grimmia (Common Duiker).

8 STS 180084 February 2019

Avifauna

Table 2: Field assessment results pertaining to avifaunal species within the study area. Faunal Class: Photograph: Avifaunal Habitat Sensitivity Intermediate Avifaunal Notes on photograph: Ploceus velatus (Southern Masked Weaver). Avifaunal Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal No avifaunal listed as a SCC were encountered during the field Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ assessment, nor does SABAP2 make any reference to the occurrence The overall avifaunal habitat sensitivity for the study area is considered to be intermediate. Currently of such species that would utilise the onsite habitat. the study area provides habitat and food resources to an abundance and diversity of commonly occurring avifaunal species associated with urbanized areas. Development within the study area will lead to the loss of habitat and food resources, forcing avifaunal species into surrounding areas increasing the level of habitat and resource utilisation in the surrounding area. Mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 5 must be adhered to in order to manage threats to avifaunal species.

9 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Diversity The avifaunal diversity associated with the study area was considered to be intermediate and comprised mainly of common avifaunal species often associated with urban areas and natural open space areas in close proximity to urban areas. Species encountered during the field assessment include common avifaunal species such as Streptopelia capicola (Cape Turtle Dove), Merops apiaster (European Bee-eater) and Ploceus velatus (Southern Masked-weaver). Overall the avifaunal diversity that utilises the study area is expected to be higher than what was observed during the site assessment, as the study area is considered suitable in terms of location, food resources and habitat for various species. Food Availability The study area provides sufficient food resources for both insectivores and granivorous bird species. Seed and flower producing plants were common and were being well utilised by the avifauna on site. Additionally, the study area had an abundance of small commonly occurring insect species that provide a staple diet for many avifaunal species, as well as small rodents for predatory species.

Habitat Integrity Avifaunal species are less impacted by manmade barriers to movement such as roads and houses, as well as increased human activities in an area. However, such activities may impact upon the food resources on which avifaunal species are reliant. Currently, the levels of impact and urban pressure have resulted in a notable degradation of the habitat, leading to the current habitat integrity being noted as intermediate.

Habitat Availability The varying landscape and vegetation within the study area provides suitable habitat for a diversity of avifaunal species. The grassland habitat units provide suitable foraging and nesting for avifaunal species that select for more open habitat, whilst the dense patches of woody vegetation provide habitat for species that prefer to remain recluse, moving between the dense vegetation, seldom venturing out into the grassland areas. The riparian habitat with the taller trees provides suitable habitat for nesting and roosting, whilst also providing an important water resource to various avifaunal species.

10 STS 180084 February 2019

Amphibians

Table 3: Field assessment results pertaining to amphibian species within the study area. Faunal Class: Photograph: Amphibian Habitat Sensitivity Intermediate Amphibians Notes on Photograph: Amietia fuscigula (Cape River Frog) observed along the banks of the stream in the south of the study area. Amphibian Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal No amphibian SCC were observed during the field assessment. Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ Although Gauteng no longer lists amphibian SCC provincially, a species The amphibian habitat sensitivity within the study area is considered to be intermediate. The that remains of concern is Pyxicephalus adspersus (Giant Bull Frog, LC). regulated zones as applicable to all freshwater resources are to be adhered to which will help ensure This species is listed as declining by the International Union for that the relevant habitat for amphibian species is maintained and protected. Additionally, it is Conservation of Nature due to the continued loss of habitat, as well as recommended that the artificial depressions and the area between the artificial depression and the persecution as a result of urban expansion. The study area, notably the watercourse be excluded from development in order to maintain habitat connectivity and ensure that freshwater habitats and adjacent grasslands are likely to provide suitable habitat for species such as Pyxicephalus adspersus (Giant Bull Frog, LC) is maintained and habitat to this species, and as such, the appropriate wetland buffers protected. should be adhered to.

11 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Diversity Amietia fuscigula (Cape River Frog) was observed within the watercourse in the southern section of the study area. Additionally, species such as Pyxicephalus adspersus (Giant Bull Frog, LC), Cacosternum boettgeri (Common Caco), Tomopterna cryptotis (Tremelo Sand Frog), Schismaderma carens (Red Toad) Sclerophrys capensis (Raucous Toad) and Sclerophrys gutturalis (Guttural Toad), although not identified during the site visit, may utilise the freshwater resources within the study area. These species will predominantly be found in and around the freshwater resources of the study area, and as such these habitats must be considered of increased importance.

Food Availability Invertebrates form the primary food source of many amphibian species, whilst species such as Pyxicephalus adspersus (Giant Bull Frog, LC) are known to eat larger prey such as other frogs, reptiles and small mammals. The study area provides habitat to a number of insect species (refer to table 5 below), small mammals (refer to table 1 above) and small reptiles (refer to table 4 below) which are an integral food resource for amphibian species.

Habitat Integrity Habitat continuity is of primary importance for amphibian species, notably between streams and nearby wetland systems, as wetland systems often provide the shallow pools favoured for breeding and laying of eggs. The water course with its incised banks and fast flowing water is not optimal for such breeding purposes for many amphibian species, and as such it is likely that these species may relocate to the artificial depression in the south eastern section of the study area in order to lay their eggs. As such it is important to maintain the habitat continuity between the freshwater resources in order to maintain habitat connectivity and a movement corridors. Habitat Availability The freshwater habitat unit provides primary habitat for amphibian species, whilst the surrounding grassland habitat unit is suitable for amphibian species that are less water dependant.

12 STS 180084 February 2019

Reptiles

Table 4: Field assessment results pertaining to reptile species within the study area.

Faunal Class: Moderately Photograph: Reptile Habitat Sensitivity Reptiles high Notes on Photograph: Pachydactylus capensis (Cape Gecko) observed along the southern edge of the rocky grassland. Reptile Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal No reptile SCC were observed during the field assessment, however, the Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ reptile SCC Homoroselaps dorsalis (Striped Harlequin Snake) has an Overall the study area is considered to be of Moderately High sensitivity for reptile species. Reptile increased probability of occurring on site. This species commonly utilises species in general have shown an adept ability to survive and thrive in and amongst urban settings. old abandoned termite mounds for refuge, of which there were a number The study area, although in an urbanized area, still provides suitable habitat, food and water identified within the study area. Additionally, there are suitable food resources to ensure a stable, diverse and abundant reptile population. Reptile species were found resources to support this SCC. throughout the study area but appeared to be most prevalent in the grassland habitats, as well as within the watercourse with riparian woodland. As such, it is recommended that as far as possible portions of these areas be set aside and no development occurs within, in order to provide habitat for reptile species in the study area.

13 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Diversity A low reptile diversity was observed during the field assessment however, this is likely due to the secretive nature of many reptile species. The study area, given the habitat and food resources availability, is likely to have an intermediate reptile diversity. Species observed during the field assessment include Trachylepis punctatissima (Montane Speckled Skink) and Pachydactylus capensis (Cape Gecko). It is likely that the study area will in addition to these species be inhabited by species such as Boaedon capensis (Brown House Snake) and Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia (Herald Snake) which are well known to inhabit areas in and around urban dwellings.

Food Availability Small mammals, amphibians, other small reptiles and insects, all of which are occurring within the study area are known food resources for reptile species. As reptiles are ectothermic, they in general have a slower metabolic rate than endothermic species, leading to a lower daily food requirement. This enables them to survive particularly well in areas and seasons of low food availability.

Habitat Integrity The habitat connectivity between the various habitats within the study area ensure that the overall habitat integrity for reptile species remains moderately high. Even though anthropogenic impacts were observed within the study area, some of these activities, including the dumping of building rubble provide additional areas of refuge for small reptile species, and can be seen within a positive light from a faunal perspective.

Habitat Availability The varied habitats within the study area, from grasslands to woody areas all provide different levels of habitat for various reptile species. Many reptile species select for areas of refuge between or under rocks, or within areas of dense vegetation, venturing out when deemed safe in order to locate prey items. The study area provides all these necessary areas and as such ensures that a consistent and suitable degree of useable habitat for reptile species is available throughout.

14 STS 180084 February 2019

Insects

Table 5: Field assessment results pertaining to insect species within the study area. Moderately Photograph: Faunal Class: Insect Habitat Sensitivity High Insects Notes on Photograph: Top left to bottom right: Junonia hierta (Yellow Pansy); Trinervitermis sp (Snouted Harvester Termites); Acrotylus sp (Burrowing Grasshoppers) and Orthetrum julia (Julia Skimmer). Insect Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal No insect SCC were observed, and on review of the available databases, Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ it is considered unlikely that any insect SCC will occur within the study The insect habitat sensitivity is considered to be intermediate. The varying floral characteristics of area. the secondary grassland and freshwater habitat units provide a broad range of suitable habitat for a variety of common insect species. These species in turn are utilised as a food source by numerous other faunal species. As such, mitigation measures set out within this report must be adhered to. Any impacts within the freshwater habitat unit should be limited/minimised as far as possible.

15 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Diversity The insect diversity of the study area is considered to be moderately high due to the relatively mosaic habitats and suitable areas that can support an abundance and diversity of insect species. The varying habitats ensure that species with niche requirements, such as permanent waterbodies, as well as species less restricted to specific habitats and can inhabit and flourish, allowing for the greater diversity.

Food Availability The well-developed herbaceous and woody layers with varying plant species (please refer to Section B: Floral Assessment for further details) ensures that there is sufficient food resources available for herbivorous insect species. Additionally, smaller insects present within the study area are utilised as a food resource by other predatory insects such as Orthetrum julia (Julia Skimmer). flowering species provided ideal food resources for nectar feeders belonging to the family Lepidoptera. Habitat Integrity Habitat integrity is considered to be moderately high. This can be attributed to the level of available habitat as well as the uninterrupted connections between the various habitat units within the study area. Currently this allows for continuous and uninterrupted movement of insect species throughout the study area and surroundings whilst in search of breeding opportunities as well as food resources.

Habitat Availability The study area provides suitable habitat for an abundance and diverse array of insect species. The varying landscape ensured that a range of habitat types are afforded to insect species, ensuring continued insect diversity and abundance levels. The grasslands and freshwater resources were particularly well utilised by insect species and are considered important in terms of continued food, water and habitat provision.

16 STS 180084 February 2019

Arachnids

Table 6: Field assessment results pertaining to arachnid species within the study area. Faunal Class: Photograph: Arachnid Habitat Sensitivity Intermediate Arachnids Notes on Photograph: Photograph of the varying habitat of the study area. The woody and grass layers provide web building structures for spiders whilst the sandy soil is considered suitable for burrowing scorpions. Arachnid Sensitivity Graph:

Faunal No arachnid SCC were observed within the study area, and on review Business Case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements: SCC/Endemics/TOPS/ of the available databases, it is considered unlikely that any SCC will The arachnid habitat sensitivity is considered to be intermediate. The varying vegetation occur within the study area. characteristics provide a broad range of suitable habitat for a variety of common arachnid species. It is important that mitigation measures set out within this report are adhered to. Additionally impacts within the freshwater habitat unit should be limited/minimised as far as possible, whilst open space areas within the development maximised.

17 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Diversity Very few arachnid species were observed during the site assessment, however arachnid species are known to be reclusive and seek cover when feeling threatened. Due to the relative availability of habitat and food resources it is considered probable that the overall arachnid diversity of the study area will be intermediate. The grassland provides ideal habitat for specie such as Olurunia ocellate (Grass Funnel-web Spider). Food Availability The abundance of insects, other invertebrates and small reptiles within the study area provide suitable food resources for arachnid species.

Habitat Integrity Overall the habitat integrity for arachnids is considered to be intermediate. Notable disturbances to the receiving environment have occurred, however arachnid species are capable of adapting to these environments. At present there is still suitable connectivity between the various habitat units, ensuring that arachnids, notably the more mobile species, can move throughout the study area in search of prey items and breeding opportunities. Habitat Availability Intact bush clumps, tall patches of grassland interspersed with small to medium shrubs, riparian areas and rocky areas provide a variance of habitat suitability for arachnid species.

18 STS 180084 February 2019

Faunal Species of Conservational 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 C whose known distribution ranges and habitat preferences include the study area were taken into consideration.

None of the SCC listed in Appendix C were observed within the study area and immediate surroundings. However, taking into consideration the available habitat and resources attributed to the study area, it can be concluded that the following species have an increased probability of occurring within/utilising the study area:

 Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog);  Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole); and  Homoroselaps dorsalis (Striped Harlequin Snake).

Of the above listed species Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog) is the most likely to occur within the study area. This species is most likely to occur within the degraded grassland, Vachellia woodlands and in close association with the freshwater habitat. These areas provide ideal foraging grounds as well as suitable soil substrates in which this species can burrow. The remaining two SCC are known to be inconspicuous and hard to observe through limited field assessments. However, as the study area is considered to have suitable habitat for these species and falls within their know distribution ranges cognizance of their possible occurrence must be taken. Should any of these species or those listed in Appendix C be observed or encountered during development activities in the study area, all operations must be stopped immediately, and a biodiversity specialist must be consulted in order to ascertain the best way forward.

SENSITIVITY MAPPING

The figures below conceptually illustrate the areas considered to be of increased faunal ecological sensitivity. The areas are depicted according to their sensitivity in terms of the presence or potential for 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 development.

19 STS 180084 February 2019

Table 7: A summary of the sensitivity of each habitat unit and implications for the proposed development. Habitat Unit Sensitivity Conservation Objective Development Implications Preserve and enhance Development in these habitat units should be biodiversity of the habitat planned with the aim of creating natural open space Degraded Grassland unit and surrounds while areas so as to provide habitat for faunal species optimising development whilst optimising development potential. Intermediate Senegalia caffra – potential. Additionally, the development footprint should be Vachellia karroo kept as small as possible whilst care must be taken to limit edge effects on the surrounding natural areas, notably that of the freshwater habitat. Optimise development Activities in this habitat unit are unlikely to potential while improving significantly impact on faunal species within the Moderately biodiversity integrity of study area. Care must be taken to limit edge effects Rocky Grassland Low surrounding natural on the surrounding natural areas. habitat and managing edge effects. Preserve and enhance the Any disturbance of sensitive faunal habitat must be biodiversity of the habitat actively avoided. In this regard, maintaining unit, limit development migratory corridors and connectivity along the and disturbance. freshwater system is deemed essential. It is important that the terrestrial connectivity between the freshwater habitats is maintained, notably between the artificial depression and watercourse Moderately with riparian woodland. Freshwater Habitats High If development will take place within close proximity of this habitat unit, care must be taken to prevent any negative impacts on vegetation and as such edge effects on this, and surrounding habitats, should be limited. Moreover, all mitigation measure must be correctly implemented as set out within this report. Preserve and enhance Although considered to be of intermediate biodiversity of the habitat sensitivity and artificially created, the artificial unit and surrounds while depression does provide habitat and food optimising development resources to several faunal species. It is potential. recommended that if possible, no development Artificial Depression Intermediate occurs in this habitat unit and that a linkage corridor between this habitat unit and the water course is maintained in order to ensure habitat connectivity.

20 STS 180084 February 2019

Figure 6: Sensitivity map for the study area.

21 STS 180084 February 2019

FAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The development within the study area will result in a significant loss of habitat, with only small portions being set aside as open space areas which are likely to be landscaped and not mimic the natural habitat. As such, the proposed open space areas as part of the development, although providing habitat to faunal species, will unlikely be able to support the same diversity as that of natural veld. Additionally, the majority of the study area is listed as a CBA, which is considered important for the survival of threatened species and includes valuable ecosystems such as wetlands, untransformed vegetation and ridges.

Impact on Faunal Diversity and Habitat The study area provides a mosaic of habitat tfor faunal species. The proposed development will result in significant clearing of vegetation, leading to a loss of habitat and faunal species diversity. The proposed development is located within a CBA as well as a portion of the Critically Endangered Witwatersberg Pretoria Mountain Bushveld Ecosystem (National Threatened Ecosystems (2011)). Current design plans make allowance for open space areas, which will to a small degree provide habitat to common faunal species able to adapt to urbanized landscapes, however, is unlikely to mimic that which has been lost. Failure to implement mitigation measures will result in the total loss of faunal habitat from the study area, which will have a detrimental impact on overall faunal species diversity.

Impact on Faunal SCC Three faunal SCC have an increased likelihood of occurring within the study area, given the location and available habitat. As such, construction activities and vegetation clearance may result in the loss of faunal SCC from the study area as well as the surrounding habitats which are impacted by edge effects. Species that may be impacted upon as a result of the development include:

 Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog);  Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole); and  Homoroselaps dorsalis (Striped Harlequin Snake).

Probable Latent Impacts Even with extensive mitigation, significant latent impacts on the receiving faunal ecological environment will be unavoidable. The following points highlight the key latent impacts that have been identified:  Loss of faunal habitat;  Loss of faunal habitat diversity;

22 STS 180084 February 2019

 Loss of and altered faunal species diversity; and  Possible loss of faunal SCC and suitable habitat;

Cumulative Impacts The proposed development will result in extensive habitat loss within the study area. This will lead to the displacement of faunal species currently inhabiting these areas, pushing them into the remaining vegetated areas along the watercourse. This will result to an increased abundance of species within the remaining habitats, leading to increased competition for territories, breeding sites and food resources. There will likely be an increase of mortality rates, resulting in a decreased species abundance and possible further loss of species diversity.

The following table indicates the perceived risks to faunal species associated with the activities pertaining to the proposed development.

23 STS 180084 February 2019

Table 8: Aspects and Activities register considering faunal resources

Pre-Construction Construction Operational

Potential ineffective rehabilitation post Potential poor planning leading to General clearing of vegetation leading construction leading to proliferation of excessive or unnecessary clearing to loss of habitat, faunal species and alien plant species in the disturbed of vegetation possible faunal SCC areas

Excavation of soils leading to Potential erosion stemming from bare Placement of infrastructure in niche increased runoff and sedimentation soil areas leading to sedimentation of and sensitive habitat freshwater habitat freshwater habitat

Site clearing and the removal of Potential hunting/trapping/killing of habitat within the freshwater habitat faunal species by people on site and associated buffer zones

Runoff/disposal of concrete and construction materials into the Footprint creep resulting in additional surrounding habitat leading to surface faunal habitat loss hardening and limiting recruitment of new vegetation

Vegetation clearance and construction activities could lead to disturbance and compaction of soils in close

proximity of the freshwater habitat and outside of the footprint area, leading to decreased faunal habitat

Collision of faunal species with

construction vehicles

Potential hunting/trapping/killing of faunal species by construction personnel

Dumping of material outside designated areas leading to loss of terrestrial habitat. This, in turn, leading to alien species colonising open and disturbed patches

24 STS 180084 February 2019

Assessment Summary

The tables below serve to summarise the findings of the impact study undertaken with reference to the perceived impacts stemming from the proposed development plans as found in Appendix E. 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, and that all freshwater system floodlines and zones of regulation are excluded from the proposed development activities. Should such actions not be adhered to, it is highly likely that post mitigation impact scores will increase.

The following tables represent the findings of the impact assessment pertaining to the proposed development within the study area.

Table 9: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the construction phase Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Vachellia Woodland Impact on faunal SCC Medium Low Low Degraded Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Hyparrhenia Impact on faunal SCC Medium High Medium Low Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium Low Medium Low Rocky Grassland Impact on faunal SCC Low Low Freshwater Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Medium Low Low

Table 10: A summary of the impact significance on faunal resources in the operational phase Site Impact Unmanaged Mitigated Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Vachellia Woodland Impact on faunal SCC Medium Low Low Degraded Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Hyparrhenia Impact on faunal SCC Medium High Medium Low Grassland Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium Low Medium Low Rocky Grassland Impact on faunal SCC Low Low Freshwater Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity Medium High Medium Low Habitat Impact on faunal SCC Medium Low Low

25 STS 180084 February 2019

Integrated Impact Mitigation

The table below highlights the key integrated mitigation measures that are applicable to all the proposed development order to suitably manage and mitigate the ecological impacts that are associated with the construction and operation phases. Provided that all the management and mitigation measures as stipulated in this report are implemented the overall risk to faunal diversity, habitat and faunal SCC can be reduced.

Table 11: A summary of the mitigatory requirements for faunal resources. Project phase Construction Phase Impact Loss of faunal habitat, species and faunal SCC Summary Proposed mitigation and management measures: - The optimised footprint of the proposed development must be fenced/ demarcated off to prevent vegetation clearing and footprint creep into the sensitive freshwater habitat; - No new access roads should be constructed crossing over the freshwater habitat; - Vegetation clearance and commencement of construction activities should either be scheduled to coincide with low rainfall conditions when erosive stormwater is anticipated to be limited or alternatively stormwater controls must be established at the start of construction and dust suppression implemented; - Revegetation of disturbed areas that form part of the proposed open space areas should be carried out in order to restore habitat availability and minimise soil erosion and surface water runoff; - When rehabilitating disturbed areas, it is recommended that natural indigenous vegetation be used so that faunal species that were displaced by vegetation clearing activities are able to utilise and inhabit these areas; - Removal/ cutting down of large indigenous trees (>2.5m) within the riparian areas should be avoided as these are considered important for avifauna, and cannot be readily replaced through rehabilitation; Management - Spills and /or leaks from construction equipment must be immediately remedied and cleaned up Measures so as to ensure that these chemicals do not enter into the soil later or freshwater habitat; - Each construction team/site should have an individual that has undergone a snake handling course so as to safely catch and release any snakes within the site; - Construction personnel are to be informed and educated with about general faunal species that may be encountered on site, notably of snakes. Personnel are to be instructed that if encountered they are not to kill the faunal species but let them either move off on their own or call the nominated construction personnel who is to safely catch and release the snake; - No hunting/trapping or collecting of faunal species is allowed; - Should any faunal SCC be encountered/observed during construction activities in that area are to be halted and a biodiversity specialist consulted to determine the best way forward; - Construction edge effects, notably stormwater runoff, are to be actively managed so as to ensure that the downslope freshwater habitat is not impacted upon. As such, SuDs should be utilized as part of the development to recreate additional freshwater habitat that could be colonized by aquatic faunal species; - No informal fires by construction personnel are allowed; and - Initiate an alien and invasive plant control plant.

Project phase Operational Phase Impact Loss of faunal habitat, species and faunal SCC Summary Proposed mitigation and management measures: - All sensitive habitat excluded from the development, should remain demarcated for the life of the operation, and no entry of unauthorised personnel should be allowed; - Open space areas are to b suitably planned and maintained with faunal species in mind. As such habitat for faunal species should be recreated using fallen tree stumps and rocks combined with Management indigenous vegetation. All plants used should be carefully selected so as to provide a suitable food Measures resource to faunal species; - No hunting/trapping or collecting of faunal species is allowed; - No informal fires by construction personnel are allowed; - Monitor the success of rehabilitation efforts seasonally; and - Continue with and update the alien and invasive plant control plan accordingly.

26 STS 180084 February 2019

CONCLUSION

Scientific Terrestrial Services (STS) was appointed to conduct a faunal and floral ecological assessment for the proposed Erasmus Park development on the remaining extent of the farm Waterkloof 378 JR, Erasmusrand, Gauteng Province.

Four habitat units were identified during the field assessment, Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland, Rocky Grassland, Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland and Freshwater Habitat.  The Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland habitat unit is the dominant vegetation type within the study area. Although degraded as a result of uncontrolled burning and anthropogenic activities, it is still considered important for faunal species in the region, providing habitat and food resources, whilst ensuring habitat connectivity between the other habitat units;  The Senegalia caffra – Vachellia karroo Woodland is locate in two areas of the study area. This habitat unit provides important areas for avifauna to build nests and roost, whilst providing small mammals and reptiles important areas of refuge;  The Rocky Grassland has been degraded as a result of surrounding anthropogenic activities and is not considered highly important to faunal species, providing limited food resources, although it is noted to provide suitable refuge areas for reptile and arachnid species. . Along the border of the Rocky Grassland and Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland small reptiles, Trachylepsis punctatissima (Montane Speckled Skink) and Pachydactylus capensis (Cape Gecko), were observed under some rocks. Such species were not observed under any other rocks and structures in the remaining Rocky Grassland habitat;  The Freshwater habitat was noted to have an increased level of vegetation coverage as a result of increased soil moisture content. Additionally, this habitat unit had the highest diversity and abundance of faunal species, providing the highest levels of food and water resources to faunal classes and is therefore considered of increased importance. The loss of this habitat unit will result in a significant impact to faunal species in the study area;  Although no faunal SCC was observed during the field assessment, it is considered possible that the following species may occur in the study area, namely Atelerix frontalis (Southern African Hedgehog), Neamblysomus julianae (Juliana’s Golden Mole) and Homoroselaps dorsalis (Striped Harlequin Snake).

27 STS 180084 February 2019

It is the opinion of the ecologists that this study provides the relevant information required in order to implement an Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) plan 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.

28 STS 180084 February 2019

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. 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 Carruthers, V. 2001. Frogs and frogging in Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Endangered Wildlife Trust (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A conservation Assessment. Henning, G.A & Henning, S.F. 1989*. South African Red Data Book of Butterflies. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 158 IUCN Red Data Book Third edition, part 1. Cambridge, U.K.: International Council for Bird Preservation, and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resource. Online available: http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/red-list-overview 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 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. Picker. M., Griffiths. C. & Weaving. A. 2004. New Edition. Field Guide to Insects of South Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA 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/. Walker, C. 1988. Fourth Edition. Signs of the Wild. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA Woodhall, S. 2005. Field Guide to Butterflies of South Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, RSA

29 STS 180084 February 2019

APPENDIX A: Faunal Method of Assessment

It is important to note that due to the nature and habits of fauna, varied stages of life cycles, seasonal and temporal fluctuations along with other external factors, it is unlikely that all faunal species will have been recorded during the site assessment. The presence of human habitation nearby the study area and the associated anthropogenic activities may have an impact on faunal behaviour and in turn the rate of observations. In order to increase overall observation time within the study area, as well as increasing the likelihood of observing shy and hesitant species, camera traps were strategically placed within the study area. Sherman traps were also used to increase the likelihood of capturing and observing small mammal species, notably small nocturnal mammals. Mammals Small mammals are unlikely to be directly observed in the field because of their nocturnal/crepuscular and cryptic nature. A simple and effective solution to this problem is to use Sherman traps. A Sherman trap is a small aluminium box with a spring-loaded door (Figure A1). Once the animal is inside the trap, it steps on a small plate that causes the door to snap shut, thereby capturing the individual. In the event of capturing a small mammal during the night, the animal would be photographed and then set free unharmed early the following morning. Traps were baited with a universal mixture of oats, peanut butter, and fish paste.

Figure A1: Sherman trap and bait used to capture and identify small mammal species.

Medium to large mammal species were recorded during the field assessment with the use of visual identification, spoor, call and dung. Specific attention was given to mammal SCC listed on a regional and national level, as well as those identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Avifauna

The Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 database (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/) was compared with the recent field survey of avifaunal species identified on the study area. Field surveys were undertaken utilising a pair of Bushnell 10x50 binoculars and bird call identification techniques were utilised during the assessment in order to accurately identify avifaunal species. Specific attention was given to avifaunal SCC listed on a regional and national level, as well as those identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Reptiles

Reptiles were identified during the field survey. Suitable applicable habitat areas (rocky outcrops and fallen dead trees) were inspected and all reptiles encountered were identified. The data gathered during the assessment along with the habitat analysis provided an accurate indication of which reptile species are likely to occur on the study area. Specific attention was given to reptile SCC listed on a regional and national level, as well as those identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

30 STS 180084 February 2019

Amphibians

Identifying amphibian species is done by the use of direct visual identification along with call identification technique. Amphibian species flourish in and around wetland, riparian and moist grassland areas. It is unlikely that all amphibian species will have been recorded during the site assessment, due to their cryptic nature and habits, varied stages of life cycles and seasonal and temporal fluctuations within the environment. The data gathered during the assessment along with the habitat analysis provided an accurate indication of which amphibian species are likely to occur within the study area as well as the surrounding area. Specific attention was given to amphibian SCC listed on a regional and national level, as well as those identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Invertebrates

Whilst conducting transects through the study area, all insect species visually observed were identified, and where possible photographs taken. Furthermore, at suitable and open sites within the study area sweep netting was conducted, and all the insects captured identified. Due to the terrain, and shallow/ rocky soil structure pitfall traps were not utilised during the site assessment. It must be noted however that due to the cryptic nature and habits of insects, varied stages of life cycles and seasonal and temporal fluctuations within the environment, it is unlikely that all insect species will have been recorded during the site assessment period. Nevertheless, the data gathered during the assessment along with the habitat analysis provided an accurate indication of which species are likely to occur in the study area at the time of survey. Specific attention was given to insect SCC listed on a regional and national level, as well as those identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Arachnids

Suitable applicable habitat areas (rocky outcrops, sandy areas and fallen dead trees) where spiders and scorpions are likely to reside were searched. Rocks were overturned and inspected for signs of these species. Specific attention was paid to searching for Mygalomorphae arachnids (Trapdoor and Baboon spiders) as well as potential SCC scorpions within 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

31 STS 180084 February 2019

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 1 2 3 4 5 Distribution/Range Not Recorded Historically Recorded Recently 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;  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 contribute 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 utilization of the study area in relation to each faunal class. The different classes and land-use objectives are presented in the table below: Table A1: 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 biodiversity of the habitat unit 3> and <4 Intermediate 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.

32 STS 180084 February 2019

APPENDIX B: 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. 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

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.

33 STS 180084 February 2019

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 B1: Criteria for assessing 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 100mLocal area/ within 1 km of the site boundary / < 5000ha impacted / Linear developments affected < 3 1000mRegional 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 2 One year to five years 3 Life of operation or less than 20 years 4 Permanent 5

34 STS 180084 February 2019

Table B2: 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 B3: 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 101- proposed projects High Maintain current management 125 Improve current management of existing projects significantly 76- Consider the viability of proposed projects Medium-high Maintain current management 100 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 develops 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.

35 STS 180084 February 2019

Mitigation measure development

According to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) et al., (2013) “Rich biodiversity underpins the diverse ecosystems that deliver ecosystem services that are of benefit to people, including the provision of basic services and goods such as clean air, water, food, medicine and fibre; as well as more complex services that regulate and mitigate our climate, protect people and other life forms from natural disaster and provide people with a rich heritage of nature-based cultural traditions. Intact ecological infrastructure contributes significant savings through, for example, the regulation of natural hazards such as storm surges and flooding by which is attenuated by wetlands”. According to the DEA et al., (2013) Ecosystem services can be divided into 4 main categories:  Provisioning services are the harvestable goods or products obtained from ecosystems such as food, timber, fibre, medicine, and fresh water;  Cultural services are the non-material benefits such as heritage landscapes and seascapes, recreation, ecotourism, spiritual values and aesthetic enjoyment;  Regulating services are the benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes, such as climate, disease, erosion, water flows, and pollination, as well as protection from natural hazards; and  Supporting services are the natural processes such as nutrient cycling, soil formation and primary production that maintain the other services.

Loss of biodiversity puts aspects of the economy, wellbeing and quality of life at risk, and reduces socio- economic options for future generations. This is of particular concern for the poor in rural areas who have limited assets and are more dependent on common property resources for their livelihoods. The importance of maintaining biodiversity and intact ecosystems for ensuring on-going provision of ecosystem services, and the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being, were detailed in a global assessment entitled the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), which established a scientific basis for the need for action to enhance management and conservation of biodiversity.

Sustainable development is enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution and laws. The need to sustain biodiversity is directly or indirectly referred to in a number of Acts, not least the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) (hereafter referred to as the Biodiversity Act), and is fundamental to the notion of sustainable development. In addition, International guidelines and commitments as well as national policies and strategies are important in creating a shared vision for sustainable development in South Africa (DEA et al., 2013).

The primary environmental objective of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) is to give effect to the environmental right contained in the South African Constitution. Furthermore, Section 37(2) of the MPRDA states that “any prospecting or mining operation must be conducted in accordance with generally accepted principles of sustainable development by integrating social, economic and environmental factors into the planning and implementation of prospecting and mining projects in order to ensure that exploitation of mineral resources serves present and future generations”.

Pressures on biodiversity are numerous and increasing. According to the DEA et al., (2013) Loss of natural habitat is the single biggest cause of biodiversity loss in South Africa and much of the world. The most severe transformation of habitat arises from the direct conversion of natural habitat for human requirements, including3:  Cultivation and grazing activities;  Rural and urban development;  Industrial and mining activities, and  Infrastructure development.

Impacts on biodiversity can largely take place in four ways (DEA et al., 2013):  Direct impacts: are impacts directly related to the project including project aspects such as site clearing, water abstraction and discharge of water from riverine resources;

3 Limpopo Province Environment Outlook. A Report on the State of the Environment, 2002. Chapter 4.

36 STS 180084 February 2019

 Indirect impacts: are impacts associated with a project that may occur within the zone of influence in a project such as surrounding terrestrial areas and downstream areas on water courses;  Induced impacts: are impacts directly attributable to the project but are expected to occur due to the activities of the project. Factors included here are urban sprawl and the development of associated industries; and  Cumulative impacts: can be defined as the sum of the impact of a project as well as the impacts from past, existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would affect the same biodiversity resources. Examples include numerous mining operations within the same drainage catchment or numerous residential developments within the same habitat for faunal or floral species.

Given the limited resources available for biodiversity management and conservation, as well as the need for development, efforts to conserve biodiversity need to be strategic, focused and supportive of sustainable development. This is a fundamental principle underpinning South Africa’s approach to the management and conservation of its biodiversity and has resulted the definition of a clear mitigation strategy for biodiversity impacts.

Mitigation’ is a broad term that covers all components of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ defined hereunder. It involves selecting and implementing measures – amongst others – to conserve biodiversity and to protect, the users of biodiversity and other affected stakeholders from potentially adverse impacts as a result of mining or any other land use. The aim is to prevent adverse impacts from occurring or, where this is unavoidable, to limit their significance to an acceptable level. Offsetting of impacts is considered to be the last option in the mitigation hierarchy for any project.

The mitigation hierarchy in general consists of the following in order of which impacts should be mitigated (DEA et al., 2013):  Avoid/prevent impact: can be done through utilising alternative sites, technology and scale of projects to prevent impacts. In some cases, if impacts are expected to be too high the “no project” option should also be considered, especially where it is expected that the lower levels of mitigation will not be adequate to limit environmental damage and eco-service provision to suitable levels;  Minimise impact: can be done through utilisation of alternatives that will ensure that impacts on biodiversity and ecoservices provision are reduced. Impact minimisation is considered an essential part of any development project;  Rehabilitate impact: is applicable to areas where impact avoidance and minimisation are unavoidable where an attempt to re-instate impacted areas and return them to conditions which are ecologically similar to the pre-project condition or an agreed post project land use, for example arable land. Rehabilitation can however not be considered as the primary mitigation tool as even with significant resources and effort rehabilitation that usually does not lead to adequate replication of the diversity and complexity of the natural system. Rehabilitation often only restores ecological function to some degree to avoid ongoing negative impacts and to minimise aesthetic damage to the setting of a project. Practical rehabilitation should consist of the following phases in best practice:  Structural rehabilitation which includes physical rehabilitation of areas by means of earthworks, potential stabilisation of areas as well as any other activities required to develop a long terms sustainable ecological structure;  Functional rehabilitation which focuses on ensuring that the ecological functionality of the ecological resources on the focus area supports the intended post closure land use. In this regard special mention is made of the need to ensure the continued functioning and integrity of wetland and riverine areas throughout and after the rehabilitation phase;  Biodiversity reinstatement which focuses on ensuring that a reasonable level of biodiversity is re-instated to a level that supports the local post closure land uses. In this regard special mention is made of re-instating vegetation to levels which will allow the natural climax vegetation community of community suitable for supporting the intended post closure land use; and  Species reinstatement which focuses on the re-introduction of any ecologically important species which may be important for socio-cultural reasons, ecosystem functioning reasons and for conservation reasons. Species re-instatement need only occur if deemed necessary.

37 STS 180084 February 2019

 Offset impact: refers to compensating for latent or unavoidable negative impacts on biodiversity. Offsetting should take place to address any impacts deemed to be unacceptable which cannot be mitigated through the other mechanisms in the mitigation hierarchy. The objective of biodiversity offsets should be to ensure no net loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity offsets can be considered to be a last resort to compensate for residual negative impacts on biodiversity.

The significance of residual impacts should be identified on a regional as well as national scale when considering biodiversity conservation initiatives. If the residual impacts lead to irreversible loss or irreplaceable biodiversity the residual impacts should be considered to be of very high significance and when residual impacts are considered to be of very high significance, offset initiatives are not considered an appropriate way to deal with the magnitude and/or significance of the biodiversity loss. In the case of residual impacts determined to have medium to high significance, an offset initiative may be investigated. If the residual biodiversity impacts are considered of low significance no biodiversity offset is required.4

In light of the above discussion 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 impacts5 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 wherever possible.

Recommendations

Recommendations were developed to address and mitigate impacts associated with the proposed development. These recommendations also 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.

4 Provincial Guideline on Biodiversity Offsets, Western Cape, 2007. 5 Mitigation measures should address both positive and negative impacts

38 STS 180084 February 2019

APPENDIX C: Faunal SCC

Table H1: RDL Mammal Species for the Gauteng Province (GDARD 2014).

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

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

IUCN Regional GDARD Scientific Name Common name Status Status Status Gyps coprotheres Cape Vulture EN EN VU Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane VU NT VU Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel LC Ad mon - Tyto capensis African Grass-Owl LC VU VU Circus ranivorus African Marsh-Harrier LC EN VU Gorsachius leuconotus White-backed Night Heron LC VU VU Eupodotis senegalensis White-bellied Korhaan LC VU VU Podica senegalensis African Finfoot LC VU VU Mirafra cheniana Melodious Lark NT End and N-end NT Sagittarius serpentarius Secretary bird VU VU NT Ciconia nigra Black Stork LC VU - Eupodotis caerulescens Blue Korhaan NT End and N-end 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 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

39 STS 180084 February 2019

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 2545_2810 and 2545_2815 within the QDS 2528CC and 2528CD respectively. http://sabap2.adu.org.za/pentad_info.php?pentad=2545_2810§ion=species http://sabap2.adu.org.za/pentad_info.php?pentad=2545_2815§ion=species

40 STS 180084 February 2019

APPENDIX D: Faunal Species List

Table D1: Mammal species recorded during the field assessment. Scientific Name Common Name Status Cryptomys hottentotus Common Mole Rat LC Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare LC LC – Least Concern Table D2: Avifaunal species recorded during the field assessment.

Scientific name Common name Status

Upupa africana African Hoopoe LC Merops apiaster European Bee-eater LC Threskiornis aethiopicus African Sacred Ibis LC Streptopelia semitorquata Red Eyed Dove LC Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing LC Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing LC Macronyx capensis Cape Longclaw LC Passer melanurus Cape Sparrow LC Streptopelia capicola Cape Turtle Dove LC Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail LC Lanius collaris Common Fiscal LC Acridotheres tristis Common Myna LC Laniarius ferrugineus Southern Boubou LC Pycnonotus tricolor Dark-capped Bulbul LC Ardea cinerea Grey Heron LC Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda Ibis LC Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl LC Passer domesticus House Sparrow LC Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove LC Corythaixoides concolor Grey Go-away-bird LC Euplectes albonotatus White-winged Widow LC Euplectes ardens Red-coloured Widow LC Turdus smithi Karoo Thrush LC Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky LC Corvus albus Pied Crow LC Ploceus velatus Southern Masked Weaver LC Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop LC LC = Least Concern, N-End Near-endemic Table D3: Reptile species recorded during the field assessment.

Scientific name Common Name Status Trachylepis punctatissima Montane Striped Skink LC Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko LC LC = Least Concern, NYBA = Not Yet Been Assessed

41 STS 180084 February 2019

Table D4: General invertebrate recorded during the field assessment.

Scientific Name Common Name Status Eurema brigitta Broad-bordered Grass Yellow NYBA Belenois aurota Brown-veined White NYBA Junonia hierta Yellow Pansy LC Musca domestica House Fly NYBA Catantops humeralis N/A NYBA Orthoctha dasycnemis N/A NYBA Danaus chrysippus African Monarch LC Odaleus sp. N/A NYBA Rhachitopis sp. N/A NYBA Anterhynchium natalense N/A NYBA Anoplolepis custodiens Pugnacious Ant NYBA Acrotylus sp Burrowing Grasshoppers NYBA Utetheisa pulchella Crimson-speckled Footman NYBA Orthetrum julia Julia Skimmer LC Exoprosopa sp N/A NYBA Lycus melanurus Hook-winged Net-winged Beetle NYBA Gryllus bimaculatus Common Garden Cricket NYBA Cheilomenes lunata Lunate Ladybird NYBA Apis mellifera Honey Bee DD Trinervitermis sp Snouted Harvester Termites NYBA Spilostethus pandurus Milkweed Bug NYBA LC = Least Concern, NYBA = Not yet been assessed by the IUCN, DD = Data Deficient

Table D5: Arachnid species recorded during the site assessment.

Common Name Scientific Name Status Thomisus onustus Crab Spider NYBA Olurunia ocellata Grass Funnel-web Spider NYBA LC = Least Concern, NYBA = Not Yet Been Assessed

Table D6: Amphibian species recorded during the site assessment.

Common Name Scientific Name Status Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC LC = Least Concern, NYBA = Not Yet Been Assessed

42 STS 180084 February 2019

APPENDIX E: Faunal Impact Assessment Tables E1. Impact assessment pertaining to the proposed development The following tables highlight the perceived impact pertaining to the relevant habitats affected by the capital layout projects, namely the Sekhukhune Bushveld Habitat and the Transformed Habitat.

Table E1: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity of the Vachellia Woodland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 88 5 3 4 3 4 8 11 phase (Medium high) 88 Operational phase 5 3 3 3 5 8 11 (Medium high) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 64 5 3 3 2 3 8 8 phase (Medium Low) 64 Operational phase 5 3 3 1 4 8 8 (Medium Low)

Table E2: Impact on faunal SCC within the Vachellia Woodland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 70 4 3 4 3 3 7 10 phase (Medium Low) 63 Operational phase 4 3 3 3 3 7 9 (Medium Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 35 3 3 3 2 2 5 7 phase (Low) 25 Operational phase 3 3 3 1 2 5 5 (Low)

Table E3: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity of the Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 88 5 3 4 3 4 8 11 phase (Medium high) 88 Operational phase 5 3 3 3 5 8 11 (Medium high) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 64 5 3 3 2 3 8 8 phase (Medium Low) 64 Operational phase 5 3 3 1 4 8 8 (Medium Low)

43 STS 180084 February 2019

Table E4: Impact on faunal SCC species within the Degraded Hyparrhenia Grassland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 77 4 3 4 3 4 7 11 phase (Medium high) 77 Operational phase 4 3 3 3 5 7 11 (Medium high) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 56 4 3 3 2 3 7 8 phase (Medium Low) 56 Operational phase 4 3 3 1 4 7 8 (Medium Low)

Table E5: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity of the Rocky Grassland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 63 5 2 3 3 3 7 9 phase (Medium Low) 63 Operational phase 5 2 3 2 4 7 9 (Medium Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 56 5 2 3 2 3 7 8 phase (Medium Low) 56 Operational phase 5 2 3 2 3 7 8 (Medium Low)

Table E6: Impact on faunal SCC within the Rocky Grassland Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 45 3 2 3 3 3 5 9 phase (Low) 45 Operational phase 3 2 3 2 4 5 9 (Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 28 2 2 3 2 2 4 7 phase (Low) 28 Operational phase 2 2 3 2 2 4 7 (Low)

44 STS 180084 February 2019

Table E7: Impact on faunal habitat and species diversity of the Freshwater Habitat Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 90 5 4 4 3 3 9 10 phase (Medium High) 99 Operational phase 5 4 4 3 4 9 11 (Medium High) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 64 3 4 3 2 3 8 8 phase (Medium Low) 64 Operational phase 3 4 3 2 3 8 8 (Medium Low)

Table E8: Impact on faunal SCC within the Freshwater Habitat Unmanaged Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 72 4 4 3 3 3 8 9 phase (Medium Low) 72 Operational phase 4 4 3 3 3 8 9 (Medium Low) Managed Sensitivity Probability Spatial Duration of receiving Severity Likelihood Consequence Significance of Impact scale of impact environment Construction 36 2 4 2 2 2 6 6 phase (Low) 36 Operational phase 2 4 2 2 2 6 6 (Low)

45