Faunal Baseline and Impact Assessment

PORTION 15 OF VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal baseline and impact assessment

Report compiled for: Khula Environmental (Pty) Ltd Client: Abenviro (Pty) Ltd Report compiled by: Marius Burger, trading as Sungazer Faunal Surveys Postal address: 6 Putter Street, Lakeside 7945 Phone: 083 231 7452 Email: [email protected]

March 2020

Figure 1: A pair of Cape Sand Toads (Vandijkophrynus angucticeps) in amplexus in a seasonal pool near the north-western reaches of the Vergenoegd study area (24 July 2019). IUCN conservation status = Least Concern.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020)

Contents

1 ABBREVIATIONS ------I

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------II

3 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA ------1

4 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FAUNAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT ------2

5 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ------2

6 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS ------2 6.1 Site visits ------2 6.2 Site visit limitations ------2 6.3 Other relevant studies ------3 6.4 Checklists ------3 6.5 Species of conservation concern (SCC) ------3 6.6 Site importance assessment (SIA) ------4

7 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: HABITAT DIVERSITY AND SENSITIVITY ------5 7.1 General site description ------5 7.2 Vegetation ------5 7.3 Wetlands ------7 7.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) ------7 7.5 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) ------8

8 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: CHECKLISTS AND SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ------9 8.1 Mammals ------9 8.2 Birds ------13 8.3 Reptiles ------20 8.4 Amphibians ------23

9 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: SITE IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT (SIA) ------26 9.1 Mammals ------26 9.2 Birds ------27 9.3 Reptiles ------28 9.4 Amphibians ------29

10 BASELINE ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------30 10.1 Mammals ------30 10.2 Birds ------30

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020)

10.3 Reptiles ------31 10.4 Amphibians ------33

11 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ------35 11.1 Development Alternative 2012 (Dev Alt 2012) ------35 11.2 Development Alternative 2019 (Dev Alt 2019) ------36 11.3 No-development Alternative ------36

12 ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT IMPACTS ------37 12.1 Negative impacts associated with Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2019 ------37 12.2 Mitigation measures for Dev Alts 2012 and 2019 ------37 12.3 Potential benefits for fauna ------39 12.4 Impact Assessment of the No-development Alternative ------39 12.5 Impact Rating Table presenting assessment of negative impacts associated with the construction phase ------40 12.6 Impact Rating Tables presenting the assessment of negative impacts associated with the operational phase ------44 12.7 Impact Rating Table presenting the assessment of faunal impacts associated with the no- development alternative ------48

13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON FAUNA ------49

14 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ------50

15 REFERENCES ------51

16 APPENDIX 1: SEARCH-AND-RESCUE PROTOCOL ------53

17 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ------54

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020)

1 ABBREVIATIONS ADU Animal Demography Unit BLSA BirdLife South Africa CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CoCT City of Cape Town CTFS Cape Town Film Studios Dev Alt Development Alternative EA Environmental Authorisation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EN Endangered FIAO FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology IBA Important Bird Area IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KBA Key Biodiversity Area LC Least Concern NE Not Evaluated NT Near Threatened OESA Other Ecological Support Area SABAP2 Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 SARCA Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment SCC Species of conservation concern SIA Site importance assessment VU Vulnerable

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) i

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terms of reference The main aims of the Vergenoegd faunal assessment were to: 1. conduct a baseline study to determine which species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians occur or may occur on the site; 2. highlight the species that are of conservation concern; 3. conduct a faunal impact assessment in the context of two development alternatives, i.e. the approved 2012 alternative and the newly proposed Abenviro 2019 alternative; 4. provide mitigation measures and general management guidelines to limit the negative impacts on the faunal communities.

Study approach Three site visits were conducted during 2019 to observe habitat parameters and to survey faunal species. Additional information were gleaned from other relevant reports, literature, database sources and by means of interviews with other faunal experts.

Habitat diversity The Vergenoegd property (about 94.2 ha) is homogenously flat with very little topographical variation. The substrate is a mix of sandy and loamy soils, with evidently no rocky protrusions present. Some areas have been subjected to various forms of substrate disturbances, including evidence of historical cultivation, spill-over effects of peripheral construction features (e.g. road building), and dumping of building rubble and refuse. The vegetation is of a mix of semi-natural and natural vegetation, with some patches being significantly transformed by historical livestock grazing and current alien vegetation infestations. The remnant natural vegetation is categorised as being part of the West Coast Renosterveld bioregion and more specifically consisting predominantly of Swartland Shale Renosterveld. The pristine or semi-natural vegetation zones are generally of greater importance to faunal communities than the transformed vegetation areas. The site is also characterised by a prevalence of seasonal wetlands, and these are of significant importance in terms of determining the faunal communities that inhabit or are visitors to the Vergenoegd site.

Critical Biodiversity Areas The Vergenoegd property is situated within the City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network, which identified and mapped Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and other categories of conservation significance. The site includes large areas mapped as CBA1b which supports Critically Endangered habitat remnants. This particular CBA covers about 70% of the Vergenoegd site. About 50% of the southern half and 15% of the northern half of the site is mapped as CBA1d. These are areas that are more degraded than CBA1b areas, but which still have an ecological supporting function. Most of the Vergenoegd wetlands are categorised as CBA2 wetlands, but the site also contains a single CBA1 wetland in the southern sector, and a single Critical Ecological Support Area in the north-eastern corner of the site. The Vergenoegd site does not fall within any global or regional Key Biodiversity Areas, nor in any Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) ii

Mammals A total of about 37 mammal species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about 23 species are likely to be associated with the property itself. Almost all of the Vergenoegd mammal species are listed as being of Least Concern. The only exception is the African Striped Weasel which is a Near Threatened species.

Birds The potential bird species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about 146 species, with about 132 species known or likely to occur. A number of threatened birds occur in the general region. The most relevant species in this regard is the African Marsh-harrier which is Endangered at a national level.

Reptiles A total of about 32 reptile species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about 25 species are likely to actually occur on the property itself. Almost all of these species are listed as being of Least Concern. The only exception is the Cape Dwarf Chameleon which is Near Threatened.

Amphibians A total of about eight amphibian species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about five species are likely to actually occur on the property itself. The only frog species of conservation concern is the Cape Dainty Frog which is Near Threatened. This species was last observed on the Vergenoegd site in 1997. Additional surveying is required to check on the population status of this species at the Vergenoegd site.

Development layouts Both development alternatives (i.e. 2012 and 2019) consist of development portions that are distributed within the Vergenoegd site in ways that these do not overlap with the sensitive vegetation and wetland habitats nodes. These CBA delimitations were factored into these two layout designs, with the various development portions being placed outside of the most important conservation (= sensitive) zones. The CBA-style sensitivity mapping also provides a measure for fauna sensitivity and it is therein appropriate to inform the layout of the development.

Negative impacts associated with Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2019  CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #1: Faunal mortalities associated with earthworks and other construction activities. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation.  CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #2: Loss of natural and semi-natural terrestrial habitat, and therefore a reduction in the extent of habitat available as faunal shelter/foraging resources. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 12 is rated to be of MEDIUM to LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) iii

impact is rated to be of MEDIUM to LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation.  OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #1: An increase of artificial structures (e.g. buildings and walls) that may inhibit faunal dispersal abilities. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation.  OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #2: An increase of hazardous terrain that may cause increased faunal mortalities. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation.

Mitigation measures for Dev Alts 2012 and 2019 CONSTRUCTION PHASE  Conduct a search-and-rescue operation of select species prior to initiating earthworks activities, e.g. to translocate Cape Dwarf Chameleon specimens from the Renosterbos habitat in the south- eastern reaches of the northern sector to suitable sites in the southern sector.  Rescue tortoises if these are encountered during earthworks operations, and translocate these specimens to predetermined release sites.  All earthworks activities must be confined to the specific designated development portions. Thus the conservation nodes must be no-go areas for construction workers, vehicles and construction machinery.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) iv

 The edges of the main through-road through the Vergenoegd site and all roads through or along the conservation nodes and their associated pavements should be gentle rather than steep-sided, so as not to hamper the movements of small terrestrial animals. In instances where the main through-road is to be raised (if deemed necessary), the edges should be steep-sided with under- passes (culverts) to allow the unobstructed and safe passing of small terrestrial animals.  Any steep-sided canals and pitfalls (e.g. drains) outside of the development portions should be closed off to prevent small terrestrial animals from falling in.  Establish a speed limit of 40 km/h on the main Vergenoegd through-road and all roads through or along the conservation nodes.

Potential benefits for fauna A significant positive environmental component that is associated with the two development alternatives is that alien vegetation will be removed and managed. This will bring about a substantial improvement of habitat quality in general, which will be beneficial to many of the Vergenoegd faunal communities. These undeveloped and rehabilitated nodes will be managed as conservation areas, i.e. as sanctuaries for localised and visiting animals. The proposal to incorporate a system of berms and swales to manage some of the stormwater flow (Dev Alt 2019) is also deemed to be a positive enhancement of onsite environmental conditions, even though this will be an artificial attribute introduced into the Vergenoegd landscape.

Impact Assessment of the No-development Alternative NO-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT #1: Sensitive vegetation and wetlands will not be managed appropriately. The potential impact associated with the no-development alternative is rated to be of LOW significance.

Conclusions From a faunal perspective, specifically in relation to mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, the overall importance of the Vergenoegd site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. The various management recommendations and stipulations that were outlined in the botanical and freshwater assessments serve as the basis for habitat management of the Vergenoegd conservation nodes. By default, these then also make provision for most of the faunal requirements on site. It is thus primarily a case of habitat management rather than the specific management of faunal communities. The two development alternatives, i.e. Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2019, are generally fairly similar in terms of their respective faunal impacts. However, the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 is more refined with regards to the protection and management of the various conservation nodes, as well as in terms of stormwater management (the proposed stormwater management system will ensure that the site’s sensitive wetlands are not hydrologically impacted or impaired in terms of water quality). As such the Dev Alt 2019 layout affords high levels of protection to the Vergenoegd wetlands, and for the most it accommodates the high value sensitive terrestrial habitats. Either of the two development alternatives achieve ecological viability for the majority of the faunal communities in this region.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) v

3 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA An environmental authorisation was issued in 2012 for an industrial development on Portion 15 of Farm Vergenoegd 653, and Abenviro (Pty) Ltd is now applying for an amendment of the existing authorisation. Khula Environmental (Pty) Ltd was appointed as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the Environmental Authorisation (EA) Amendment process which includes commissioning the required biodiversity specialist studies. These studies included botanical (Helme 2019a, 2019b), freshwater (Day 2019, 2020) and faunal components (M. Burger, trading as Sungazer Faunal Surveys). The faunal study is a combination of baseline and impact assessments of four vertebrate groups, i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The baseline component of the faunal report provides details on species that are of conservation concern (SCC), and sensitive habitat nodes within the study area. The impact assessment component provides an assessment of the potentially significant fauna impacts associated with the existing (approved) development alternative (Dev Alt 2012), the new (Abenviro) development alternative (Dev Alt 2019), and the no-development alternative.

The Vergenoegd property is about 94.2 ha in extent and is situated in the Faure region about 15 km south-west of Stellenbosch. It lies east of the R310 (Baden Powell Drive), north of the N2 and south of the R102 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The approximate location of the Vergenoegd study area (yellow polygon) in relation to the general region.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 1

4 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FAUNAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT 1. Conduct a desktop study to compile checklists of the mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians that are likely or may potentially occur within or may occasionally visit the Vergenoegd site. 2. Highlight the species of conservation concern (SCC). 3. Assess the conservation value of the Vergenoegd site according to the four faunal communities present, i.e. provide respective site importance assessment (SIA) scores. 4. Conduct a faunal sensitivity assessment to demarcate the areas that are of special conservation significance.

5 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Identify the potential faunal impacts associated with the respective development alternatives, including the no-development alternative. 2. Use standard Impact Assessment methodology to conduct impact assessments for the existing (approved) development alternative (Dev Alt 2012), the newly proposed revised development alternative (Dev Alt 2019), and the no-development alternative and compare the acceptability of the development alternatives from a fauna perspective. 3. Recommend feasible mitigation measures and other general recommendations in respect of the potential faunal impacts. 4. Provide an authorisation opinion regarding whether or not the proposed development should be authorised from faunal perspective. 5. Propose and implement additional terms of reference, if required, based on professional expertise, experience and comply with relevant Department of Environment Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) specialist study guidelines and best practice.

6 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS 6.1 Site visits Three site visits were conducted to 1) familiarise the faunal specialist with the general lay of the land and the habitat diversity present, and to 2) make general observations of the four faunal groups under investigation. These site visits were conducted during the dry (March 2019) and wet (July 2019) seasons:  28 March 2019: During daylight hours.  24 July 2019: At night, to search for amphibian breeding activity.  29 July 2019: At night, to search for amphibian breeding activity.

6.2 Site visit limitations  The surveying period was not extensive, i.e. a total of only 14 hours were spent on site (8 day-time hours + 6 night-time hours).  About half of the surveying effort was during the dry season, i.e. prior to the frog breeding season.  The extent of rainfall during the wet season survey was not yet optimal, and thus the observed frog breeding activities were not at a peak.  The surveys did not incorporate any trapping efforts, but this is not a critical limitation.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 2

6.3 Other relevant studies Assessments of the botanical (Helme 2019a, 2019b) and freshwater (Day 2019, 2020) components of the Vergenoegd project were undertaken by Nick Helme Botanical Surveys and Liz Day Consulting (Pty) Ltd respectively. The latter studies produced sensitivity maps to guide the development layout designs, i.e. to demarcate the areas that are of high and medium conservation importance. The sensitivity nodes were determined by means of site visits (= ground-truthing) during 2019. These studies also gleaned from mapping previously conducted by other specialists (e.g. Low et al. 2007; Ractliffe 2009), and they incorporated the City of Cape Town (CoCT) Biodiversity Network maps that show the extent of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in this region. Two faunal studies were also previously conducted at Vergenoegd, i.e. herpetofauna (Channing 2008), and mammals and birds (Pepler 2008), and a faunal study (Burger 2005) that was previously conducted at the adjacent Cape Town Film Studios (CTFS) property was also of relevance. An interview with Atherton de Villiers of CapeNature provided insights regarding the distribution of the Cape Dainty Frog (Cacosternum capensis) in this region.

6.4 Checklists The site visits provided a number of records for confirmed species occurrence. These were then supplemented with records obtained from literature, database or other data sources in order to compile more comprehensive species checklists. The bulk of the species records from the Vergenoegd site were obtained from the following sources:  Various literature sources (see Section 14 - References)  FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (FIAO 2019): MammalMAP. http://vmus.adu.org.za/  Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2 (SABAP2; Figure 13): http://sabap2.adu.org.za/  FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (FIAO 2019): ReptileMAP: http://vmus.adu.org.za/  FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (FIAO 2019): FrogMAP: http://vmus.adu.org.za/

The various species checklists are presented in Tables 1 to 4. The likelihood of species occurrence were scored as follow: Possible occurrence (1), probable occurrence (2) and confirmed occurrence (3). The confirmed occurrence records were obtained during the three site visits that were conducted by the faunal specialist (Burger 2019), and also of records obtained during previous studies (e.g. Channing 2008; Pepler 2008).

6.5 Species of conservation concern (SCC) In most instances the most relevant source for species conservation status is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/), as per the most recent updates. The most recent conservation status assessments of southern African mammals (Child et al. 2016) are available on the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) website: https://www.ewt.org.za/resources/resources-mammal-red- list/mammal-red-list/, and these were subsequently adopted and incorporated by the IUCN. However, the IUCN database is not yet up to date for South African reptiles, with many species currently remaining as Not Evaluated (NE). For such species the listings of SARCA (Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment; Bates et al. 2014) are used to tentatively fill the gaps where global IUCN assessments are currently lacking. The IUCN listing is also the most appropriate and up to date source for the conservation status of South African amphibians.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 3

The relevant IUCN categories of threat are as follow:  Extinct (EX) – No known individuals remaining.  Extinct in the Wild (EW) – Known only to survive in captivity, or as a naturalised population outside its historic range.  Critically Endangered (CR) – Extremely high risk of becoming extinct in the wild.  Endangered (EN) – Very high risk of becoming extinct in the wild.  Vulnerable (VU) – High risk of becoming extinct in the wild.  Near Threatened (NT) – Likely to become threatened in the near future.  Least Concern (LC) – Does not qualify for a category of threat. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.  Data Deficient (DD) – Not enough data to make an assessment of its risk of extinction.  Not Evaluated (NE) – Has not yet been evaluated against the IUCN criteria.

6.6 Site importance assessment (SIA) The purpose of assessing the site importance in the context of a particular faunal group is to obtain an approximate impression of the site’s value at a regional (CoCT Metropolitan Area) and a national (South African; SA) scale. This assessment incorporates a variety of components, i.e. the presence/absence of threatened species, the levels of conservation status of the threatened species, overall species richness, levels of endemism, ecological functioning potential of the site, the size and habitat quality of the site, habitat heterogeneity or homogeneity, and the site’s value as an ecological corridor, a green zone, or source or sink for genetic exchange in respect of peripheral natural areas. The IUCN Red List of threatened species (IUCN 2019), together with the relevant SA assessments (Bates et al. 2014; Child et al. 2016; Taylor et al. 2015), served as the sources for conservation status of all four faunal groups. The following criteria were used to determine the relative importance of the proposed development site in the context of the CoCT Metropolitan Area (regional) and SA (national). A score of one point is given for each YES answer, excepting for Red List species where as many as two points can be awarded. A score of 0.5 is awarded if the answer is disputably YES or NO for questions 1 to 5. A score of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 or 1 may be awarded for questions 6 to 12, depending on the subjective assessments of these questions. Thus a maximum possible score is 12 points.

 Score total 0 – 4 = LOW at regional and national scales.  Score total 4.25 – 8 = MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scale.  Score total 8.25 – 12 = HIGH at regional and MODERATE to HIGH at national scale.

Questions: 1. Are any threatened (Red List) species known to occur within the proposed development site? Note that for the purpose of this evaluation, threatened species constitute those listed as Critically Endangered (2 points), Endangered (1.5 points), Vulnerable (1 point) and Near Threatened (0.5). If several threatened species are present, only the most threatened status is applicable, thus a maximum of 2 points can be scored in this section. Note also that if a score is of YES (1) is made here, then no score can be presented in the next category (i.e. potential occurrence of threatened species). Thus the maximum total possible score for a particular faunal evaluation is 12. 2. If not, are any threatened species likely to occur within the site?

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 4

3. Are any localised (CoCT) endemics known or likely to occur within the site? 4. Are any provincial (WC) endemics known or likely to occur within the site? 5. Are any national (SA) endemics known or likely to occur within the site? 6. Is the site likely to support high species richness relative to the CoCT Metropolitan Area? 7. Are the existing faunal communities thought to be of importance in respect of the local ecological functioning of systems within the site? 8. Is the total extent of the site large enough to support the existing faunal communities in the long- term? 9. Is the habitat quality of the site such that it is suitable for the long-term support of faunal communities? 10. Does the site have great habitat heterogeneity that would favour overall high species richness? 11. Is the site important in respect of peripheral natural areas, either as an ecological corridor or a significant suburban green zone? 12. Is the site important in respect of peripheral natural areas as a source or sink for genetic exchange?

7 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Habitat diversity and sensitivity 7.1 General site description The Vergenoegd property (about 94.2ha) is homogenously flat with very little topographical variation. The substrate is a mix of sandy and loamy soils, with evidently no rocky protrusions present. Some areas have been subjected to various forms of substrate disturbances, including evidence of historical cultivation, spill-over effects of peripheral construction features (e.g. road building), and dumping of building rubble and refuse.

7.2 Vegetation The vegetation of the Vergenoegd property consists of a mix of semi-natural and natural vegetation, with some patches being significantly transformed by historical livestock grazing and current alien vegetation infestations. The Vergenoegd vegetation communities were defined in the botanical assessments (Helme 2019a, b), and is categorised as being part of the West Coast Renosterveld bioregion and more specifically consisting predominantly of Swartland Shale Renosterveld. These communities were grouped into high, medium and low botanical sensitivity categories, based on their respective conservation values and degree to which the various nodes may be pristine or disturbed (thus habitat quality). In addition to being prescriptive as to where the development nodes should be situated or not, this botanical sensitivity assessment also forms the basis for the faunal habitat delineations. The pristine or semi-natural vegetation zones are generally of greater importance to faunal communities than the transformed vegetation areas. The eradication and rehabilitation of alien vegetation infestations holds significant potential for improving habitats for faunal communities. The population demographics of several faunal species will consequently change in response to this vegetation rehabilitation operation, mostly in positive ways. On the other hand, the removal of the tree/bush structures will likely have a negatively influence on some species, e.g. shelter for small antelope and nesting opportunities for certain bird species will be reduced.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 5

Figure 3: A stand of Renosterbos (Elytropappus Figure 4: Dense stands of the invasive alien Port rhinocerotis) in the south-eastern reaches of the Jackson (Acacia saligna) in the southern sector of northern sector of Vergenoegd. A population of the Vergenoegd site. Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum) was recorded from this vegetation.

Figure 5: A seasonal wetland in the southern Figure 6: A seasonal wetland in the northern sector of Vergenoegd. sector of Vergenoegd that served as breeding habitat for Cape Sand Frogs during the 2019 winter period.

Figure 7: The northern sector of the Vergenoegd Figure 8: An example of an open pit along the site is much more open than the southern sector, Vergenoegd entrance road. Such “pit-fall traps” with less transformed habitat. cause faunal mortalities when small terrestrial species accidently fall into these structures.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 6

7.3 Wetlands The Vergenoegd site is rich in seasonal wetland features. These were described and mapped by the freshwater assessment (Day 2019, 2020), and were of significant influence in determining the placement of development portions. These patches of azonal habitat are also of special significance for faunal communities, most importantly for water fowl and frogs. The long-term viability of these wetlands is an essential support component in sustaining faunal ecological functionality at Vergenoegd.

7.4 Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) The Vergenoegd property is situated within the CoCT’s Biodiversity Network (BioNet) planning domain (see Figure 9), which identified and mapped Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and other categories of conservation significance. The botanical (Helme 2019a, b) and freshwater (Day 2019, 2020) incorporated these CBA layers into their respective sensitivity mapping outputs. In summary, the Vergenoegd site includes large areas mapped as CBA1b which supports Critically Endangered habitat remnants. This particular CBA covers about 70% of the Vergenoegd site. About 50% of the southern half and 15% of the northern half of the site is mapped as CBA1d. These are areas that are more degraded than CBA1b areas, but which still have an ecological supporting function. Most of the Vergenoegd wetlands are categorised as CBA2 wetlands, but the site also contains a single CBA1 wetland in the southern sector, and a single Critical Ecological Support Area in the north-eastern corner of the site.

These CBA delimitations were factored into the Dev Alts 2012 and 2019 layout designs, with the various development portions being placed outside of the most important conservation (= sensitive) zones. The CBA-style sensitivity mapping also provides a measure for fauna sensitivity and it is therein appropriate to inform the layout of the development.

Figure 9: The Vergenoegd site (red boundaries) with the terrestrial and wetland Critical Biodiversity

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 7

Areas as per the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan.

7.5 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) The World Database of Key Biodiversity AreasTM hosts data on global and regional Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), including Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). Although the Vergenoegd property falls within some important CBAs (Figure 9), the site does not fall within any of the KBAs that are recognised in the general region (Figure 10).

Figure 10: The Vergenoegd site (red boundaries) in relation to the various Key Biodiversity Areas in the general region (see http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 8

8 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Checklists and species of conservation concern 8.1 Mammals A checklist of mammals that are known from or may potentially occur within the boundaries of the Vergenoegd site is presented in Table 1. Several species of large carnivores and herbivores that occurred historically in this region have been exterminated from here more than two centuries ago. The bulk of the remnant Vergenoegd mammal assemblage is comprised of small inconspicuous species such as rodents (see Figures 11 and 12) and shrews, and a few medium-sized carnivores (e.g. mongoose and genet). A total of about 37 mammal species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about 23 species are likely to be associated with the property itself. Of these, the occurrence of 11 species were confirmed by means of site visits (Burger 2019; Pepler 2008). Several other species, e.g. insectivorous bats and canid carnivores, may occasionally visit or pass through the property. It is noteworthy that a few species of small antelope are seemingly still present on the property. An adult Steenbok and several patches of small antelope dung were observed during the most recent survey (Burger 2019), whereas Common Duiker and Cape Grysbok were recorded during a previous survey (Pepler 2008). Almost all of the Vergenoegd mammal species are listed as being of Least Concern (LC). The only exception is the African Striped Weasel which is a Near Threatened (NT) species.

Figure 11: Several colonies of the Cape Gerbil Figure 12: Mounds of the Common Mole-rat (Gerbilliscus afra) were observed in the southern (Cryptomys hottentotus) were observed in several and northern sectors of the Vergenoegd study areas on the Vergenoegd property (24 July 2019). area (28 March 2019). IUCN conservation status = IUCN conservation status = Least Concern. Least Concern.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 9

Table 1: A checklist of mammals that are known from or may potentially occur within the Vergenoegd study area. Exotic and feral domestic species were omitted from this list. Conservation status is according to global (IUCN 2019; including Child et al. 2016) listings, and include the following categories: Least Concern (LC). Levels of endemism are as follow: Endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SA), endemic to Western Cape (WC). Scoring for likelihood of occurrence: Possible occurrence (1), probable occurrence (2) and confirmed occurrence (3). The confirmed occurrence records were obtained during the site visits by the faunal specialist (Burger 2019), and records obtained during an earlier survey (Pepler 2008). Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism Occur Notes Chrysochloridae Golden moles

Chrysochloris asiatica Cape Golden Mole LC SA 2

Leporidae Hares & rabbits

Lepus capensis/saxatilis Cape/Scrub Hare LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008 Muridae Old World rats and mice & gerbils

Desmodillus auricularis Short-tailed Gerbil LC 0 1

Gerbilliscus afra Cape Gerbil LC Near WC 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Otomys irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat LC Near SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008 Rhabdomys pumilio Xeric Four-striped Mouse LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Nesomyidae Nesomyid rodents

Dendromus melanotis Grey African Climbing Mouse LC 0 1

Hystricidae Old World porcupines

Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Bathyergidae African mole-rats

Bathyergus suillus Cape Dune Mole-rat LC Near WC 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008 Cryptomys hottentotus Common Mole-rat LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Georychus capensis Cape Mole-rat LC SA 1

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 10

Table 1 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism Occur Notes Soricidae Shrews

Crocidura cyanea Reddish-Grey Musk Shrew LC 0 1

Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew LC Near SA 2

Myosorex varius Forest Shrew LC SA 2

Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew LC 0 2

Rhinolophidae Old World horseshoe & leaf-nosed bats

Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat LC Near SA 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s Horseshoe Bat LC 0 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Nycteridae Slit-faced bats

Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced Bat LC 0 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Molossidae Free-tailed bats

Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat LC 0 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Miniopteridae Long-fingered bats

Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat LC 0 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Vespertilionidae Plain-faced bats

Eptesicus hottentotus Long-Tailed Serotine Bat LC 0 2

Myotis tricolor Temmink’s Hairy Bat LC 0 1 May occasionally visit the site to forage Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat LC 0 2

Viverridae Genets & civets

Genetta genetta Small-spotted Genet LC 0 2

Mustelidae Weasels, badgers, otters & relatives

Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC 0 2

Mellivora capensis Honey Badger LC 0 1 Individuals may occasionally visit the site Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel NT 0 2 Probably rare, if in fact present on site

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 11

Table 1 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism Occur Notes Herpestidae Mongooses

Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008 Atilax paludinosus Water Mongoose LC 0 2 Probably an opportunistic visitor during winter Canidae Jackal, foxes & relatives

Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC 0 1 Individuals may occasionally visit the site Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC 0 1 Individuals may occasionally visit the site Felidae Cats

Caracal caracal Caracal LC 0 2 Urban Caracal Project Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC 0 1 May have become locally extinct in this region Bovidae Cloven-hoofed, ruminant mammals

Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008 Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Pepler 2008

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 12

8.2 Birds A checklist of birds that are known from or may potentially occur within the boundaries of the Vergenoegd site is presented in Table 2. The potential bird species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about 146 species, with about 132 species known or likely to occur. Of these, the occurrence of 75 bird species were confirmed by means of site visits (Burger 2019; Pepler 2008). A large proportion of the Vergenoegd avifauna are seasonal or irregular visitors to the site. An adjusted checklist of bird species that have been recorded from the pentad 3400_1840 (SABAP2; see Figure 13) is presented in Table 2. The full species tally for this pentad is 160, but 21 species that are unlikely to inhabit or visit the Vergenoegd site were removed so that the resultant checklist is a more realistic representation of the potential avifauna of this particular site. Most of the species that were omitted have strong affinities with marine/coastal environments, e.g. Cape Gannet, African Black Oystercatcher and various terns. Other species that were omitted because of unlikely occurrence include Great White Pelican, Greater Flamingo and African Darter. Some alien bird species (e.g. House Crow and Mallard Duck) were also removed from the checklist, whereas more established alien species (e.g. Common Starling and Rock Dove) were retained. Seven species that are not currently listed in this pentad were previously recorded from the Vergenoegd site during the Pepler (2008) faunal survey, and these were added to this checklist. A number of threatened birds occur in the general region. The most relevant species in this regard is the African Marsh-harrier which is Endangered at a national level.

Figure 13: The Vergenoegd bird species checklist (Table 2) incorporated SABAP2 records for the pentad 3400_1840 (extracted April 2019).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 13

Table 2: A checklist of bird species that have been recorded from the pentad 3400_1840 (SABAP2), with several adjustments (i.e. certain species added or deleted). Conservation status is according to global (IUCN 2019) and national (SA; Taylor et al. 2015) listings, and include the following categories: Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT), Vulnerable (VU) and Endangered (EN) categories. Levels of endemism are as follow: Not endemic to South Africa Lesotho and Swaziland (0), Endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SA), endemic to Western Cape (WC). Scoring for likelihood of occurrence: Possible occurrence (1), probable occurrence (2) and confirmed occurrence (3). The confirmed occurrence records were obtained during the site visits by the faunal specialist (Burger 2019), and records obtained during an earlier survey (Pepler 2008). Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked Grebe LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Phalacrocorax carbo White-breasted Cormorant LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Phalacrocorax africanus Reed Cormorant LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Phalacrocorax coronatus Crowned Cormorant NT/NT 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Ardea cinerea Grey Heron LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Ardea melanocephala Black-headed Heron LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Ardea purpurea Purple Heron LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Egretta alba Great Egret LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Egretta garzetta Little Egret LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Egretta intermedia Yellow-billed Egret LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Scopus umbretta Hamerkop LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Threskiornis aethiopicus African Sacred Ibis LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Bostrychia hagedash Hadeda Ibis LC/LC 0 y 2

Platalea alba African Spoonbill LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Plectropterus gambensis Spur-winged Goose LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Alopochen aegyptiacus Egyptian Goose LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Anas smithii Cape Shoveler LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Anas undulata Yellow-billed Duck LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Anas erythrorhyncha Red-billed Teal LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 14

Table 2 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Anas capensis Cape Teal LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck VU/NT 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Thalassornis leuconotus White-backed Duck LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird VU/VU 0 y 1 May be infrequent visitor to the site Pandion haliaetus Western Osprey LC/LC 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon LC/LC 0 y 1 May be infrequent visitor to the site Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon LC/VU 0 y 1 May be infrequent visitor to the site Falco rupicolus Rock Kestrel LC/LC 0 y 2

Milvus aegyptius Yellow-billed Kite LC/LC 0 y 2

Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Aquila pennatus Booted Eagle LC/LC 0 y 1

Haliaeetus vocifer African Fish-eagle LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Buteo rufofuscus Jackal Buzzard LC/LC Near SA y 3 Confirmed: Burger 2019 Buteo vulpinus Steppe Buzzard LC/LC 0 y 2

Accipiter rufiventris Rufous-chested Sparrowhawk LC/LC 0 y 2

Accipiter melanoleucus Black Sparrowhawk LC/LC 0 y 2

Accipiter tachiro African Goshawk LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Circus ranivorus African Marsh-harrier LC/EN 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Polyboroides typus African Harrier-Hawk LC/LC 0 y 2

Pternistis capensis Cape Spurfowl LC/LC Near SA y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Numida meleagris Helmeted Guineafowl LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Amaurornis flavirostris Black Crake LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane VU/NT 0 y 2 Observed at CTFS (Burger 2019) Porphyrio madagascariensis African Purple Swamphen LC/LC 0 y 1 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Fulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 15

Table 2 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Rostratula benghalensis Greater Painted-snipe LC/NT 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Charadrius pecuarius Kittlitz's Plover LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Charadrius tricollaris Three-banded Plover LC/LC 0 y 2

Vanellus coronatus Crowned Lapwing LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Vanellus armatus Blacksmith Lapwing LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Calidris minuta Little Stint LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Gallinago nigripennis African Snipe LC/LC 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt LC/LC 0 y 2 Likely to visit when wetlands at peak Burhinus capensis Spotted Thick-knee LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Burhinus vermiculatus Water Thick-knee LC/LC 0 y 2

Larus cirrocephalus Grey-headed Gull LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Larus hartlaubii Hartlaub's Gull LC/LC 0 y 2

Columba guinea Speckled Pigeon LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Streptopelia semitorquata Red-eyed Dove LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Streptopelia capicola Cape Turtle-dove LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Oena capensis Namaqua Dove LC/LC 0 y 2

Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas's Cuckoo LC/LC 0 y 2

Chrysococcyx caprius Diderick Cuckoo LC/LC 0 y 2

Bubo africanus Spotted Eagle-owl LC/LC 0 y 2

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 16

Table 2 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Caprimulgus pectoralis Fiery-necked Nightjar LC/LC 0 y 2

Apus barbatus African Black Swift LC/LC 0 y 2

Apus caffer White-rumped Swift LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Apus affinis Little Swift LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Tachymarptis melba Alpine Swift LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Colius striatus Speckled Mousebird LC/LC 0 y 2

Colius colius White-backed Mousebird LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Urocolius indicus Red-faced Mousebird LC/LC 0 y 2

Ceryle rudis Pied Kingfisher LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Upupa africana African Hoopoe LC/LC 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Calandrella cinerea Red-capped Lark LC/LC 0 y 2

Galerida magnirostris Large-billed Lark LC/LC Near SA 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow LC/LC 0 y 2

Hirundo albigularis White-throated Swallow LC/LC 0 y 2

Hirundo dimidiata Pearl-breasted Swallow LC/LC 0 y 2

Cecropis cucullata Greater Striped Swallow LC/LC 0 y 2

Delichon urbicum Common House-martin LC/LC 0 y 2

Riparia paludicola Brown-throated Martin LC/LC 0 y 2

Riparia cincta Banded Martin LC/LC 0 y 2

Psalidoprocne holomelaena Black (Southern race) Saw-wing LC/LC 0 y 2

Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-tailed Drongo LC/LC 0 y 2

Corvus albus Pied Crow LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Corvus albicollis White-necked Raven LC/LC 0 y 2

Pycnonotus capensis Cape Bulbul LC/LC SA y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Cercomela familiaris Familiar Chat LC/LC 0 y 2

Saxicola torquatus African Stonechat LC/LC 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 17

Table 2 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Cossypha caffra Cape Robin-chat LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Cercotrichas coryphoeus Karoo Scrub-robin LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Acrocephalus gracilirostris Lesser Swamp-warbler LC/LC 0 y 2

Bradypterus baboecala Little Rush-warbler LC/LC 0 y 2

Sphenoeacus afer Cape Grassbird LC/LC Near SA y 2

Apalis thoracica Bar-throated Apalis LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Sylvietta rufescens Long-billed Crombec LC/LC 0 0 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Cisticola juncidis Zitting Cisticola LC/LC 0 y 2

Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Cisticola subruficapilla Grey-backed Cisticola LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Cisticola tinniens Levaillant's Cisticola LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Muscicapa adusta African Dusky Flycatcher LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Sigelus silens Fiscal Flycatcher LC/LC Near SA y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Batis capensis Cape Batis LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise-flycatcher LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Motacilla capensis Cape Wagtail LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Anthus cinnamomeus African Pipit LC/LC 0 y 2

Anthus similis Long-billed Pipit LC/LC 0 y 2

Macronyx capensis Cape Longclaw LC/LC 0 y 2

Lanius collaris Common (Southern) Fiscal LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Laniarius ferrugineus Southern Boubou LC/LC 0 y 2

Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie Bokmakierie LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Onychognathus morio Red-winged Starling LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Nectarinia famosa Malachite Sunbird LC/LC 0 y 1

Cinnyris chalybeus Southern Double-collared Sunbird LC/LC Near SA y 2 Confirmed: Pepler 2008

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 18

Table 2 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism SABAP2 Occur Notes Passer domesticus House Sparrow LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Passer melanurus Cape Sparrow LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Ploceus capensis Cape Weaver LC/LC Near SA y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Ploceus velatus Southern Masked-weaver LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Euplectes orix Southern Red Bishop LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Euplectes capensis Yellow Bishop LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern LC/LC 0 y 2 Potential visitor when wetlands peak Coccopygia melanotis Swee Waxbill LC/LC Near SA y 2

Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill LC/LC 0 y 2

Vidua macroura Pin-tailed Whydah LC/LC 0 y 2

Serinus canicollis Cape Canary LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Burger 2019 Crithagra sulphuratus Brimstone Canary LC/LC 0 y 2

Crithagra flaviventris Yellow Canary LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Columba livia Rock Dove LC/LC 0 y 2

Turdus olivaceus Olive Thrush LC/LC 0 y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008 Zosterops virens Cape White-eye LC/LC Near SA Y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008; Burger 2019 Centropus burchellii Burchell's Coucal LC/LC 0 y 2

Prinia maculosa Karoo Prinia LC/LC Near SA y 3 Confirmed: Pepler 2008

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 19

8.3 Reptiles A checklist of reptiles that are known from or may potentially occur within the boundaries of the Vergenoegd site is presented in Table 3. A total of about 32 reptile species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about 25 species are likely to actually occur on the property itself. Of these, the occurrence of only five species were confirmed by means of site visits (Burger 2019; Channing 2008). Almost all of these species are listed as being of Least Concern (LC). The only exception is the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Figure 20). Up until recently it was listed as being Vulnerable (VU; Bates et al. 2014), but the species was down-listed to Near Threatened (NT) in the most recent IUCN (2018) re- assessment of southern African reptile endemics. Likewise, the Cape Whip Snake that used to be listed as being Vulnerable (VU; Bates et al. 2014) was also radically down-listed. It is now regarded as being of Least Concern (LC; IUCN 2018). Note also that whilst the Cape Whip Snake is currently considered to be a WC endemic, a recent molecular taxonomic study (currently unpublished) has found that two other wide-ranging species (i.e. Psammophis namibiensis and P. trinisalis) are in fact junior synonyms of P. leightoni. As such the Cape Whip Snake actually has a wide distribution range.

The Channing (2008) herpetofaunal report made mention of the possible occurrence of Geometric Tortoise (Psammobates geometricus) at Vergenoegd. This species is currently listed as being Critically Endangered (CR). The stance at the time was that there were no recent records of this species near the Vergenoegd site, although relict population may be unrecorded from the area. Since then, in spite of several biodiversity studies that have been conducted at Vergenoegd and surroundings, no evidence of Geometric Tortoises have been recorded. It is therefore presumed, with a moderate to high degree of confidence, that this species does not occur at Vergenoegd.

Figure 14: Ocellated Gecko (Pachydactylus geitje) Figure 15: Common Slug-eater (Duberria lutrix) observed in the southern reaches of the observed in the southern reaches of the Vergenoegd study area (28 March 2019). IUCN Vergenoegd study area (28 March 2019). IUCN conservation status = Least Concern. conservation status = Least Concern.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 20

Table 3: A checklist of reptiles that are known from or may potentially occur within the Vergenoegd study area. Conservation status is according to global (IUCN 2019) and national (SA; Bates et al. 2014) listings, and include the following categories: Not Evaluated (NE), Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT) and Vulnerable (VU). Levels of endemism are as follow: Endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SA), endemic to Western Cape (WC). Scoring for likelihood of occurrence: Possible occurrence (1), probable occurrence (2) and confirmed occurrence (3). The confirmed occurrence records were obtained during site visits by the faunal specialist (Burger 2019). Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism Occur Notes Pelomedusidae Side-necked terrapins

Pelomedusa galeata South African Helmeted Terrapin LC/LC SA 1 May utilise site during periods of high rainfall Testudinidae Tortoises

Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Dwarf Tortoise LC/LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise LC/LC Near SA 2

Gekkonidae Geckos

Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko LC/LC SA 2

Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko LC/LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Lacertidae Lacertid lizards

Meroles knoxii Knox’s Desert Lizard LC/LC 0 2

Cordylidae Cordylid lizards

Chamaesaura anguina Cape Grass Lizard NE/LC 0 1

Gerrhosauridae Plated lizards

Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps LC/LC SA 2

Scincidae Skinks

Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink LC/LC SA 2

Scelotes bipes Silvery Dwarf Burrowing Skink LC/LC WC 1

Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink NE/LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink LC/LC SA 2

Chamaeleonidae Chameleons

Bradypodion pumilum Cape Dwarf Chameleon NT/VU WC 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 21

Table 3 (continued) Scientific name English name IUCN/SA Endemism Occur Notes Typhlopidae Blind snakes

Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake NE/LC 0 1

Leptotyphlopidae Thread snakes

Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake LC/LC SA 2

Lamprophiidae Lamprophid snakes

Amplorhinus multimaculatus Many-spotted Snake LC/LC 0 1

Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake NE/LC 0 1

Duberria lutrix Common Slug-eater LC/LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Burger 2019 Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake LC/LC SA 2

Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake LC/LC SA 2

Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive Snake LC/LC SA 2

Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake NE/LC 0 2

Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Skaapsteker NE/LC 0 2

Psammophis crucifer Montane Grass Snake LC/LC 0 2

Psammophis leightoni Cape Whip Snake LC/LC WC 1

Psammophis notostictus Karoo Whip Snake NE/LC 0 2

Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake NE/LC 0 2

Colubridae Colubrid snakes

Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater LC/LC 0 2

Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald Snake NE/LC 0 2

Dispholidus typus Boomslang NE/LC 0 2

Elapidae Cobras, mambas & allies

Naja nivea Cape Cobra NE/LC 0 2

Viperidae Adders & vipers

Bitis arietans Puff Adder NE/LC 0 2

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 22

8.4 Amphibians A checklist of amphibians that are known from or may potentially occur within the boundaries of the Vergenoegd site is presented in Table 4. A total of about eight amphibian species may potentially occur on site, but more realistically only about five species are likely to actually occur on the property itself. These are the same five species that have previously been confirmed by means of various site visits (Burger 2019; Channing 2008; De Villiers pers. comm. 2019; Ractliffe 2009).

CACOSTERNUM: The main amphibian target of the 2019 wet season survey was a Near Threatened species, the Cape Dainty Frog (Cacosternum capense). A chorus of about 70 specimens of this species was observed in flooded terrain (Renosterveld/old lands mix) on the Vergenoegd property on 30 June 1997 (A.L. de Villiers pers. comm. 2019; see Figures 16, 21 and 22). This species is presumed to still be present on the Vergenoegd property, even though the Channing 2008 and Burger 2019 surveys did not record evidence thereof. The Ractliffe 2009 report referred to tadpoles of (an unidentified) species of Cacosternum frog that were collected at two inundated sites. These are likely to be C. capense, although various members of the Cacosternum boettgeri complex (i.e. C. platys, australis and aggestum) also occur within the CoCT metropolitan municipality. Although there are no records of these specifically at the Vergenoegd site (see Table 4), their occurrence there is nevertheless possible (albeit not probable). It is recommended that additional surveying efforts be conducted during the peak of this species’ breeding season (i.e. middle winter) to determine the population status of Cape Dainty Frogs within the boundaries of the Vergenoegd site.

Figure 16: The four red dots denote various records of the Cape Dainty Frog (Cacosternum capense) at Vergenoegd and nearby surroundings within a 2 km radius. The two western records originate from 1976 and 1977 (observations by Greig and Boycott). The two eastern records were observed on 30 June 1997, with 30 to 40 frogs heard calling near the Baden Powell Drive/Faure Road intersection and about 70 calling from the Vergenoegd property (A.L. de Villiers pers. comm. 2019).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 23

XENOPUS: The Ractliffe 2009 also made mention of a single Xenopus tadpole was sampled at Vergenoegd. Although the Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli; Endangered) is known from localities within the 3418BA quarter-degree grid cell, this species has never been found at or close to the Vergenoegd wetlands. The most likely species of the tadpole recorded by Ractliffe (2009) is the aquatic African Clawed Frog (aka Common Platanna, Xenopus laevis), a species that may occasionally utilise the Vergenoegd seasonal wetlands during periods of good rainfall.

SCLEROPHRYS: The Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherina; Endangered) was listed (Channing 2008) as a species that may potentially occur at Vergenoeged. However, this is unlikely to be the case because 1) this species has never been recorded from here before and 2) the Vergenoegd wetlands are not of the type that are generally favoured by Western Leopard Toads. These toads prefer open pools that are typically at least 50 cm deep and will hold water for several (> 3) months during the rainy season. The only species of toad with confirmed breeding activity at Vergenoegd is the Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps). The most recent records were obtained during the July 2019 site visits (see Figures 1, 17 and 18). It was evident during these site visits that some of the seasonal wetlands are prone to drying up rather fast (Figure 6), with some of the pools with toad spawn that were deposited on 24 July already drying up five days later. It is likely that frog breeding success may be limited during specific years of below average rainfall. Note that additional rain fell in August, during which time the freshwater assessment recorded small tadpoles (probably Cape Sand Toad) from depressions (up to 300 mm deep) in the western portion of the northern sector of the site (Day 2020).

Figure 17: An amplectant group (4♂ + 1♀) of Figure 18: Developing larvae of Cape Sand Toads Cape Sand Toads (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps) (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps) five days after a in a small flooded pool in the north-western spawning event (29 July 2019). reaches of Vergenoegd study area (24 July 2019).

BREVICEPS: The Cape Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus; Near Threatened) was listed as a species that may potentially occur at Vergenoeged (Channing 2008). This is possible, but unlikely. No Breviceps calls were observed during the July 2019 site visits, a period that coincided with reasonable rainfall events. The only frog choruses noted during this period were that of Clicking Stream Frogs (Strongylopus grayii) in the southern sector, and Cape Sand Frogs (Tomopterna delalandii) in the general vicinity of the CTFS which is situated to the west of the Vergenoegd property.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 24

Table 4: A checklist of amphibians that are known from or may potentially occur within the Vergenoegd study area. Conservation status is according to the global IUCN 2019 listing. The following categories are relevant: Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT) and Endangered (EN). Levels of endemism are as follow: Endemic to South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (SA), endemic to Western Cape (WC). Scoring for likelihood of occurrence: Unlikely occurrence (0), possible occurrence (1), probable occurrence (2) and confirmed occurrence (3). The confirmed records were obtained during site visits by the faunal specialist (Burger 2019), and records obtained during an earlier survey (Channing 2008). Scientific name English name IUCN Endemism Occur Notes Brevicipitidae Rain frogs

Breviceps gibbosus Cape Rain Frog NT WC 1 Unlikely to occur, but perhaps in the Renosterveld habitat Breviceps rosei Sand Rain Frog LC WC 1

Bufonidae Toads

Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape Sand Toad LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Channing 2008; Burger 2019 Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad LC SA 1

Sclerophrys pantherina Western Leopard Toad EN WC 0 Almost certainly not present on site Hyperoliidae Reed frogs and relatives

Hyperolius horstockii Arum Lily Frog LC SA 0 Unlikely to occur Pyxicephalidae Pyxicephalid frogs

Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC SA 0 Unlikely to occur Cacosternum boettgeri complex Dainty Frog species ? WC 1 May potentially be C. platys or australis or aggestum Cacosternum capense Cape Dainty Frog NT WC 3 A.L. de Villiers pers. comm. 2019 Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog LC 0 3 Confirmed occurrence: Channing 2008; Burger 2019 Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog LC SA 3 Confirmed occurrence: Channing 2008 Pipidae Pipid frogs

Xenopus laevis African Clawed Frog LC 0 3 Likely to utilise the site during seasons of good rainfall

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 25

9 BASELINE ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Site importance assessment (SIA) 9.1 Mammals MAMMALS: The SIA for mammals (Table 5; score = 5.75) in the context of the proposed development site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. This score was derived as follows: 1. One threatened (SCC) mammal may potentially occur here, i.e. the African Striped Weasel which is listed as Near Threatened (= 0.5). 2. No additional threatened (SCC) mammals are likely to occur here (= 0). 3. No CoCT mammal endemics are known to occur here (= 0). 4. Two (near) WC mammal endemics occur here, i.e. Cape Gerbil and Cape Dune Mole-rat (= 1). 5. Several SA mammal endemics occur here (= 1). 6. The potential mammal species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about 37 species, with about 23 species known or likely to occur. As such the species richness relative to the CoCT mammal fauna is moderate. (= 0.5). 7. The depauperate mammal fauna assemblage is of moderate importance for ecological functioning (= 0.5). 8. The size of the Vergenoegd site is relatively small (94.2 ha). As a unit it is of low to insignificant importance for medium and large sized mammals, and of moderate to low importance for small mammals (= 0.25). 9. The habitat quality of the site is considered to be moderate, with a network of remnant patches of natural vegetation and wetlands still present in spite of the substantial habitat transformation that has occurred (= 0.5). 10. Habitat heterogeneity of the site is moderate, i.e. no significant geographic features or rocky outcrops are present (= 0.5). 11. The site is of moderate importance for mammals as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone (= 0.5). 12. The site is of low importance for genetic exchange of mammal communities in the general region (= 0.25).

Table 5: Mammal SIA of the proposed development site at regional and national scales. Criterion SIA score 1. Known presence of threatened species 0.5 2. Probable presence of threatened species 0 3. Presence of CoCT endemics 0 4. Presence of WC endemics 1 5. Presence of SA endemics 1 6. High species richness relative to the CoCT 0.5 7. Importance for ecological functioning 0.5 8. Size of the site 0.5 9. Habitat quality of the site 0.5 10. Extent of habitat heterogeneity 0.5 11. Importance as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone 0.5 12. Importance for genetic exchange 0.25 TOTAL 5.75

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 26

9.2 Birds BIRDS: The SIA for birds (Table 6; score = 5.75) in the context of the proposed development site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. This score was derived as follows: 1. Although a number of threatened (SCC) birds occur in the general region (see Table 2), only a few may occasionally utilise the Vergenoegd site. The most relevant species in this regard is the African Marsh-harrier which is Endangered at a national level (= 1.5). 2. No additional threatened (SCC) birds are likely to occur here (= 0). 3. No CoCT bird endemics are known to occur here (= 0). 4. No WC bird endemic occur here (= 0). 5. A number of SA bird endemics occur here (= 1). 6. The potential bird species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about 146 species, with about 132 species known or likely to occur. Keep in mind that a large proportion of these birds would be seasonal or irregular visitors to the site, and some of these will be in low numbers. The site is deemed to have a moderate bird species richness relative to the CoCT avifauna (= 0.5). 7. The avifauna assemblage is of moderate importance for ecological functioning (= 0.5). 8. The size of the Vergenoegd site is relatively small (94.2 ha). As a unit it is of moderate importance for birds (= 0.5). 9. The habitat quality of the site is considered to be moderate, with a network of remnant patches of natural vegetation and wetlands still present in spite of the substantial habitat transformation that has occurred (= 0.5). 10. Habitat heterogeneity of the site is moderate, i.e. no significant geographic features or rocky outcrops are present (= 0.5). 11. The site is of moderate importance for birds as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone (= 0.5). 12. The site is of low importance for genetic exchange of bird communities in the general region (= 0.25).

Table 6: Bird SIA of the proposed development site at regional and national scales. Criterion SIA score 1. Known presence of threatened species 1.5 2. Probable presence of threatened species 0 3. Presence of CoCT endemics 0 4. Presence of WC endemics 0 5. Presence of SA endemics 1 6. High species richness relative to the CoCT 0.5 7. Importance for ecological functioning 0.5 8. Size of the site 0.5 9. Habitat quality of the site 0.5 10. Extent of habitat heterogeneity 0.5 11. Importance as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone 0.5 12. Importance for genetic exchange 0.25 TOTAL 5.75

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 27

9.3 Reptiles REPTILES: The SIA for reptiles (Table 7; score = 5.75) in the context of the proposed development site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. This score was derived as follows: 1. Only one threatened (SCC) reptile is known to occur here, i.e. the Cape Dwarf Chameleon which is listed as Near Threatened (= 0.5). 2. No additional threatened (SCC) reptiles are likely to occur here (= 0). 3. No CoCT reptile endemics are known to occur here (= 0). 4. One WC reptile endemic (Cape Dwarf Chameleon) occurs here, and a second WC reptile endemic (Silvery Dwarf Burrowing Skink) may potentially occur here (= 1). 5. Several SA reptile endemics occur here (= 1). 6. The potential reptile species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about 32 species, with about 25 species known or likely to occur. As such the species richness relative to the CoCT reptile fauna is moderate (= 0.5). 7. The relatively impoverished reptile fauna assemblage is of moderate importance for ecological functioning (= 0.5). 8. The size of the Vergenoegd site is relatively small (94.2 ha). As a unit it is of moderate importance for reptiles in general (= 0.5). 9. The habitat quality of the site is considered to be moderate, with a network of remnant patches of natural vegetation and wetlands still present in spite of the substantial habitat transformation that has occurred (= 0.5). 10. Habitat heterogeneity of the site is moderate, i.e. no significant geographic features or rocky outcrops are present (= 0.5). 11. The site is of moderate importance for reptiles as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone (= 0.5). 12. The site is of low importance for genetic exchange of reptile communities in the general region (= 0.25).

Table 7: Reptile SIA of the proposed development site at regional and national scales. Criterion SIA score 1. Known presence of threatened species 0.5 2. Probable presence of threatened species 0 3. Presence of CoCT endemics 0 4. Presence of WC endemics 1 5. Presence of SA endemics 1 6. High species richness relative to the CoCT 0.5 7. Importance for ecological functioning 0.5 8. Size of the site 0.5 9. Habitat quality of the site 0.5 10. Extent of habitat heterogeneity 0.5 11. Importance as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone 0.5 12. Importance for genetic exchange 0.25 TOTAL 5.75

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 28

9.4 Amphibians AMPHIBIANS: The SIA for amphibians (Table 8; score = 5.5) in the context of the proposed development site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. This score was derived as follows: 1. Only one threatened (SCC) amphibian is known to occur here, i.e. the Cape Dainty Frog which is listed as Near Threatened (= 0.5). 2. No additional threatened (SCC) amphibians are likely to occur here (= 0). 3. No CoCT amphibian endemics are known to occur here (= 0). 4. One WC amphibian endemic (Cape Dainty Frog) occurs here, and a second WC amphibian endemic (Sand Rain Frog) may potentially occur here (= 1). 5. Several SA amphibian endemics occur or may occur here (= 1). 6. The potential amphibian species richness total of the Vergenoegd site and immediate surroundings is about eight species, with five species with confirmed occurrence. As such the species richness relative to the CoCT reptile fauna is low (= 0.25). 7. This impoverished amphibian fauna assemblage is of moderate to low importance for ecological functioning (= 0.5). 8. The size of the Vergenoegd site is relatively small (94.2 ha). As a unit it is of moderate importance for amphibians in general (= 0.5). 9. The habitat quality of the site is considered to be moderate, with a network of remnant patches of natural vegetation and wetlands still present in spite of the substantial habitat transformation that has occurred (= 0.5). 10. Habitat heterogeneity of the site is moderate, i.e. no significant geographic features or rocky outcrops are present (= 0.5). 11. The site is of moderate importance for amphibians as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone (= 0.5). 12. The site is of low importance for genetic exchange of amphibian communities in the general region (= 0.25).

Table 8: Amphibian SIA of the proposed development site at regional and national scales. Criterion SIA score 1. Known presence of threatened species 0.5 2. Probable presence of threatened species 0 3. Presence of CoCT endemics 0 4. Presence of WC endemics 1 5. Presence of SA endemics 1 6. High species richness relative to the CoCT 0.25 7. Importance for ecological functioning 0.5 8. Size of the site 0.5 9. Habitat quality of the site 0.5 10. Extent of habitat heterogeneity 0.5 11. Importance as an ecological corridor or a suburban green zone 0.5 12. Importance for genetic exchange 0.25 TOTAL 5.5

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 29

10 BASELINE ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Mammals From a mammal perspective, the recent botanical (Helme 2019a, b) and wetland assessments (Day 2019, 2020) constitute the most significant influence in terms of where development portions can be situated or not. In other words, the habitat nodes that are ecologically most sensitive and of highest conservation value were largely excluded from the development footprint. In terms of providing sufficient sanctuary for most of the mammal assemblages, both the proposed Dev Alt 2012 and 2019 have incorporated these requirements adequately. The Vergenoegd site currently is a large enough sanctuary to accommodate several species of small mammals. The groups that are likely to have resident breeding populations include rodents, shrews and hares, and perhaps to a certain extent also some of the small carnivore species. On the other hand, some of the larger carnivores like Caracal and perhaps Bat-eared Foxes probably visit and utilise the site from time to time. For the individuals of small antelope that are still present on site, the prospects of long-term population viability have been decreasing over the years. With the steady increase of new roads and perimeter fences in the Vergenoegd region, the potential for dispersal or migration to or between neighbouring habitats are gradually becoming less for these small antelope. Likewise, the increase of developed portions in the general region has also added to the fragmentation and general deterioration of the landscape. With the addition of the proposed Dev Alt 2019 development footprints, the situation for antelope populations will deteriorate even further. Then again, the habitat quality of the remaining conservation nodes will be improved once the alien vegetation has been cleared (as per the botanical recommendations). It is difficult to predict whether or not the reduction of suitable inhabitable terrain might exceed the threshold for the long-term ecological viability of these small antelope, which could ultimately result in the local extinction of one or two or all three species (if all three species are in fact still present here). In theory it should be possible to accommodate and maintain a few family groups within the Dev Alt 2019 scenario, but this will probably require substantial active management in the long-run. Small antelope numbers would have to be monitored, and it will likely become necessary to translocate individuals from time to time if the population manages to breed successfully. All things considered, the presence of small antelope within the Dev Alt 2019 scenario will be somewhat “cosmetic”, and of little conservation value. It is nevertheless appropriate to attempt to accomplish this scenario, although it may ultimately prove to be an unsuccessful endeavour. It is recommended that a specialist be consulted to specifically assess the carrying capacity and stocking rates of small antelope within the Dev Alt 2019 scenario, and to provide management guidelines accordingly.

10.2 Birds From a bird perspective, the recent botanical (Helme 2019a, b) and wetland assessments (Day 2019, 2020) constitute the most significant influence in terms of where development portions can be situated or not. In other words, the habitat nodes that are ecologically most sensitive and of highest conservation value were largely excluded from the development footprint. Compared to the other three vertebrate groups, birds are highly mobile and are thus a lot less dependent on a specific site. Most of the birds that utilise the Vergenoegd site probably also frequent other sites in the general region, although several are likely to also breed at Vergenoegd. Some species will visit the Vergenoegd site only during periods of good rainfall when seasonal wetlands abound. In this regard it is of substantial interest that these wetlands attract species that would otherwise not generally be

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 30 associated with the typical Vergenoegd landscape. It appears as though the Pepler (2008) survey was conducted at a time when the Vergenoegd wetlands were at a peak, and unlikely species such as Great Crested Grebe, White-breasted Cormorant, Greater Painted-snipe and Osprey were recorded. It is likely that such species are present in the general region mostly because of other significant watercourses (e.g. Kuils River wetlands) located close to the Vergenoegd site. Likewise, birds such as the African Marsh-harrier, Red-knobbed Coot and Common Moorhen are all likely to be more associated with the more substantial watercourses for the most of the year, and would merely be opportunistic visitors to the Vergenoegd wetlands. Much of the Vergenoegd terrestrial habitat are being utilised by small birds, e.g. passerines and doves. On rare occasions some of the large terrestrial species (e.g. Blue Crane) may also visit the site, albeit generally in low numbers. The eradication of alien vegetation and thus the subsequent improvement of vegetation in general will likely improve the environmental conditions for several bird species. In terms of the proposed Dev Alt 2019 scenario, the Vergenoegd avifauna is likely to be the least impacted group.

10.3 Reptiles From a reptile perspective, the recent botanical (Helme 2019a, b) and wetland assessments (Day 2019, 2020) constitute the most significant influence in terms of where development portions can be situated or not. In other words, the habitat nodes that are ecologically most sensitive and of highest conservation value were largely excluded from the development footprint. The extent of habitat that will remain after implementation of the Dev Alt 2019 developments is deemed to be adequate in maintaining viable populations of all the reptile species that currently occur at Vergenoegd. A few of these species (e.g. tortoises and chameleons; Figures 19 and 20) are easy to locate and translocate, and it is recommended to conduct a search-and-rescue operation specifically for these reptile species. Note however that the implementation of such a search-and-rescue operation is not an essential action in the context of this particular development proposal, nor is it deemed to constitute a significant mitigation measure. It is nevertheless recommended that this be undertaken so that the long-term population viability of these species can be boosted in the demarcated conservation nodes. A herpetologist must be contracted to conduct such an operation, being cognisant of the timing of habitat reclamation and earthworks events. Adequate release sites within the conservation nodes must be determined and prepared (e.g. alien vegetation cleared) before specimens are captured and translocated. Refer to Appendix 1 for more details on the search-and-rescue protocol.

Figure 19: Parrot-beaked Dwarf Tortoise Figure 20: Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion (Homopus areolatus) observed in the southern pumilum) observed in the south-western reaches

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 31 reaches of the Vergenoegd study area (28 March of the Vergenoegd study area (24 July 2019). 2019). IUCN conservation status = Least Concern. IUCN conservation status = Near Threatened.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 32

10.4 Amphibians From an amphibian perspective, the recent wetland assessments (Day 2019, 2020) constitute the most significant influence in terms of where development portions can be situated or not. In other words, the wetland habitat nodes that are ecologically most sensitive and of highest conservation value were largely excluded from the development footprint. The proposed Dev Alt 2019 has incorporated these delimitations to a reasonable degree, albeit that a few of the development portions are situated fairly close to some of the wetlands. A case in point is Portion 1 (see Figure 24) which borders onto an area with various frog breeding activities (see Figures 21 and 22). Special care should be taken in such cases to: 1. Maintain the recommended wetland buffer areas, which in this case is a 20 m buffer zone with pond/swale. 2. Prevent stormwater flow and pollution from the development zones into these wetland areas.

Figure 21: The red dot denotes the approximate location where about 70 Cape Dainty Frogs (Cacosternum capense) were observed calling on the Vergenoegd property (A.L. de Villiers pers. comm. 2019). The semi-transparent red and purple polygons demarcate nodes of high and medium botanical sensitivity (Helme 2019a, b). The solid red polygons denote wetland features as per the Day 2020 assessment.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 33

Figure22: The red dots denotes an observation of about 70 Cape Dainty Frogs (Cacosternum capense) calling from the Vergenoegd property (A.L. de Villiers pers. comm. 2019). The blue oval shape denotes the approximate area where Channing (2008) observed breeding activity of Cape Sand Toads (Vandijkophrynus angucticeps). The black elongated oval denotes the area where a breeding population of Cape Sand Toads were observed during the July 2019 site visits. This particular seasonal wetland was not shown in the Ractliffe (2009) assessment (i.e. the yellow polygons), but it is present in the revised wetland map (see figure 5.1 of Day 2020).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 34

11 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The botanical (Helme 2019a) and freshwater (Day 2019) assessments produced sensitivity maps that demarcated the Vergenoegd habitat zones that are of high, medium and low conservation value. Based on these delineations, the existing development layout (Dev Alt 2012; Figure 23) was redesigned and a new layout (Dev Alt 2019; Figure 24) was proposed. These habitat zones are by default also of direct relevance to the faunal baseline and impact assessment, i.e. they mirror the sensitive and important zones of the Vergenoegd faunal communities. Botanical and freshwater impact assessments were subsequently conducted for these two development options (Helme 2019b; Day 2020). Following on from those, a faunal impact assessment is presented here to evaluate these two development alternatives, as well as the no-development alternative.

11.1 Development Alternative 2012 (Dev Alt 2012) DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS PARK: Establish a business park (32.51 ha) and biodiversity conservation area (57.27 ha), with an additional area of 0.19 ha for roads and a stormwater detention pond of 4.26 ha.The 2012 approved development layout (Figure 23) was derived by means of a similar process of mapping of sensitive and conservation important botanical and freshwater features (e.g. Low et al. 2007; Ractliffe 2009). In most ways the environmental constraints identified in these earlier studies and in the 2019 studies are much the same, and thus the potential impacts of the two development alternatives do not differ significantly from each other.

Figure 23: Layout of the approved development (Dev Alt 2012).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 35

11.2 Development Alternative 2019 (Dev Alt 2019) DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK: Establish a mixed industrial/business park (39.31 ha), with approximately 50.53 ha zoned as Open Space 3 to contain the sensitive biodiversity, primarily seasonal wetlands and critically endangered indigenous vegetation. The remaining 5.62 ha will comprise public and private roads and an electrical substation site. In order to temporarily store irrigation water, irrigation ponds will be constructed within the developable part of the site. Through conditions of approval, this development scenario makes it mandatory that long-term management of the site’s important biodiversity be implemented. Figure 24 shows the revised layout as per the recommendations of the 2019 specialist studies, incorporating the results and recommendations of the botanical, faunal and freshwater components.

Figure 24: The newly proposed development layout (Dev Alt 2019).

11.3 No-development Alternative The no-development alternative is assumed to be the continuation of the current scenario whereby no development takes place on the site. Alien vegetation control on the property would have to be undertaken in accordance with the NEMBA Invasive Species Regulations (i.e. all Category 1 & 2 listed alien invasive plants will be eradicated). This scenario does not require that the site’s sensitive vegetation and wetlands be appropriately managed (e.g. fire, protection from poaching, illegal settlement). The progressive development of surrounding land also means that ecological connectivity will gradually deteriorate and thus the site would ultimately become ecologically isolated.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 36

12 ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT IMPACTS 12.1 Negative impacts associated with Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2019 The following negative impacts relate most significantly to small mammals, reptiles and frogs: CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #1: Faunal mortalities associated with earthworks and other construction activities (Table 9). This impact will likely result in a reduction of small nonvolant (i.e. non-flying) vertebrate abundance, e.g. rodents, shrews, reptiles and amphibians. Such mortalities is an inevitable negative impact of this type of development scenario. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #2: Loss of natural and semi-natural terrestrial habitat, and therefore a reduction in the extent of habitat available as faunal shelter/foraging resources (Table 10). The construction of the various development portions will result in a permanent loss of certain faunal habitat nodes, thus the overall ecological potential of the Vergenoegd site will be reduced. There will this be a reduction of shelter/foraging resources available to the remnant faunal communities. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 12 is rated to be of MEDIUM to LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of MEDIUM to LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #1: An increase of artificial structures (e.g. buildings and walls) that may inhibit faunal dispersal abilities (Table 11). The construction of a business park or mixed-use units and associated infrastructure (Dev Alts 2012 and 2019) will represent a substantial increase of artificial structures that will likely obstruct faunal movements within this landscape. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #2: An increase of hazardous terrain that may cause increased faunal mortalities (Table 12). This type of impact can be significant for some developments, e.g. large shopping centres with vast parking areas. Likewise, pitfall structures such as canals, storm water drains and swimming pools can cause faunal mortalities. Roads also constitute hazardous terrain for birds and terrestrial animals, depending on the degree of motorised traffic present. The potential impact associated with Dev Alt 2012 is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation. For the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 the potential impact is rated to be of LOW significance without mitigation and LOW NEGATIVE with mitigation.

12.2 Mitigation measures for Dev Alts 2012 and 2019 Note that most (if not all) of the mitigation measures that were recommended in the botanical (Helme 2019b) and freshwater (Day 2020) impact assessments will also be of some relevance to the faunal communities. Note also that the layout designs of Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2019 have already incorporated some of the recommendations of the various specialist reports, most importantly in terms of where the no-development (i.e. high, and some medium conservation value) nodes are situated.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 37

CONSTRUCTION PHASE  Conduct a search-and-rescue operation of select species prior to initiating earthworks activities, e.g. to translocate Cape Dwarf Chameleon specimens from the Renosterbos habitat in the south- eastern reaches of the northern sector to suitable sites in the southern sector. Refer to Appendix 1 for details on the search-and-rescue protocol.  Rescue tortoises if these are encountered during earthworks operations, and translocate these specimens to predetermined release sites (as per the specs of the search-and-rescue protocol; Appendix 1).  All earthworks activities must be confined to the specific designated development portions. Thus the conservation nodes must be no-go areas for construction workers, vehicles and construction machinery. The conservation areas must be adequately demarcated to designate the edge of the no-go areas so that these are not encroached on.

OPERATIONAL PHASE  Remove and control alien vegetation infestations as per the recommendations provided in the botanical specialist report.  Rehabilitate transformed vegetation nodes as per the recommendations provided in the botanical specialist report.  Manage vegetation nodes as per the recommendations provided in the botanical specialist report.  Manage the stormwater flow as per the recommendations provided in the freshwater specialist report. This includes the design and management of the proposed swales (Dev Alt 2019), which should be as per recommendations provided in the botanical and freshwater specialist reports.  Manage wetland features as per the recommendations provided in the freshwater specialist report, especially in terms of adhering to the recommended no-development buffer areas.  All future / new perimeter walls or fences must be permeable for small terrestrial animals (e.g. regular gaps of 20x20 cm at ground level) to allow for movement between properties.  Fences or barrier walls must be erected around the various developed portions so that terrestrial fauna are generally not able to enter these areas. These internal fences or barrier walls must be restricted to the containment of the development portions, i.e. they should not inhibit the ecological connectivity between conservation nodes. Such barriers need to be at least 150 cm in height, so that they can also exclude small antelope. These fences/barriers must not be permeable at ground level, thus they should be able to exclude small mammals (e.g. rodents), reptiles and frogs.  The edges of the main through-road through the Vergenoegd site and all roads through or along the conservation nodes and their associated pavements should be gentle rather than steep- sided, so as not to hamper the movements of small terrestrial animals. In instances where the main through-road is to be raised (if deemed necessary), the edges should be steep-sided with under-passes (culverts) to allow the unobstructed and safe passing of small terrestrial animals.  Any steep-sided canals and pitfalls (e.g. drains; see Figure 8) outside of the development portions should be closed off to prevent small terrestrial animals from falling in.  Establish a speed limit of 40 km/h on the main Vergenoegd through-road and all roads through or along the conservation nodes.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 38

12.3 Potential benefits for fauna The two main negative components of the two proposed development alternatives are a reduction of natural/semi-natural habitat and an increase in physical structures and hazardous zones. These impacts will result in a fragmented landscape that will impede faunal movements to some degree, and it will reduce the overall ecological resilience of the site. However, a significant positive environmental component that is associated with the two development alternatives is that alien vegetation will be removed and managed. This will bring about a substantial improvement of habitat quality in general, which will be beneficial to many of the Vergenoegd faunal communities. These undeveloped and rehabilitated nodes will be managed as conservation areas, i.e. as sanctuaries for localised and visiting animals. The proposal to incorporate a system of berms and swales to manage some of the stormwater flow (Dev Alt 2019) is also deemed to be a positive enhancement of onsite environmental conditions, even though this will be an artificial attribute introduced into the Vergenoegd landscape (see specs in the freshwater basic assessment report; Day 2020).

12.4 Impact Assessment of the No-development Alternative NO-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT #1: Sensitive vegetation and wetlands will not be managed appropriately. (Table 13). The overall ecological impact of the no-development alternative is likely to be less than for the two development alternatives. This is mostly because more of the natural and semi-natural habitat will be available to faunal communities. Although the natural and semi-natural transformed habitat of the Vergenoegd site is likely to deteriorate somewhat in quality over time, the no-development alternative does not present the type of negative impacts that are associated with the two development alternatives. It will: (1) not destroy/lose chunks of faunal shelter/foraging habitat; (2) not significantly decrease faunal dispersal options; (3) not create high- risk zones; (4) not cause an increase in traffic; and (5) not kill animals during construction phase. On the other hand, the no-development alternative lacks certain positive benefits that are associated with the development alternatives. The most significant of these are vegetation and wetland restoration programs, including the dedicated eradication and long-term control of alien vegetation infestations and fire management. Additionally, the conservation nodes will be managed to promote the long-term viability of the onsite faunal communities. These measures will bring about an overall improvement of habitat quality and biodiversity. The potential impact associated with the no- development alternative is rated to be of LOW significance. Mitigation in the context of the no- development alternative is not applicable as this alternative does not require any authorisation and therefore no mitigation measures can be enforced.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 39

12.5 Impact Rating Table presenting assessment of negative impacts associated with the construction phase

Table 9: CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #1: Faunal mortalities associated with earthworks and other construction activities. Potential impact and risk: Faunal mortalities associated with earthworks and other construction activities. Development alternative 2012 Development alternative 2019 Nature of impact: Faunal specimens of various species may inadvertently be killed Faunal specimens of various species may inadvertently be killed whilst clearing the site and during the construction of the whilst clearing the site and during the construction of the various development portions and the associated infrastructure. various development portions and the associated infrastructure. Extent and duration of impact: LOCAL and SHORT-TERM. The mortalities will be incurred on site LOCAL and SHORT-TERM. The mortalities will be incurred on site (local) during the construction phase (short-term). (local) during the construction phase (short-term). Consequence of impact or risk: A temporary reduction of the abundance of various faunal A temporary reduction of the abundance of various faunal species will occur at a local scale. species will occur at a local scale. Probability of occurrence: DEFINITE. DEFINITE. Degree to which the impact may cause No irreplaceable loss of resources will take place because the No irreplaceable loss of resources will take place because the irreplaceable loss of resources: various species that will incur mortalities will likely recover over various species that will incur mortalities will likely recover over time (i.e. the loss is temporary). time (i.e. the loss is temporary). Degree to which the impact can be COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. reversed: Indirect impacts: N/A N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: LOW. The impact would not result in significant cumulative LOW. The impact would not result in significant cumulative effects as the impacted species are most widespread and effects as the impacted species are most widespread and common and would recover. common and would recover. Significance rating of impact prior to MEDIUM to LOW NEGATIVE. It appears as though this particular MEDIUM to LOW NEGATIVE. It appears as though this particular mitigation: site is (with exception of some rodent species) faunistically not site is (with exception of some rodent species) faunistically not densely populated, and that the construction phase mortalities densely populated, and that the construction phase mortalities here would constitute a relatively small proportion of the here would constitute a relatively small proportion of the overall overall faunal assemblages in the general region. faunal assemblages in the general region. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. Due to the nature of earthworks activities, it is not LOW. Due to the nature of earthworks activities, it is not avoided: generally feasible to avoid faunal mortalities. generally feasible to avoid faunal mortalities. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. Due to the inevitability of this impact, not much can be LOW. Due to the inevitability of this impact, not much can be managed: done to manage the impact. done to manage the impact. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. It is generally quite difficult to adequately mitigate for this LOW. It is generally quite difficult to adequately mitigate for this

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 40 mitigated: particular impact. particular impact. Proposed mitigation:  As per the various 2012 environmental impact assessment  Conduct a search-and-rescue operation of select species prior recommendations. to initiating earthworks activities.  Limit earthworks activities to the specific designated development portions. Residual impacts: NO RESIDUAL IMPACTS. The negative impact of faunal NO RESIDUAL IMPACTS. The negative impact of faunal mortalities will likely be recovered over a few generations. mortalities will likely be recovered over a few generations. Cumulative impact post mitigation: LOW. LOW. Significance rating of impact after MEDIUM to LOW NEGATIVE. MEDIUM NEGATIVE. mitigation:

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 41

Table 10: CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACT #2: Loss of natural and semi-natural terrestrial habitat, and therefore a reduction in the extent of habitat available as faunal shelter/foraging resources. Potential impact and risk: Loss of natural and semi-natural terrestrial habitat, and therefore a reduction in the extent of habitat available as faunal shelter/foraging resources. Development alternative 2012 Development alternative 2019 Nature of impact: This development alternative will convert about 37.36ha of This development alternative will convert about 43.71ha of natural and semi-natural habitat into developed units and natural and semi-natural habitat into developed units and associated infrastructure. associated infrastructure. Extent and duration of impact: LOCAL and PERMANENT. The habitat loss will be restricted to LOCAL and PERMANENT. The habitat loss will be restricted to the site (local), and will continue for the duration of the the site (local), and will continue for the duration of the operational phase (permanent). operational phase (permanent). Consequence of impact or risk: The extent of natural and semi-natural habitat available to The extent of natural and semi-natural habitat available to faunal communities as shelter/foraging resources will be faunal communities as shelter/foraging resources will be reduced. A reduction of faunal shelter/foraging habitat may reduced. A reduction of faunal shelter/foraging habitat may over time result in a reduction of the local faunal assemblages. over time result in a reduction of the local faunal assemblages. Probability of occurrence: DEFINITE. DEFINITE. Degree to which the impact may cause The loss of the natural and semi-natural habitat to developed The loss of the natural and semi-natural habitat to developed irreplaceable loss of resources: portions is generally considered as being an irreplaceable loss of portions is generally considered as being an irreplaceable loss of resources. At the scale of all vegetation units, this impact resources. At the scale of all vegetation units, this impact constitutes a SIGNIFICANT loss of irreplaceable resources. At the constitutes a SIGNIFICANT loss of irreplaceable resources. At the scale of high sensitivity natural vegetation, this impact scale of high sensitivity natural vegetation, this impact constitutes a MARGINAL loss of irreplaceable resources. constitutes a MARGINAL loss of irreplaceable resources. Degree to which the impact can be IRREVERSIBLE. Once the various portions have been developed, IRREVERSIBLE. Once the various portions have been developed, reversed: the original habitats cannot be retrieved. the original habitats cannot be retrieved. Indirect impacts: N/A N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: MEDIUM to LOW. The continued loss of faunal shelter and MEDIUM to LOW. The continued loss of faunal shelter and foraging habitat in the course of various developments in the foraging habitat in the course of various developments in the general region all contribute to the general weakening of the general region all contribute to the general weakening of the ecological resilience of this area. ecological resilience of this area. Significance rating of impact prior to MEDIUM to LOW NEGATIVE. It appears as though this particular MEDIUM to LOW NEGATIVE. It appears as though this particular mitigation: site is (with exception of some rodent species) faunistically not site is (with exception of some rodent species) faunistically not densely populated. densely populated. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. Loss of natural and semi-natural habitat is an inevitable LOW. Loss of natural and semi-natural habitat is an inevitable

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 42 avoided: unavoidable component of the proposed development. unavoidable component of the proposed development. Degree to which the impact can be MEDIUM. The quality of the remaining undeveloped habitat MEDIUM. The quality of the remaining undeveloped habitat managed: nodes can be improved by removing alien vegetation and by nodes can be improved by removing alien vegetation and by managing these nodes as conservation units. managing these nodes as conservation units. Degree to which the impact can be MEDIUM. The layout design has already incorporated the main MEDIUM. The layout design has already incorporated the main mitigated: findings of the various specialist reports, most importantly in findings of the various specialist reports, most importantly in terms of the placement of development zones in accordance terms of the placement of development zones in accordance with the specialists’ recommendations (e.g. by avoiding the bulk with the specialists’ recommendations (e.g. by avoiding the bulk of high and medium sensitive areas). This is the most significant of high and medium sensitive areas). This is the most significant impact mitigation. Various other practical mitigation measures impact mitigation. Various other practical mitigation measures are also available to reduce the consequences of this impact are also available to reduce the consequences of this impact (see below). (see below). Proposed mitigation:  As per the various 2012 environmental impact assessment  Remove and control alien vegetation infestations as per the recommendations. specs provided by the botanical assessment (Helme 2019a, b).  Rehabilitate transformed vegetation nodes as per the specs provided by the botanical assessment (Helme 2019a, b).  Manage vegetation nodes as per the specs provided by the botanical assessment (Helme 2019a, b).  Manage wetland features as per the specs provided by the freshwater assessment (Day 2019, 2020).  Manage the stormwater flow as per the specs provided by the freshwater assessment, including the design and management of the proposed berms and swales (Dev Alt 2019), as per the specs provided by the botanical and freshwater assessments. Residual impacts: LOW. If the conservation landscape is effectively managed to LOW. If the conservation landscape is effectively managed to provide adequate habitat as faunal shelter/foraging resources, provide adequate habitat as faunal shelter/foraging resources, then the ecological resilience of these communities will likely be then the ecological resilience of these communities will likely be retained. retained. Cumulative impact post mitigation: LOW. LOW. Significance rating of impact after LOW NEGATIVE, with potentially a few POSITIVE outcomes in LOW NEGATIVE, with potentially a few POSITIVE outcomes in mitigation: cases where transformed habitats are successfully rehabilitated. cases where transformed habitats are successfully rehabilitated.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 43

12.6 Impact Rating Tables presenting the assessment of negative impacts associated with the operational phase

Table 11: OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #1: An increase of artificial structures (e.g. buildings and walls) that may inhibit faunal dispersal abilities. Potential impact and risk: An increase of artificial structures (e.g. buildings and walls) that may inhibit faunal dispersal abilities. Development alternative 2012 Development alternative 2019 Nature of impact: The construction of the various development units and The construction of the various development units and associated infrastructure will introduce a maze of obstacles associated infrastructure will introduce a maze of obstacles within the Vergenoegd property that will hamper the general within the Vergenoegd property that will hamper the general movements of fauna. movements of fauna. Extent and duration of impact: LOCAL and PERMANENT. The obstacles will be restricted to the LOCAL and PERMANENT. The obstacles will be restricted to the site (local), and will remain for the duration of the operational site (local), and will remain for the duration of the operational phase (permanent). phase (permanent). Consequence of impact or risk: Impaired mobility may negatively influence faunal foraging and Impaired mobility may negatively influence faunal foraging and breeding activities, which ultimately weakens the ecological breeding activities, which ultimately weakens the ecological resilience of the local faunal communities. resilience of the local faunal communities. Probability of occurrence: DEFINITE. DEFINITE. Degree to which the impact may cause MARGINAL loss of resources. MARGINAL loss of resources. irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be IRREVERSIBLE. Once the properties have been developed, the IRREVERSIBLE. Once the properties have been developed, the reversed: obstacles will remain in place. obstacles will remain in place. Indirect impacts: N/A N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: LOW. LOW. Significance rating of impact prior to LOW NEGATIVE. Although a network of physical barriers will LOW NEGATIVE. Although a network of physical barriers will mitigation: make it more difficult for terrestrial animals to move around, make it more difficult for terrestrial animals to move around, the layout does make provision for linkages between the various the layout does make provision for linkages between the various conservation nodes. Most species should be able to tolerate conservation nodes. Most species should be able to tolerate such obstacles and are thus likely to maintain viable populations such obstacles and are thus likely to maintain viable populations within these developed settings. within these developed settings. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. A network of physical obstacles is an inevitable product of LOW. A network of physical obstacles is an inevitable product of avoided: this type of development. this type of development. Degree to which the impact can be LOW. Due to the inevitability of this impact, not much can be LOW. Due to the inevitability of this impact, not much can be managed: done to manage the impact. done to manage the impact.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 44

Degree to which the impact can be LOW. It is generally quite difficult to adequately mitigate for this LOW. It is generally quite difficult to adequately mitigate for this mitigated: type of impact. In this particular case the layout design has type of impact. In this particular case the layout design has already incorporated the most effective mitigation measure, i.e. already incorporated the most effective mitigation measure, i.e. by providing several conservation nodes whilst at the same time by providing several conservation nodes whilst at the same time providing a degree of ecological connectivity. providing a degree of ecological connectivity. Proposed mitigation:  As per the various 2012 environmental impact assessment  Essential internal walls or fences must be restricted to the recommendations. encampment of developed zones, i.e. these should not impede the ecological connectivity between conservation nodes.  The perimeter fence should be permeable at ground level to allow the movement of small animals between properties.  The edges of the main through-road and all roads through or along the conservation nodes and their associated pavements should be gentle rather than steep-sided, so that terrestrial animals can easily cross roads. In instances where the main through-road is to be raised, the edges should be steep-sided with under-passes (culverts) to allow the unobstructed and safe passing of small terrestrial animals. Residual impacts: LOW. If the property is managed with maintained ecological LOW. If the property is managed with maintained ecological connectivity as a permanent objective, then most terrestrial connectivity as a permanent objective, then most terrestrial animals will be able to endure the mobility restrictions in place. animals will be able to endure the mobility restrictions in place. Cumulative impact post mitigation: LOW. LOW. Significance rating of impact after LOW NEGATIVE. LOW NEGATIVE. mitigation:

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 45

Table 12: OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACT #2: An increase of hazardous terrain that may cause increased faunal mortalities. Potential impact and risk: An increase of hazardous terrain that may cause increased faunal mortalities. Development alternative 2012 Development alternative 2019 Nature of impact: Large expanses of hazardous terrain such as parking lots can be Large expanses of hazardous terrain such as parking lots can be problematic for some small terrestrial animals, especially to problematic for some small terrestrial animals, especially to frogs. Likewise, pitfall structures such as canals, storm water frogs. Likewise, pitfall structures such as canals, storm water drains and swimming pools can cause faunal mortalities. Roads drains and swimming pools can cause faunal mortalities. Roads also constitute hazardous terrain for birds and terrestrial also constitute hazardous terrain for birds and terrestrial animals, depending on the degree of motorised traffic present. animals, depending on the degree of motorised traffic present. Extent and duration of impact: LOCAL and PERMANENT. These high-risk features will be LOCAL and PERMANENT. These high-risk features will be restricted to the site (local), and will remain for the duration of restricted to the site (local), and will remain for the duration of the operational phase (PERMANENT). the operational phase (PERMANENT). Consequence of impact or risk: The presence of hazardous terrain within nodes of conservation The presence of hazardous terrain within nodes of conservation terrain will reduce the overall ecological integrity of that specific terrain will reduce the overall ecological integrity of that specific site. Sporadic faunal mortalities may weaken the on-site site. Sporadic faunal mortalities may weaken the on-site population’s ecological resilience, if this happen to a significant population’s ecological resilience, if this happen to a significant degree. degree. Probability of occurrence: DEFINITE. DEFINITE. Degree to which the impact may cause MARGINAL LOSS of resources. MARGINAL LOSS of resources. irreplaceable loss of resources: Degree to which the impact can be IRREVERSIBLE. Once the various portions have been developed, IRREVERSIBLE. Once the various presincts have been developed, reversed: the hazardous terrain will remain in place. the hazardous terrain will remain in place. Indirect impacts: N/A N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: LOW. This can be HIGH under certain circumstances, but Dev Alt LOW. This can be HIGH under certain circumstances, but Dev Alt 2012 does not include many hazardous features. 2019 does not include many hazardous features. Significance rating of impact prior to LOW NEGATIVE, due to the relatively few hazardous terrain LOW NEGATIVE, due to the relatively few hazardous terrain mitigation: nodes. nodes. Degree to which the impact can be MEDIUM. This is best achieved during the layout design stage, MEDIUM. This is best achieved during the layout design stage, avoided: where the aim for the development footprints (including where the aim for the development footprints (including associated infrastructure) should be to limit (or avoid in some associated infrastructure) should be to limit (or avoid in some cases) the inclusion of potentially hazardous features. cases) the inclusion of potentially hazardous features. Additionally, some of these hazardous areas can be fenced-off Additionally, some of these hazardous areas can be fenced-off to exclude terrestrial fauna. to exclude terrestrial fauna.

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 46

Degree to which the impact can be LOW. LOW. managed: Degree to which the impact can be MEDIUM, see below. MEDIUM, see below. mitigated: Proposed mitigation: • As per the various 2012 environmental impact assessment • Fences or barrier walls (1.5+ m) must be erected around the recommendations. various developed portions so that terrestrial fauna are generally not able to enter these areas. These walls or fences must be restricted to the encampment of developed portions, i.e. they should not inhibit the ecological connectivity between conservation nodes. • The edges of the main through-road and all roads through or along the conservation nodes and their associated pavements should be gentle rather than steep-sided, so as not to hamper the movements of small terrestrial animals. In instances where the main through-road is to be raised, the edges should be steep-sided with under-passes (culverts) to allow the unobstructed and safe passing of small terrestrial animals. • Steep-sided canals and pitfalls (e.g. drains) should be closed off to prevent small terrestrial animals from falling in. • Establish a speed limit of 40 km/h on the main Vergenoegd through-road. Residual impacts: LOW. Dev Alt 2012 does not include many hazardous features. LOW. Dev Alt 2019 does not include many hazardous features. Cumulative impact post mitigation: LOW. LOW. Significance rating of impact after LOW NEGATIVE. LOW NEGATIVE. mitigation:

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 47

12.7 Impact Rating Table presenting the assessment of faunal impacts associated with the no-development alternative

Table 13: Impact assessment for the no-development alternative: Minimal or zero control of invasive alien vegetation. Potential impact and risk Sensitive vegetation and wetlands will not be managed appropriately. Nature of impact: The continuation of alien vegetation infestations will reduce the overall habitat quality of the Vergenoegd site. Extent and duration of impact: LOCAL and LONG-TERM. Directed management is required to change this situation, i.e. by actively managing alien vegetation infestations and by limiting agricultural land-use (if applicable). Consequence of impact or risk: Transformed suboptimal habitats are generally less able to provide for faunal shelter and foraging needs. The resilience of the faunal communities in this area will be partially reduced by the suboptimal habitat resources. Probability of occurrence: LIKELY. Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss No resources will be irreplaceable lost. Faunal populations will generally be able to persist in spite of the lower of resources: quality habitat. Degree to which the impact can be reversed: COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. Indirect impacts: N/A Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: LOW. The impact would not result in significant cumulative effects. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation: LOW NEGATIVE. Degree to which the impact can be avoided: LOW. The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied). Degree to which the impact can be managed: LOW. The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied). Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: LOW. The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied). Proposed mitigation: NONE: The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied). Residual impacts: No residual impacts. Cumulative impact post mitigation: NOT APPLICABLE: The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied). Significance rating of impact after mitigation: NOT APPLICABLE: The nature of the no-development alternative is such that the status quo will remain (i.e. no active management or mitigations will be applied).

VERGENOEGD 653: Faunal Baseline & Impact Assessment (March 2020) 48

13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON FAUNA The historical natural landscape of the Faure region and surroundings have been transformed over the years, with relatively little remaining as natural or semi-natural habitat (see Figure 25). The most significant of the remnant habitat features include the Kuils River wetlands and the Eerste River floodplains. The bulk of the habitat transformation (and loss) is due to the sprawl of agricultural land- use, formal and informal residential developments and business precincts (e.g. CTFS). In the context of this substantial landscape transformation, the Vergenoegd property constitutes a noteworthy unit of undeveloped terrain, albeit degraded to a certain extent. As such it is of moderate importance as a faunal sanctuary. Development of this property as per the layouts of Dev Alt 2012 (approved) or Dev Alt 2019 (proposed) will contribute to this significant cumulative fauna impact caused by transformation of the landscape in the Faure region. Minimising the contribution however is the setting aside of approximately half of the site as a biodiversity conservation area.

Figure 25: The Vergenoegd property in relation to adjacent units of transformed and natural/semi- natural terrain.

14 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS From a faunal perspective, specifically in relation to mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, the overall importance of the Vergenoegd site is MODERATE at regional and LOW to MODERATE at national scales. The various management recommendations and stipulations that were outlined in the botanical (Helme 2019a, b) and freshwater (Day 2019, 2020) assessments serve as the basis for habitat management of the Vergenoegd conservation nodes. By default, these then also make provision for most of the faunal requirements on site. It is thus primarily a case of habitat management rather than the specific management of faunal communities. A notable exception in this regard is the management of small antelope populations, which would require a more hands-on approach.

The two development alternatives, i.e. Dev Alt 2012 (approved) and Dev Alt 2019 (proposed), are generally fairly similar in terms of their respective faunal impacts. However, the newly proposed Dev Alt 2019 is more refined with regards to the protection and management of the various conservation nodes, as well as in terms of stormwater management (the proposed stormwater management system will ensure that the site’s sensitive wetlands are not hydrologically impacted or impaired in terms of water quality). As such the Dev Alt 2019 layout affords high levels of protection to the Vergenoegd wetlands (Day 2020), and for the most it accommodates the high value sensitive terrestrial habitats (Helme 2019b). On the other hand, ecological connectivity for faunal movements between the northern and southern sectors is more constricted in comparison with that of the Dev Alt 2012 design (see Figures 24 and 25). However, the entire Vergenoegd property is too small to function as a significant or important faunal sanctuary at a regional scale. It seems likely that the two sectors of conservation land accommodated within the respective development alternatives are nevertheless large enough to maintain long-term ecological viability for most species of small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, whilst also serving as supplementary habitat for visiting fauna (e.g. birds). In conclusion, either of the two development alternatives achieve ecological viability for the majority of the faunal communities in this region. The overall ecological impact of the no-development alternative is likely to be less than for any of the proposed development alternatives. This is mostly because more of the natural and semi-natural habitat will be available to faunal communities, thus an advantage of more space for biodiversity. On the other hand, without adequate control of alien vegetation and without the other forms of habitat restoration and biodiversity protection and management (as per the conditions of approval of Dev Alt 2019), much of this habitat will be of a lower quality compared to that of the projected conservation nodes that are associated with the Dev Alt 2019 scenario.

The development will contribute to the cumulative degradation of the region (= a negative impact), but the improvement of habitat quality has the potential to be a significant positive outcome which will minimise the contribution towards this significant historical and ongoing cumulative impact. From a fauna perspective both Dev Alt 2012 and Dev Alt 2020 are appropriate development options for the Vergenoegd property. The placement of development precincts outside of sensitive nodes and the implementation of the various proposed mitigation measures are essential components in order to achieve adequate ecological resilience of the site.

15 REFERENCES Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J. and De Villiers, M.S. (eds). 2014. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Burger M. 2005. Faunal assessment for Dreamworld Film City at Faure. Sungazer report compiled for Environmental Partnership – March 2005. Channing, A. 2008. Vergenoegd farm (Portion 15), Faure: Herpetological Impact Assessment. Unpublished report compiled for DJ Environmental Consultants – August 2008. Child, M.F., Roxburgh, L., Do Linh San, E., Raimondo, D. and Davies-Mostert, H.T. 2016. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa. Day, L. 2019. Portion 15 of Vergenoegd Farm, City of Cape Town: Baseline Study to inform development planning: Specialist report on Aquatic Ecosystems. Unpublished Liz Day Consulting report compiled for KHULA Environmental Consultants – April 2019. Day, L. 2020. Proposed Development of Portion 15 of Vergenoegd Farm, City of Cape Town: Basic Assessment Report: Specialist Aquatic Ecosystems. Unpublished Liz Day Consulting report compiled for KHULA Environmental Consultants – January 2020. FIAO 2019. FrogMAP. http://vmus.adu.org.za/ An online data source of the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (previously ADU). Downloaded in April 2019. FIAO 2019. MammalMAP. http://vmus.adu.org.za/ An online data source of the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (previously ADU). Downloaded in April 2019. FIAO 2019. ReptileMAP. http://vmus.adu.org.za/ An online data source of the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (previously ADU). Downloaded in April 2019. Helme, N. 2019a. Botanical Baseline Assessment of Portion 15 of Vergenoegd 653, Faure. Unpublished Nick Helme Botanical Surveys report compiled for KHULA Environmental Consultants – April 2019. Helme, N. 2019b. Botanical Impact Assessment of proposed development on Portion 15 of Vergenoegd 653, Faure. Unpublished Nick Helme Botanical Surveys report compiled for KHULA Environmental Consultants – November 2019. IUCN 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-3. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded in October 2019. Low, A.B., Corry, F., Ractliffe, S.G. and Job, N. 2007 Assessment of natural systems on Portion 15 of Farm Vergenoegd No. 635: Implications for conservation. Report to CSV Construction. Pepler, D. 2008. Faunal Specialist study for the proposed Vergenoegd Business Park Development. Unpublished Dave Pepler (SSC Africa) report compiled for Urban Dynamics Western Cape. Ractliffe, G. 2009. Environmental impact assessment for the “Central Park” development, Farm 653, Portion 15. Wetlands component. Report to Urban Dynamics. SABAP2 2019. Southern African Bird Atlas Project 2. http://sabap2.adu.org.za/ Downloaded May 2019. Taylor, M.R., Peacock, F. and Wanless, R. (Eds.). 2015. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.

16 APPENDIX 1: Search-and-rescue protocol It is recommended to conduct a low-profile search-and-rescue operation at the Vergenoegd site to capture and translocate select species, i.e. Cape Dwarf Chameleons (NT), Angulate Tortoises (LC) and Parrot-beaked Dwarf Tortoise (LC). The implementation of such a search-and-rescue operation is not an essential action in the context of this particular development proposal, nor is it deemed to constitute a significant mitigation measure. It nevertheless has some value in terms of boosting the long-term population viability of a few species within the demarcated conservation nodes.

 The search-and-rescue operation must be conducted prior to the construction phase.  A herpetologist must be contracted to conduct such an operation, being cognisant of the timing of habitat reclamation and earthworks events.  Adequate release sites within the Vergenoegd conservation nodes must be determined by the herpetologist, and these must be prepared (e.g. alien vegetation cleared) before specimens are to be captured and translocated.  Detailed records (including photos and coordinates) must be kept of the search-and-rescue captures and translocations, and these must be submitted to CapeNature upon completion of the operation.

17 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE I hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest related to the work of this report. Specifically, I declare that I have no personal financial interests in the property and/or development being assessed in this report, and that I have no personal or financial connections to the relevant property owners, developers, planners, financiers or consultants of the development. I declare that the opinions expressed in this report are my own and a true reflection of my professional expertise.

CV OF SPECIALIST CONSULTANT (abridged) Mr Marius Burger holds a National Diploma in Nature Conservation with Cape Technicon, and worked as a research assistant with Eastern Cape Nature Conservation (1987-1997). Subsequently he took up employment with the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, University of Cape Town) as National Coordinator of the Southern African Frog Atlas Project (1997-2003) and as Project Herpetologist of the Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment (2005-2009). Burger’s EIA activities as a faunal specialist started in 1996. He established a sole-proprietor business Sungazer Faunal Surveys in 1988, and has since participated in about 90 different projects in collaboration with a variety of EIA consultancies. His achievements as a faunal specialist are summarised below:  Member of IUCN SSC Snake and Lizard Red List Authority 2017-2020: 2017 – present.  Member of South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA-FRoG): 2013 – present.  Member of Herpetological Association of Africa: 1988 – present.  Extraordinary Lecturer with the Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University: 2015 – present.  Research collaborator with FLORA FAUNA & MAN, Ecological Services Ltd.: 2011 – present.  Research Collaborator with the Smithsonian Institute: 2002 – 2004.  Research Collaborator with the South African Museum: 2000 – 2002.  Country liaison for the journal Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: 2000 – 2004.  Chairman of the Port Elizabeth Herpetological Club: 1992 – 1996.  Compiled about 100 specialist and EIA reports for various consultancies and projects.  Published about 105 scientific, semi-scientific and popular articles, and authored/edited three books and 34 chapters/accounts in books.  Presented 41 papers/posters at national/international symposia.

M. Burger – trading as Sungazer Faunal Surveys March 2020