Mammal Habitat Scan

of the

The Remainder of the farm 53-IR ( Botanical Gardens)

October 2016

Report author: I.L. Rautenbach (Ph.D., T.H.E.D., Pr.Sci.Nat.)

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 1 of 10 pages TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration of Professional Standing and Independence: ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 4 3. STUDY AREA ...... 4 4. METHODS ...... 7 5. RESULTS ...... 7 5.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment ...... 7 5.2 Expected and Observed Mammal Species Richness ...... 7 5.3 Threatened and Red Listed Mammal Species Flagged ...... 8 6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS ...... 8 7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS INFORMATION ...... 8 8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 9 9. CONCLUSIONS ...... 9 10. LITERATURE SOURCES ...... 9

FIGURES:

Figure 1: Locality map of the study area...... 5 Figure 2: Google Earth image of the site and 500 meters adjoining zone...... 5 Figure 3: The sizeable Emmarentia Dam...... 6 Figure 4: The terrain has been laid out to provide open spaces...... 6 Figure 5: The banks of the Westdene Spruit are overgrown mostly by aliens...... 7

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 2 of 10 pages Declaration of Professional Standing and Independence:

I, Ignatius Lourens Rautenbach (421201 5012 08 8) declare that I:  hold a Ph.D. in the biological sciences, which allowed registration by SACNASP (SA Council for National Scientific Professions) as a Professional Zoologist and sanction me to function independently as a specialist scientific consultant  declare that as per prerequisites of the Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003 this project was my work from inception and reflects exclusively my observations and unbiased scientific interpretations, and executed to the best of my ability  abide by the Code of Ethics of the SACNASP  am committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognize the need for economic development. Whereas I appreciate opportunities to learn through constructive criticism and debate, I reserve the right to form and hold my own opinions within the constraints of my training and experience, and therefore will not submit willingly to the interests of other parties or change my statements to appease them  am subcontracted as a specialist consultant by Galago Environmental CC for the project entitled “Mammal and Habitat Scan of the Johannesburg Botanical Gardens“, as described in this report  have no financial interest in the proposed development other than remuneration for the work performed  do not have, and will not have in the future, any vested or conflicting interests in the proposed development  undertake to disclose to Galago Environmental CC and its client(s) as well as to the competent authority any material information that may have the potential to influence any decisions by the competent authority, as required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014  reserve the right to only transfer my intellectual property contained in this report to the client(s), (party or company that commissioned the work) on full payment of the contract fee. Upon transfer of the intellectual property, I recognise that written consent from the client will be required for me to release any part of this report to third parties.  In addition, remuneration for services provided by Galago Environmental CC is not subjected to or based on approval of the proposed project by the relevant authorities responsible for authorising this proposed project.

I.L. Rautenbach

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 3 of 10 pages 1. INTRODUCTION

Galago Environmental CC. was commissioned to conduct a scan of vertebrate species diversity and habitat quality of the greater Johannesburg Botanical Gardens, Emmarentia (the study site), and to express an opinion if and to what extent the proposed development will detract from mammal diversity, habitat quality and influence the experiential quality of the facility.

This report focuses on the past and present status of threatened and sensitive mammals likely to occur (or occurred) on the development site, and whose conservation status should be (or should have been) considered in the construction and management of the educational facility. Special attention was paid to the qualitative and quantitative habitat conditions for Red Data species deemed present on the site, and mitigation measures to ameliorate the effect of the development that is suggested. The secondary objective of the investigation was to gauge which mammals might still reside on the site and compile a complete list of mammal diversity of the study area.

This assignment is in accordance with the 2014 EIA Regulations emanating from Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998).

2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To qualitatively and quantitatively assess the significance of the past and present mammal habitat components and current general conservation status of the property;  Identify and comment on ecological sensitive areas;  Comments on connectivity with natural vegetation and habitats on adjacent sites;  To discuss mammal occurrences and to identify species or ecological systems of conservation importance;  To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on the mammals of the study site, and  To offer proposals to enhance the establishing of the new extensions.

3. STUDY AREA

The main feature of the Johannesburg Botanical Gardens is the 7.5 hectares Emmarentia Dam (Figure 3). It was constructed in 1920 after the Anglo-Boer War by displaced/disowned Boer combatants on a portion of the Farm Braamfontein. The dam wall was constructed from dressed rocks from the Melville Koppies. The dam is fed by two smaller dams upstream in the Westdene Spruit (Figure 5). Emmarentia Dam is used for kayaking, swimming and angling.

The 81 hectares terrain of the present-day garden was initially the Jan van Riebeeck Park sport grounds but was officially dedicated to a municipal botanical garden in 1969. The park is today a major green lung of the City of Johannesburg. It has three access gates and three parking lots.

Unlike botanical gardens dedicated to preserve and display indigenous plants (National Botanical Gardens in Cape Town and Pretoria), the Johannesburg Botanical Garden was dedicated primarily for recreation. Nature conservation sensu stricto was never an objective. Both Highveld indigenous and especially alien shrubs and trees were used to provide shade or sun (depending on the season or visitors’ requirements), open areas for activities such as picnicking, recreational sport (flying kites, walking pets, action cricket, touch rugby), paved walkways for strolling, walking, jogging, cycling, bird watching (Figures 4 and 5). Large concerts are occasionally staged. Refreshments can be purchased from ice cream vendors on cycles, food stalls, a restaurant, a kiosk. Fishing is permitted outside the formal boundary of the

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 4 of 10 pages gardens. Security is provided and visible.

Specialist sections include the Shakespeare Garden, the Rose Garden, the Herb Garden, a Hedge Demonstration Garden and the main arboretum.

From the onset the land-use of the area excluded nature conservation as a priority. Elements of the original Egoli Granite Grassland, Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld and Highveld Grassland vegetation units have been displaced.

Figure 1: Locality map of the study area.

Figure 2: Google Earth image of the site and 500 meters adjoining zone.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 5 of 10 pages

Figure 3: The sizeable Emmarentia Dam is the major attraction feature and provides opportunities to swimmers, kayakists, bird watchers and picnickers.

Figure 4: The terrain has been laid out to provide open spaces for more rigorous activities and shade for picnicking, walking, jogging and cycling.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 6 of 10 pages

Figure 5: The banks of the Westdene Spruit are overgrown mostly by aliens. Note the paved walkways, laid in a manner that one do not have to backtrack on anyone.

4. METHODS

A site visit was conducted on 21 March 2016 and the site evaluated for natural areas that could support mammals.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment The terrain consists nominally of terrestrial and wetland habitats, but is devoid of natural vegetation apart from plantings under the prerogative of the gardens. The riparian zone is overgrown mostly by alien vegetation. The Westdene Spruit and its riparian zones could serve as a dispersal corridor, but considering the fact that riparian zone vegetation is predominantly alien, this capacity may be impaired.

5.2 Expected and Observed Mammal Species Richness It is remotely possible that robust small mammals such as a few scrub hares, rodent moles, and rodents such as multimammate mice can still venture onto the site. Applying the precautionary principle, marsh mongooses are assumed to be present along the lake and stream banks, but not otters. Common vespertilionid (dog-faced) bats undoubtedly hawk for aerial invertebrates during summer sunsets over the gardens, and especially of the water surfaces.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 7 of 10 pages 5.3 Threatened and Red Listed Mammal Species Flagged

By the Scientific Community: Nil.

By the Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004: Nil.

By the Regulations of the Provincial Authority: Nil.

Formally Prohibited Invasive and Prohibited Species: Nil

6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS

Before urbanization commenced in the Emmarentia Suburb, large and most medium-sized mammals have already been displaced by hunting for sport and profit, later by farming interests and later still by accumulative urbanization pressures, in this instance sport fields and a golf driving range. The latter phase of land-use progressively displaced remaining small mammals, with the exception of a few hardy species such as common rodents and possibly scrub hares. At this stage the site itself has reached a stage where it no longer has any value as a formal conservation asset for historical indigenous ecosystems of the Egoli Granite Grassland, Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld and Soweto Highveld Grassland vegetation units; not only was it depleted of species diversity but also of ecological services such as connectivity and operational food chains.

7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS INFORMATION

The Galago Environmental team has sufficient experience and ample access to information sources to confidently compile lists of biota such as presented herein to support conclusions and suggested mitigation measures based on a site visit. In instances where doubt exists, a species is assumed to be a possible occupant (viz. Suncus species); -this approach renders the conclusions to be robust. In instances where the possible occurrence has significant ecological implications, an intensive survey is recommended. In view of the latter, it is highly unlikely whether an intensive survey to augment this site visit will add significantly to the data base, and the additional costs are unlikely to warrant the effort.

Even though every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this report, environmental assessment studies are limited in scope, time and budget. Discussions and proposed mitigations are to some extent made on reasonable and informed assumptions built on bone fide information sources, as well as deductive reasoning. Deriving a 100% factual report based on field collecting and observations can only be done over several years and seasons to account for fluctuating environmental conditions and migrations. Since environmental impact studies deal with dynamic natural systems additional information may come to light at a later stage. Galago Environmental can thus not accept responsibility for conclusions and mitigation measures made in good faith based on own databases or on the information provided at the time of the directive. This report should therefore be viewed and acted upon with these limitations in mind.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 8 of 10 pages 8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

It is cautioned not to entertain the notion of introducing cuddly animals such as grey squirrels, bunnies, pigeons, cage birds or for that matter, farm animals. Such as in Cape Town gardens, populations of these could get out of hand and become problematic. Furthermore, these as well as unconstrained dogs could also expose the municipality to litigation for injuries or diseases. Dog owners are inclined to assume a degree of entitlement and decidedly pose a problem to other visitors to the gardens and will require strong-arm diplomacies from the municipality.

9. CONCLUSIONS

The study site has not in any stage been earmarked for any form of conservation of indigenous biota and had been differentially utilized against that background.

It is contended that the proposed extensions and new initiatives are laudable and in line with expectations of an urbanised public in need of ‘lebensraum’. It is emphasised that the new extension will not be at the expense of indigenous biota or ecological services. The site has long since lost its appeal as a Highveld floral and faunal conservation asset. Presently the complex can at best harbour a few vagrant common small mammals, as well as possibly colonies of common bat species roosting in roofs and bats from the vicinity hawking for insects over the dams, stream and wetlands.

10. LITERATURE SOURCES

Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Mathee, C.A. & Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates 28:56-103. Friedman, Y. and Daly, B. (editors). 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of : A Conservation Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa. GDARD, 2014. Requirements for biodiversity assessments Version 3. Biodiversity Management Directorate, Department of Agriculture and Rural development. Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. & Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of Southern African Mammals. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, RSA. Mills, G. & Hes, L. 1997. The complete book of Southern African Mammals. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, RSA. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 0f 2004). Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004. National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). Draft List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009. Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act No. 27 of 2003). Rautenbach, I.L. 1978. A numerical re-appraisal of the southern African biotic zones. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 6:175-187. Rautenbach, I.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal. Ecoplan Monograph No. 1. Pretoria, RSA. Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, T.C. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 9 of 10 pages Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. 2nd edition. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Smithers, R.H.N. 1983. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Pretoria: University of Pretoria. Taylor, P.J. 1998. The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of Southern Africa. University of Natal Press: Pietermaritzburg. Van Schalkwyk, M. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004); Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species.

Mammal Scan: Johannesburg Botanical Gardens October 2016 10 of 10 pages