Amphibian Habitat and Wetland Study

CC 9 Toulouse, 2 Minto Place, Morningside Manor, Johannesburg. P.O. Box 368 Rivonia 2128 Telephone: 082-411-8033 Email: [email protected]

AMPHIBIAN HABITAT AND WETLAND STUDY

PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED K109 ROAD IN THE GLEN AUSTIN AREA.

8 MAY 2017

PREPARED BY: VINCENT CARRUTHERS, VC MANAGEMENT SERVICES CC

CONSULTANT: DELIA DE LANGE – LOKISA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING CC

CLIENT: APHANE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD (ON BEHALF OF GAUTRANS).

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ...... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Proposed activity and site ...... 5 1.2 Purpose of the project ...... 5 1.3 Terms of reference and procedure ...... 6 1.4 Assumptions and limitations ...... 6 1.5 Indemnity and independence ...... 6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 2.1 Specialist reports for use in the application for environmental authorisation...... 7 2.2 Reports commissioned for other purposes but relevant to the current application...... 8 2.3 Government reports and regulations applicable to the application...... 8 2.4 Socio-economic reports...... 9 3. MEETING WITH CONSULTING ENGINEERS ...... 10 4. SITE VISIT ...... 12 4.1 Glen Austin Pan ...... 12 4.2 Sedge Pan ...... 12 4.4 Grassland ...... 14 4.5 Seepage wetland ...... 15 4.6 Valley bottom wetland ...... 15 5.1 Regulatory findings ...... 17 5.1.1 Rejection of design ...... 17 5.2 Protected areas and biodiversity findings ...... 18 5.2.1 Conservation of Giant Bullfrogs and habitats ...... 18 5.2.2 Threatened ecosystem ...... 20 5.2.3 Threatened grassland ...... 21 5.3 Wetland delineation findings ...... 21 5.3.1 Glen Austin and Sedge Pans ...... 22 5.3.2 Valley bottom wetland ...... 23 5.4 Hydrological findings ...... 23 5.4.1 Surface drainage ...... 23 5.4.2 Ground water ...... 24 5.4.3 Water quality ...... 24 5.5 Cumulative impacts ...... 24

2 5.5.1 Adjacent development ...... 24 5.5.2 Refuse dumping ...... 25 5.6 Socio-economic impacts ...... 25 5.6.1 Reason for road ...... 25 5.6.2 Traffic forecasts ...... 25 5.6.3 Pedestrian traffic and public transport ...... 25 5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 26 Option 1. Do not proceed with the proposed road – the ‘no go’ option...... 26 Option 2. Re-align the road to the east to by-pass sensitive wetland areas...... 28 Option 3. Deflect the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers. .. 30 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32 7. REFERENCES ...... 34

3 SUMMARY

This study is based on an assessment of various reports and other documents relevant to the proposed K109 road as well as a field inspection of the site. Its purpose is to recommend appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts.

Six categories of potential impacts are identified: - Potential regulatory transgressions - Possible disturbance to biodiversity and protected or sensitive areas - Potential wetland encroachment - Potential hydrological disturbance (surface runoff, ground water and water quality) - Cumulative impacts - Socio-economic impacts

Three possible options are considered:

1. No go. This option is not recommended because it would fail to meet the socio- economic needs that the road would fulfil.

2. Re-routing of the alignment of the road. This option is not recommended because of the legal and economic impracticality.

3. Deflect the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers. This option is recommended subject to the following conditions (abbreviated):

- A collaborative project to clear and control refuse dumping. - Implementation of GDACEL and GDACE 2004/5 stipulations. - A comprehensive management plan for construction and long term operation. - A detailed hydrological management plan for surface water runoff, ground water recharge, contamination, protection of wetland services, biodiversity and habitats. - Alignment of the road outside of delineated wetland buffers. - Bridges over valley bottom wetland. - A foraging and dispersal corridor across a 300m front between Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan. - Three 30m bridges over the corridor. - A fine mesh durable fence on both sides of the road. - A dump-rock base under the road to allow percolation of seepage. - Rehabilitation and monitoring of working areas after construction. - Construction camps and storage sited away from wetlands. - An embargo on construction during Giant Bullfrog breeding season.

4 1. INTRODUCTION

The proposed K109 road through the Glen Austin area has been planned for many years. Environmental authorisation is now being sought in terms of regulations under the National Environmental Management Act so that construction of the road can commence.

1.1 Proposed activity and site

The proposed activity is the alignment and construction of the K109 road through Glen Austin (portion 183 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR) a suburb of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. The proposed road will link Dale Road on the south (25o 58’ 54”S and 28o 09’ 47”E) to the R 562 Olifantsfontein Road (25o 56’ 58”S and 28o 10’ 44”E) in the north. The length of the section under review is 4.1km with a planned road reserve of approximately 50m.

The activity is a linear development with potential impacts of six types: - Regulatory transgressions. - Loss of biodiversity and protected areas. - Wetland encroachment. - Hydrology disturbance. Figure 1. Approximate study area - Cumulative impacts. and proposed K109 road - Socio-political impacts. (Extracted from 1:50,000 map 2528CC Centurion)

The study area for this report includes agricultural holdings, residential plots, grassland and wetlands along the proposed road including Glen Austin Pan also known as the Austin Roberts Bird Sanctuary, a municipal nature reserve noted for its birdlife and Giant Bullfrog population and regarded as highly sensitive. Other wetlands and grassland in the area are also sensitive to potential impacts.

1.2 Purpose of the project

In recent decades several wetland and biological studies have been conducted in pursuance of environmental impact assessments for both the K109 road and an adjacent property development. Certain changes have taken place in the study area over those years and there have also been amendments to the environmental regulations.

The purpose of this study is a) to review and assess the findings of the relevant wetlands and amphibian reports, b) to propose appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts and c) to ensure compliance with current environmental regulations.

1.3 Terms of reference and procedure

This report complies with the terms of reference dated 9 March 2017 and approved by Lokisa Environmental Consulting on 20 March 2017.

The following actions were undertaken: - Relevant literature was reviewed and assessed (see Section 2). - A meeting was held with Aphane Consulting (see Section 3). - A site visit was conducted to inspect current conditions in situ (see Section 4). - Potential impacts on wetland habitats are identified (see Section 5). - Alternative mitigation options are assessed (see Section 6). - Recommendations are made (see Section 7).

1.4 Assumptions and limitations

Recommendations in this report are based on an assessment of wetland and amphibian studies and conditions. Findings of other specialist environmental studies such as birds, mammals and vegetation have not been assessed and public participation processes have not been included. Findings from such reports should, in our view, be used to complement the current study and may lead to different conclusions and mitigation proposals.

1.5 Indemnity and independence

Vincent Carruthers Pr.Sci.Nat., director of VC Management Services CC, declares that he acts as an independent consultant and has no past, current or future financial interest in the proposed activity besides an agreed professional fee.

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on best practice, available information, professional experience and judgement. Due diligence has been observed throughout the preparation of the document. Vincent Carruthers and VC Management Services CC accept no liability for any claim, demand, cost or inconvenience arising from this report or its contents and by accepting this report recipients indemnify the author, contributors and collaborators from any such liability.

This study has been undertaken in terms of a written proposal and quotation accepted by both parties on 20 March 2017. Neither the recommendations made nor the consequences of those recommendations may be used to affect the terms agreed upon. All comments and recommendations are made without prejudice or favour towards any party.

VC Management Services will not undertake any measures, other than those stipulated in the terms of reference, to attempt to influence the decision of the authorities or to influence the time taken by the authorities to make their decision.

Vincent Carruthers Pr.Sci.Nat. Director: VC Management Services CC

6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The following documents were reviewed. They are itemised below with a brief comment on how they contributed to the findings in this report. The documents themselves are appended to the digital version of this report as PDF files. A brief reference title is given to each document and these are used as the PDF file names.

2.1 Specialist reports for use in the application for environmental authorisation.

Reference: 1 Aphane longitude Aphane Consulting CC. (Undated drawings): Construction of Sections of K109 between Dale Road and K27. Longitudinal Sections. Details of the alignment, scale, functionality and structure of the road were noted and used in this report to identify potential impacts on habitat fragmentation.

Reference: 2 Aphane cross Aphane Consulting CC. (Undated drawings): Construction of K109 between Dale Road and K27. Cross Sections. Details of the elevation of the road relative to the natural substrate were noted and used in this report to identify potential impacts on hydrology and biodiversity movements.

Reference: 3 Aphane intersections Aphane Consulting CC. (Undated drawings): Construction of K109 between Kaalfontein and Road K54. Intersections. Details of the scale and potential impact of intersections were assessed in this report.

Reference: 4 Aphane layout 2015 Aphane Consulting CC. March 2015: Construction of K109 between Kaalfontein and Road K54. Layout Plan. The alignment and proximity to sensitive wetland areas was established.

Reference: 5 Galago aquatic 2016 Galago Environmental. February 2016. Aquatic ecosystem delineation for the proposed Road K109 on portions of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR. The two Galago reports were purpose-written for the K109 road application and they contain the most recent information on the site. The mitigation recommendations they contain are therefore of particular significance.

Reference: 6 Galago herpetofauna 2016 Galago Environmental. February 2016. Herpetofaunal habitat assessment of the proposed Road K109 on portions of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR. See above.

7 2.2 Reports commissioned for other purposes but relevant to the current application.

Reference: 7 Wetland delineation 2009 Wetland Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd. April 2009. Wetland Delineation and Assessment for a Proposed Development near Clayville, Midrand, Gauteng Province. The delineation of wetlands, findings and conclusions were compared with other wetland reports.

Reference: 8 VCMS amphibians 2009 VC Management Services. August 2009. Amphibian habitat assessment for proposed Development at Clayville (Glen Austin) Ekurhuleni. Findings and conclusions in this report were superseded by revised regulations. The report was reviewed in the light of the later regulations.

Reference: 9 VCMS court papers 2012 VC Management Services. April 2012.Court papers: Comments on amphibian screening reports. Reference was made to expert witness evidence showing alternative interpretations of the National Environmental Management Act, the effectiveness of buffer zones and the re- alignment of the K109 road.

Reference: 10 Limosella wetlands 2014 Limosella Consulting. May 2014, updated February 2016. Verification of wetlands on Portion 183 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410-JR in Midrand, Gauteng. The delineation of wetlands, findings and conclusions were compared with other wetland reports.

Reference: 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 GEO-LOGIC. April 2016. Hydrogeological study report for Portions 183 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410-IR, Gauteng. Findings, especially with respect to surface and groundwater hydrology, storm water drainage and water quality were used to inform this report.

Reference: 12 VCMS comments 2016 VC Management Services. June 2016. Comments on the layout plans for Clayville X71, X76 to X80 with regard to amphibians and Wetlands. Findings and conclusions were reviewed and incorporated into this report.

2.3 Government reports and regulations applicable to the application.

Reference: 13 GDACEL Comments 2004 Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs (GDACEL) 2 February 2004. Comments on the Preliminary Design for the Proposed K109 Road. Comments, directives and stipulations in both this and the next document were noted and used to guide the recommendations in this report. Refusal to support the design of the K109 on two separate occasions is significant.

8 Reference: 14 GDACE Comments 2005 Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment (GDACE). 18 November 2005. Comments on the Amendment and Extension of the Preliminary Design of Road K109 between Kaalfontein 13 IR South of PWV5 and K54.

Reference: 15 GDACE Requirements 2006 Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE). August 2006. Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments. Changes in the provincial requirements in the following four documents were noted and compliance with the 2014 requirements is recommended in this report.

Reference: 16 GDACE Requirements 2008 Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (GDACE). March 2008. Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments. Version 2

Reference: 17 GDARD Requirements 2012 Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). June 2012. Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments. Version 2

Reference: 18 GDARD Requirements 2014 Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD). March 2014. Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments. Version 3

Reference: 19 GN 1002 Ecosystems 2011 National Gazette Government Notice 1002. 9 December 2011. NEMA: National list or ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection. The requirements imposed on the K109 road by this notice were incorporated into the findings of this report.

2.4 Socio-economic reports.

Reference: 20 Aphane Traffic 2014 Aphane Consulting CC. 2014. K109 Traffic Impact Study The needs and justification for the proposed road in terms of future traffic estimates were used in this report.

3. MEETING WITH CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Venue: Aphane Consulting Pty Ltd. 60 2nd Avenue, Florentia, Alberton

Date: 19 April 2017

Purpose: To discuss preliminary ideas of mitigation measures and to investigate engineering feasibility.

Present: Dennis Sinkonde Aphane Consulting Pty Ltd Fhatuwani Muravha Aphane Consulting Pty Ltd Delia De Lange Lokisa Environmental Consulting CC Vincent Carruthers VC Management Services CC

The following points were raised and resolved:

1. The site is environmentally sensitive, especially the Glen Austin Pan. Numerous environmental studies have been conducted both for the current road application and for the proposed adjacent township development. These studies have been included in the literature review and the findings from all of them have been considered in this report.

2. Three options will be considered in this report with recommendations for each: - No go. It is compulsory to assess this option. - Re-routing of the alignment of the road. - Deflecting the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers.

3. Environmental authorisation for the design of the K109 road has been rejected by GDARD on two previous occasions (2004 and 2005). It will be necessary to amend the proposed design significantly in order to comply with the stipulations set down by GDARD.

4. The socio-economic need and desirability for the road must be established. Lokisa Environmental Consulting agreed to provide VC Managemnet Services with this information.

5. It is proposed that the arc of the curve of the road should be increased to beyond the 50m buffer around Glen Austin Pan. This proposal will be drawn onto the Aphane locality drawing to establish whether it can be accommodated within the existing road reserve.

6. The wetland specialist will need to peg the 50m buffer on the ground.

7. The access intersection from Rainbow Street would need to be moved to the east.

10 8. Specialist studies for Giant Bullfrogs are no longer required by GDARD. However, wetland studies must take full cognisance of all sensitive species, including Giant Bullfrogs, and make adequate provision for their protection.

9. The total construction time will be about eighteen months. An embargo could be placed on construction of certain sections of the road during sensitive periods such as the Giant Bullfrog breeding season.

10. Dispersal corridors for fauna cauld be achieved by using a series of 30m span bridges with a minimum height of 2m interspersed with grassed embankments.

11. Specialised fencing will be recommended to prevent seasonal mass migration of Giant Bullfrogs across the road.

12. Ground water recharge catchments could be protected by using dump rock base material for the road in relevant areas.

13. The wetland on the north of the site could be crossed by a 50m span bridge.

14. A detailed storm water management system will be put in place.

11 4. SITE VISIT

The site was visited on 26 and 27 April 2017 and was traversed from south to north along the approximate route proposed for the K109. Particular attention was given to the wetland areas. Observations on the site visit are recorded below in photographs and captions:

4.1 Glen Austin Pan

Figure 2. Glen Austin Pan from the north-east. Water level is about normal after summer rain. The Austin Roberts Bird Sanctuary boundary wall is visible left of the power line. This is also the municipal boundary between Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. The approximate position of the K109 is shown by the red dotted line.

4.2 Sedge Pan

Figure 3. There was no standing water in the pan at the time of the visit. Grassland around the pan was less degraded than elsewhere on the site.

12 4.3 Refuse dumping

Figure 4. Google image in 2008 shows little Figure 5. Google Earth image in 2016. Excessive evidence of dumping in the vicinity of Glen Austin dumping is visible along tracks around the pans and Sedge pans. and forms an impenetrable barrier between them.

Figure 4. Refuse is dumped about 10m on either side of tracks and paths surrounding the pans down to about 150m from the water’s edge. Refuse is largely non-degradable and forms an impenetrable barrier that prevents dispersal, burrowing and foraging by wetland fauna such as Giant Bullfrogs, ground birds and reptiles. Dispersal corridors between the two pans have effectively been closed and grassland has been destroyed.

No preventative signage was observed and there is no policing or deterrent.

4.4 Grassland

Figure 5. An estimated 30% of the Egoli Granite Grassland on the site is in moderately good condition. The K109 will cross some of this.

Figure 6. The remaining grassland over which the K109 will cross is degraded, eroded and weed infested.

14 4.5 Seepage wetland

Figure 7. The delineated seepage wetland on the site is visible between the foreground and the middle distance in the above photograph. Although degraded by refuse dumping and erosion, some wetland services are retained, namely flood water absorption and gradual discharge. It may also serve as a natural habitat for a limited number of species. The water purification function has been lost because of contamination from refuse.

4.6 Valley bottom wetland

Figure 10. From about 2 km north of Dale Road up to the R562 the natural grassland on the K109 road reserve has been transformed by old ploughed lands or current agriculture. Water from the wetland is abstracted for irrigating agricultural land between Olifantsfontein Road and the R562.

Figure 11. The proposed K109 will cross the valley bottom wetland to the north of the site at a point between Olifantsfontein Road and the R562 (marked with an arrow on the photograph above, taken from where the stream crosses Olifantsfontein Road.) At this point the channel is deeply incised into the alluvial substrate.

16 5. FINDINGS

The documents reviewed combined with the site visit indicated that the K109 would have a number of potential impacts which can be grouped into six broad categories: - Potential regulatory transgressions - Possible disturbance to biodiversity in protected or sensitive areas - Potential wetland buffer encroachment - Potential hydrological disturbance (surface runoff, ground water and water quality) - Cumulative impacts - Socio-economic impacts

Details of these findings are itemised below with comments in bold italics.

5.1 Regulatory findings

5.1.1 Rejection of design

In February 2004 GDACEL rejected the preliminary design for the K109 road1. It specifically did not support pre-fabricated box culverts. It also stipulated the need for: - A detailed storm water management plan, - A sensitivity map overlaid with specific reference to wetlands, - Mitigation for impacts on underground water systems, - Rehabilitation plans for access interchanges, - Delineation of wetlands, - Mitigation for impacts on perched water tables.

In November 2005 GDACE rejected the amendments to the preliminary design for the K109 road2. The Department listed similar stipulations to those above plus: - Rehabilitation plans for spruit crossings, - Mitigation for impacts on Egoli Granite Grassland - Mitigation for impacts on Grass Owls - Construction may not take place within the 1:100 year flood line.

Comment: Compliance with all of the mitigation measures stipulated above will be necessary if environmental authorisation is to be expected.

1 13 GDACEL Comments 2004 p. 3 2 14 GDACE Comments 2005 p. 3

17 5.2 Protected areas and biodiversity findings

5.2.1 Conservation of Giant Bullfrogs and habitats

Figure 12. Aggressive breeding behaviour takes place at the breeding site for one day of the year (Photo Michele Nel)

The threat to Giant Bullfrogs arises from their unique breeding behaviour. For ten to eleven months of the year they remain buried in a low-metabolic torpor ensconced in a keratin cocoon. They emerge with the first summer rains to forage voraciously and breed. Breeding takes place at hereditary sites (e.g. Glen Austin Pan) on one or, occasionally, two days in the year. On those days the bullfrogs migrate en masse to the selected breeding site, crossing all obstacles (e.g. roads) to get there. Males compete violently with one another at the breeding site (Figure 12). Twenty-four hours later they disperse to forage and burrow. A few large males remain at the breeding site for up to a month to protect the tadpoles. Giant Bullfrogs are strongly philopatric, i.e. a given population utilises the same breeding site each year and individuals repeatedly return to their own burrows.

They require four types of specialised habitat to survive: 1) the hereditary breeding site, 2) burrowing soils within 800m of the breeding sites, 3) extensive food-rich foraging sites and 4) dispersal corridors to allow genetic mixing of juveniles with other populations3.

They are therefore vulnerable to several threats: 1) destruction or degradation of any of the four habitat types 2) mass road kills during the breeding season (this is also dangerous for motorists) and 3) excavation of hibernating individuals in the course of construction or agriculture.

3 Du Preez and Carruthers 2009.

GDACE Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments in 2006 stipulated a series of mitigation measures for all Giant Bullfrog breeding sites4.

In 2008 the GDACE Requirements followed the IUCN rating of Giant Bullfogs at that time and stipulated, inter alia, a 1000m buffer around Glen Austin Pan5.

Evidence in the Northern Gauteng High Court demonstrated that the 1000m buffer for Giant Bullfrogs was impractical at Glen Austin Pan6.

In 2012 and again in 2014 the GDARD Requirements for Biodiversity Assessments removed the need for a 1000m buffer and the following statement replaced the 2008 directive:

“The Giant Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) has been removed (from the list) following re- assessment of the species' status in South Africa. The conservation of the Giant Bullfrog and of amphibians in general will be met by the designation of priority habitats i.e., pans or quaternary catchments, with associated restrictions on land use.”7 Glen Austin Pan is cited as a priority habitat.

Wetlands provide ecological services such as flood attenuation, erosion control and biological habitats. Terrestrial life associated with wetlands is dependent on corridors between habitats to prevent gene-pool isolation and to allow adequate foraging, refuge and dispersal of offspring. Although Giant Bullfrogs are no longer specifically protected, all amphibians are regarded as important indicators of wetland health. The connectivity of the wetland and the ability amphibians to move freely between wetlands needs to be assured.

Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan are separated by an elevated watershed and there is no hydrological connection on the surface. However, amphibians (Giant Bullfrogs in particular) move between the two pans. The K109 presents a potential barrier to that movement. Giant Bullfrogs are highly phylopatric and on certain days of the year the frogs will cross the road en masse to reach the pan. This not only results in high frog mortality, it is also a road hazard.

Comment: Adequate protection needs to be given to wetland fauna even though specialist studies of Giant Bullfrogs are no longer legally required. There will be mortalities among buried frogs during construction of the road and counter-measures are necessary.

The Galago Aquatic report recommends seven site-specific mitigation measures8. - Removal of illegal dumping - Management of wetland flooding - Use of endemic indigenous plants - Storm water management - Signage to increase wetland awareness - Limited fencing adjacent to the wetland

4 15 GDACE Requirements 2006 p. 16 5 17 GDACE Requirements 2008 p. 15 6 9 VCMS court papers 2012 7 18 GDARD. Requirements 2014 p. 9. 8 5 Galago aquatic 2016 p. 50

19 - Investigation into the realignment of the road to avoid the buffer areas for pans.

The Galago Herpetofaunal report recommends the following additional mitigation measures9: - No development should take place because of the threat to Giant Bullfrogs. - Relocation of endangered species if found during construction. Tops Species permits to be obtained in advance. - Re-alignment of the K109.

Several mitigation measures for Giant Bullfrogs are cited in the report including an additional 800m buffer. These measures are purported to be taken from GDARD Requirements 2012. However they actually appeared in GDACE Requirements 2008 and were removed from GDARD 2012 and 2014 (see above).

Comment: Several of the recommendations from the Galago Aquatic report correlate with the GDARD requirements and should be adhered to. Some recommendations in the Galago Herpetofaunal report are based on out-dated regulations and prescribed buffer zones that have since been superseded and are no longer applicable.

5.2.2 Threatened ecosystem

In 2011 Glen Austin Pan was registered by the National Department of Environment Affairs as a Category F threatened terrestrial ecosystem10. Category F is defined as “a priority area for meeting explicit biodiversity targets defined in a systematic biodiversity plan.”

The purpose of listing threatened ecosystems is to reduce the rate of ecosystem and species extinction and to preserve witness sites. Biodiversity features listed for Glen Austin include: - Giant Bullfrog - Marsh sylph - Egoli Granite Grassland - Olifantspruit - Glen Austin Pan - Sedge Pan.

The listing stipulates, inter alia, that there must be integrated management aimed at conservation of critical biodiversity areas outside the protected area network.

The Austin Roberts Bird Sanctuary (Glen Austin Pan) is also registered as a Johannesburg municipal nature reserve and is a therefore formally protected area.

Comment: 1) The K109 must not be permitted to transgress the Glen Austin Pan 50m buffer. 2) A conservation management plan for the site is required for environmental authorisation. It would need to cover the management of the key species and systems listed above including dispersal corridors around the pan. 3) Any intrusion into the nature reserve or wetland buffer would require national (DEA and DWS) municipal (COJ) as well as provincial(GDARD) authorisation.

9 6 Galago herpetofauna 2016 p. 17 10 19 GN 1002 Ecosystems 2011 p. 103

Refuse dumping is raised in both Galago reports and was confirmed by the site visit (see above). Continuous bands of non-degradable refuse more than 20 metres wide along tracks and pathways encircle the Glen Austin Pan on the north-east. They are virtually impenetrable by Giant Bullfrogs and many other species of terrestrial fauna and they sever dispersal corridors between the two pans and restrict burrowing, foraging and dispersal.

The rate of dumping has escalated since 2009 and is continuing daily. No prohibitions, signage or policing were observed during the site visit and dumping was continuously taking place, uninhibited throughout the two days’ visits.

Comment: Dumping has created a cordon around the pans isolating them from each other and already causing environmental damage beyond the resilience tipping point in some parts of the site. The construction of the K109 may offer an opportunity to rehabilitate the site and restrict future damage.

5.2.3 Threatened grassland

The site falls within the Egoli Granite Grassland vegetation type11. Egoli Granite Grassland is classified as ‘threatened’ with more than two thirds having been transformed by urbanisation, cultivation and roads. The grassland on the site is being degraded by dumping and agriculture12.

Comment: The K109 will fragment part of the grassland although some areas may be rehabilitated on grassed embankments and in the road reserve.

5.3 Wetland delineation findings

The wetlands identified and delineated in the reports reviewed13 were all similar, namely. - Glen Austin Pan. A perennial endorheic natural pan of high biodiversity value. - Sedge Pan. A seasonal endorheic pan. - Wetland. Hill slope seepage from a perched wetland drains northwards into a valley bottom system that crosses Olifantsfontein Road. - Valley bottom system. A small valley headwater south-east of the site.

A valley bottom system on the south west of the study area is unlikely to be affected by the road.

The wetland sites are shown in Figure 13 taken from the Galago Aquatic ecosystem delineation report.

11 Mucina and Rutherford 2006 p. 398/9 12 5 Galago aquatic 2016 pp. 16 and 28 and site visit 13 5 Galago aquatic 2016; 7 Wetland delineation 2009; 10 Limosella wetlands 2014

21 Figure 8. Wetlands delineated by Galago. (Image from Figure 25. Ref: 5 Galago aquatic)

5.3.1 Glen Austin and Sedge Pans

These pans are regarded as priority pans for which a 50m buffer is required. Buffer zone regulations have been amended over time. The most recent stipulation is:

“The priority pan and its catchment must be designated as sensitive. It is imperative that the pan catchments are protected from any additional urban or industrial transformation. Development footprints should be modified to prevent encroachment on the pan catchments and its buffer. A 50m buffer from the edge of this catchment is required. The catchment of all pan wetlands must be designated as sensitive.”14

The K109 transgresses the buffer zones for Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan and the access intersection from Rainbow Street compounds the transgression of the Glen Austin Pan buffer15.

The specialist wetland study16 recommends that the alignment of the road should be investigated to avoid encroachment on the compulsory 50m buffer zones around Glen Austin Pan.

Comment: The proposed K109 presents a threat to the wetlands in the area and mitigation measures to address these threats are essential. An application for environmental authorisation without amending the road alignment outside of the wetland buffer is unlikely to be successful.

14 18 GDARD. Requirements 2014 p. 16 15 3 Aphane intersections. P. 2 16 5 Galago aquatic 2016 p. 50

22 The removal of Giant Bullfrogs from the list of species requiring a specialist report places a greater onus on the management of wetlands to include protective measures for sensitive species.

5.3.2 Valley bottom wetland

Currently the standard buffer zones required for wetlands within the urban edge is 30m from the outer delineated boundary. The proposed K109 crosses this buffer near the intersection with the R562. The valley bottom wetland is fed from a perched aquifer underlying the seepage upstream and this is augmented from sheet wash and storm- water17.

Comment: The valley bottom wetland is a tributary of the Hennops River and its water quality, velocity and volume needs to be managed. A storm water management system to attenuate the flow from the hard surfaces of the road will need to be included in the Management Plan.

5.4 Hydrological findings

5.4.1 Surface drainage

Surface drainage on the site generally follows the northward slope of the site along a topographical drainage line parallel with and slightly west of the proposed road alignment18.

The drainage line is augmented by seepage from a perched wetland and develops into the valley bottom system that crosses Olifantsfontein Road. Head-cut erosion is occurring at the exposed ferricrete under-base of the perched wetland.19

Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan are endorheic and dependent on sheet wash, storm-water runoff and ground water.

The surface catchment area for Glen Austin Pan will be bisected by the proposed K109. The catchment for Sedge Pan is considerably smaller20. Storm water runoff from the K109 will significantly increase the inflows into all of the wetlands and may cause reduction of shallow water habitats and flooding21.

Comment: Protection of the catchments of these pans is critical because they are closed drainage basins (they have no riparian inflow or outflow).

The storm water management system for the K109 is legally necessary and it must also be sensitively constructed and maintained to retain natural water levels in the two pans and prevent flooding of the channel wetlands.

17 11 GEOLOGIC hydrological 2016. Pp. 17-21 18 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 p 18; 5 Galago aquatic 2016 p. 29 19 5 Galago aquatic 2016 pp. 35 and 36 20 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 p. 20 21 5 Galago aquatic 2016 p. 47

23 The management of the overall hydrological system supporting the pans will need to be sustained to retain the integrity of the pan as a nature reserve and an important habitat. Water levels must be allowed to fluctuate naturally. The details of this and a comprehensive hydrological management system (ground water and surface water) need to be developed and included in the Management Plan.

5.4.2 Ground water

Ground water flows mimic the surface water drainage patterns. Ground water catchments for Glen Austin and Sedge Pans are similar to the surface catchments and are important sources for the pans in winter. Water table levels vary from 0.2m to 29.1m in low-lying areas.22

The K109 will bisect the ground water catchment areas for the pans.

Groundwater aquifers tapped by boreholes on agricultural properties west of the proposed K109 will not be affected by the road.23

Comment: Mitigation measures will be needed to protect the recharging capacity of the water table and catchment areas for the pans.

5.4.3 Water quality

The chemical and bacteriological quality of water in the Glen Austin Pan is poor.24 Runoff from the proposed road will carry further contamination into the wetland areas.

Comment: Mitigation measures to upgrade the water quality in the wetlands and prevent further deterioration will be necessary.

5.5 Cumulative impacts

5.5.1 Adjacent development

The K109 transects a mixed housing-commercial land-use development on the adjacent Clayville property. Several of the reports in this literature review were prepared for that township development25. Although the road and township developments are independent of one another, the latter is de facto influenced by the final alignment of the road with possible consequential impacts on wetlands, including: - Fragmentation of the natural habitat - Destruction of Egoli Granite Grassland - Closure of dispersal corridors26.

Comment: The developers of the K109 road cannot anticipate the potential impacts of the township or implement measures to mitigate them. However the roads agency can

22 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 p. 19/20 23 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 p. 22 24 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016 p. 12 25 7 Wetland delineation 2009, 8 VCMS amphibians 2009, 10 Limosella wetlands 2014, 11 GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016, GEOLOGIC hydrogeological 2016. 26 8 VCMS amphibians 2009. p. 2/3

24 implement positive consequences of the building of the road and thereby reduce the overall impact.

5.5.2 Refuse dumping

Refuse dumps present a major threat to the site and are increasing without restriction.

Comment: Clearing the refuse dumps only along the route of the K109 will only alleviate the problem to a small degree. An integrated programme is required between GDARD, Gautrans, the proposed township development and the municipal authorities to clear and rehabilitate the dumps and control dumping in the future.

5.5.3 Positive impacts

There could be a number of positive impacts arising from the presence of a state-owned road, including: - Eradication and control of illegal dumping - Re-introduction of indigenous grassland on embankments and road reserves - Control of pedestrian traffic and security - Management of storm water runoff and ground water recharge - Fencing and protection of wetland systems.

5.6 Socio-economic impacts

5.6.1 Reason for road

The K109 forms part of the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport (GDRT) future road network designed to improve connectivity within the province. The road is not expected to generate new traffic but to redistribute traffic away from congested parallel routes into the new network capacity27. The K109 is classified as a Class 3 road (minor arterial) with access restricted to no more than one intersection per 600m.

5.6.2 Traffic forecasts

The 20 year forecast for traffic on the K109 is 19,000 vehicles per day28.

5.6.3 Pedestrian traffic and public transport

Pedestrian and cycle traffic in the region is high and a pedestrian/cycle path will be constructed next to the K109. Taxi access points will be constructed at intersections.

Comment: There appears to be a valid need for the road on the grounds of inevitable traffic increases and potential congestion in the Midrand area.

27 20 Aphane Traffic 2014 pp. 3 and 5. 28 20 Aphane traffic 2014 p. 16

25 5. CONCLUSIONS

Three possible options for preventing or mitigating potential impacts are considered:

1. Do not proceed with the proposed road – the ‘no go’ option. 2. Re-align the road to the east to by-pass sensitive wetland areas. 3. Shift the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers.

The three options are assessed below against the six primary categories of impacts that have been identified:

Option 1. Do not proceed with the proposed road – the ‘no go’ option.

General environmental impacts

The no-go option would obviate all of the impacts identified in the following categories: - Potential regulatory transgressions - Possible disturbance to biodiversity in protected or sensitive areas - Potential wetland encroachment - Potential hydrological disturbance

This option therefore offers a significant environmental advantage.

Cumulative impacts

The township development will proceed irrespective of the construction of the K109. The cumulative impacts of natural habitat fragmentation, grassland destruction and closure of dispersal corridors for wetland fauna would persist.

Opportunities to implement the following benefits would be denied: - Eradication and control of illegal dumping - Re-introduction of indigenous grassland on embankments and road reserves - Control of pedestrian traffic and security - Management of storm water runoff and ground water recharge - Fencing and protection of wetland systems.

Socio-economic impacts

The opportunity for socio-economic benefits would not arise.

The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 states that:

“Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably”29.

If one refers to the standard Venn diagram of sustainable development, all three elements of sustainability, economy, social community and environment must be considered in the assessment of the road. Figure 9. Standard Venn diagram of The impacts of the K109 need therefore to be sustainable development assessed in the broader context of, for example, the economic growth in Midrand and Olifantsfontein, community needs for transportation between work and residence and population growth.

Conclusion: The “no-go” option would resolve many of the potential ecological impacts. However, provided satisfactory alternative mitigation measures can be introduced, the “no-go” option is not recommended because it fails adequately to meet the socio- economic requirements of the National Environmental Management Act.

29 NEMA Chapter 1 – Principles: 2 (2)

27 Option 2. Re-align the road to the east to by-pass sensitive wetland areas.

The Galago Aquatic and Herpetofaunal reports both recommend that re-alignment should be considered30. Re-alignment of the road had also been recommended in a past specialist report31 but this had to be amended subsequently because of the impracticalities involved32.

Figure 10. A possible re-alignment route was proposed in 2009 and rejected in 2012 because it was not feasible.

Potential regulatory transgressions

The road re-alignment could be undertaken while at the same time meeting the requirements of GDARD and DEA.

The existing road reserve for the K109 (previously known as the PWV 5) was acquired by the state several decades ago as part of a regional road plan. Public knowledge of that status has determined adjacent land use, ownership and planning. Re-alignment of the road would entail far-reaching economic implications, private property expropriation, and possible litigation.

Possible disturbance to biodiversity in protected areas and wetland encroachment

Re-alignment of the road would avoid any encroachment into wetlands or protected or sensitive areas. Specifically it would remove any threat to Glen Austin Pan which is a threatened ecosystem and registered nature reserve.

30 5 Galago aquatic 2016 p. 50 and 6 Galago herpetofauna 2016 p. 17 31 8 VCMS amphibians 2009 32 12 VCMS comments 2016

It therefore provides environmental advantages.

However, the re-alignment would destroy and fragment a relatively large area of fairly healthy Egoli Granite Grassland on the east of the pans.

Potential hydrological disturbance

Re-routing the road would partially resolve the potential impacts of surface runoff, ground water and water quality. These would merely be re-located to another area and storm water management plans and hydrological impact mitigation would still be required.

Cumulative impacts

Cumulative impacts would probably be exacerbated by re-routing the road although the extent of this is unknown and cannot be assessed with confidence.

The opportunity would be missed for an integrated programme between GDARD, Gautrans, the proposed township development and the municipal authorities to clear and rehabilitate the dumps and control dumping in the future.

Socio-economic impacts.

The socio-economic impacts of the road, which are largely positive, would not be affected by the realignment.

Conclusion: The economic and legal consequences of trying to establish a new alignment of the road make the implementation of this option impractical in spite of positive environmental benefits.

The practical inability to implement this option calls for alternative conditions and mitigation measures

29 Option 3. Deflect the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers.

The difficulties presented by options 1 and 2 could be overcome by deflecting the alignment of the road within the existing road reserve so that it by-passed the Glen Austin Pan buffer and can span the valley bottom wetland without disturbing the wetland functioning.

A number of conditions would need to be linked to this option and these are itemised under Recommendations below.

Figure 11. Deflect the road within the road reserve.

Conclusion: Under option 3 the K109 road would still have negative environmental impacts. However these can be partially reconciled with the socio-economic need for the road provided adequate mitigation measures are properly implemented and monitored. This option appears to be the best compromise under the circumstances.

30 Figure 17. Rough plan of the site indicating the very approximate positions for: Wetland buffers: and faunal dispersal corridor: Road alignment and recommended bridges (proposed alignment in white)

The above figure will need to be prepared as an accurate engineering drawing.

31 6. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is possible to reconcile the socio-economic need for the K109 with some protection of the environmental sensitivity of the area provided a number of conditions are met.

Control of refuse dumping is a pre-requisite without which environmental integrity is impossible. It is recommended that an integrated programme should be implemented to clear and rehabilitate all of the refuse dumps in the area and control dumping in the future. Although such a programme falls outside of the scope of this report, if it is not implemented it would mean that the mitigation conditions listed below are without value.

Control of dumping would entail: a. collaboration between Gautrans, GDARD, the proposed township developers and the Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni municipalities, b. removal of all refuse to an appropriate land fill site, c. rehabilitation of the dump areas by top soiling and seeding with Egoli Granite Grassland seed mix, d. prohibition and policing of further dumping in the area.

With effective and permanent clearing of refuse dumps, the K109 road could meet the requirements for environmental authorisation, sound environmental management and a measure of alleviation of disturbance to biodiversity in wetlands and sensitive areas subject to the following conditions

1. The conditions and recommendations stipulated by GDACEL and GDACE must be implemented and complied with (see paragraph 5.1.1).

2. A comprehensive Management Plan is required by GDARD and DEA and must be prepared. The plan must include:

a. All of the requirements stipulated by GDARD. b. Management systems and control during construction of the road. c. Medium and long term operational plans and maintenance of natural ecosystems. This would include the wetland ecosystem as well as conservation plans for listed birds, mammals, amphibians and other animals identified in specialist faunal studies conducted for the EIA process.

3. A detailed hydrological management plan is required that addresses surface water runoff, ground water recharge, protection from contamination and litter, protection of wetland services such as water storage, natural drainage velocity control and biodiversity and habitat protection. The hydrological plan must indicate whether a Water Use Licence is necessary for any of the five wetlands in terms of the National Water Act.

4. The road must be constructed outside of the 50m delineated wetland buffers at Glen Austin and Sedge Pans and the 30m buffer at the valley bottom wetland.

5. Wetland buffer boundaries must be pegged on site in accordance with GDARD requirements.

6. The crossing over the valley bottom wetland needs to be spanned by a bridge. Water flow must not be impaired. A DWS water use licence will be required.

7. Subject to the removal and rehabilitation of refuse dumps, a foraging and dispersal corridor must be retained across a 300m front between Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan.

8. The corridor should be accomplished by elevating the road over three bridges each with a span of 30m and minimum height of 2m with an intervening embankment of 70m.

9. A fine mesh durable fence (e.g. Clear Vu) must be constructed on both sides of the road reserve to prevent access to the road by terrestrial fauna and humans. The fence should be led up to the bridges in the foraging and dispersal corridor so that animals can pass under the bridge but not onto the road. The fence must be buried to a depth of 30cm to prevent animals burrowing underneath it. The fence must be inspected at least once per year and maintained in functional order.

7. Intersections with cross roads should be similarly fenced for 30m either side of the intersection.

8. The full length of the road must be built on a dump-rock base to allow percolation of surface runoff and perched aquifer seepage underneath the hard top surface.

9. All working areas must be rehabilitated with a surface layer of 300mm of topsoil and mulch and seeded with Egoli Granite Grassland mix. Rehabilitated areas must be monitored, watered and weeded for twenty four months after completion of the construction.

10. Construction camps and material storage must be sited on the side of the road furthest from the wetland. Camps and storage sites must be rehabilitated as above as soon as construction is complete.

11. An embargo needs to be placed on all construction activity for 1km either side of Glen Austin Pan during Giant Bullfrog breeding Season from 1 November to 15 January each year.

12. A training programme should be implemented giving workers instructions on handling Giant Bullfrogs found on site. The programme would be compiled by a qualified herpetologist and must include written and pictorial explanations.

33 7. REFERENCES

In addition to the reports cited in the literature review (Section 4), the following publications were referred to:

Du Preez, Louis and Carruthers, Vincent. Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature. Cape Town. 2009.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford M.C. (Eds) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. SANBI. Pretoria. 2006.

Ollis, D., Snaddon, K., Job, N. and Mbona, N. Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa. SANBI. Pretoria. 2013.