Final

Faunal Impact Assessment

PROPOSED WYNBERG IRT BUS DEPOT WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

DRAFT FAUNAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

Chand Environmental Consultants P O Box 238 Plumstead 7801 Tel: 021 762 3050 Fax: 086 665 7430 www.chand.co.za

Prepared by:

CAPE TOWN

Also in Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg, Grahamstown, Maputo (Mozambique) and Romsey (UK) 021 045 0900 www.cesnet.co.za

June 2021

Faunal Impact Assessment

REV ISIONS TRACKING TABLE

CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule Document Title: Faunal Impact Aseessment for the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot, Western Cape Province. Client Name & CHAND Environmnetal Consultants Address:

Status: Final

Issue Date: Draft June 2020 Final June 2021 Lead Author: Amber Jackson [email protected]

Reviewer: Ms Tarryn Martin [email protected]

No. of hard No. electronic Report Distribution Circulated to copies copies

Report Version

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client. CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or www.cesnet.co.za rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality, copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot i

Faunal Impact Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Project Description ...... 1 1.3 Objectives and Terms of Reference ...... 1 1.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 2

3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA ...... 5

3.1 Climate ...... 5 3.2 Topography ...... 5 3.3 Current Land Use ...... 6 3.4 Vegetation ...... 7 3.5 Wetland and Hydrology ...... 8 3.4 Protection level: Other Ecological Support Area ...... 9 3.6 Protected areas ...... 12 3.7 Screening Tool: Sensitive Species ...... 12 4. REGIONAL AND PROJECT AREA FAUNA ...... 14

4.1 ...... 14 4.1.1 Amphibians of the Western Cape ...... 14 4.1.2. Species of Conservation Concern ...... 15 4.2. Reptiles ...... 22 4.2.1. Reptiles of Conservation Concern ...... 22 4.3. Mammals ...... 23 4.3.1. Mammals of Conservation Concern ...... 23 4.4. Birds ...... 27 4.4.1. Birds of Conservation Concern ...... 27 5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...... 31

6 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 34

6.1 Identified Impacts ...... 34 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41

8 REFERENCES ...... 42

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot ii

Faunal Impact Assessment

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: C-Plan OESA Significance & Descriptions of Permissible Activities...... 9 Table 3.2: The terrestrial vertebrate faunal species that triggers sensitivity includes: ...... 12 Table 4.1: Amphibians Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020)...... 20 Table 4.2: Threatened Reptiles Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020)...... 22 Table A.1: Pre-mitigation Evaluation Criteria ...... 50 Table A.2: Description of Overall Significance Rating...... 51 Table A.3: Post-mitigation Evaluation Criteria ...... 52

LIST OF FIGURES Figure A: Location of the proposed development...... ix Table A: Summary of expected impacts on fauna from the proposed development ...... xi Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed development...... 1 Figure 1.2: Proposed development layout...... 1 Figure 3.1: Graphs illustrating the average monthly maximum and minimum temperature and average monthly precipitation for Cape Town (Weather & Climate, 2020)...... 5 Figure 3.2: Topography of the project area (South West to North East) (Google Earth Pro, 2020)...... 6 Figure 3.3: Potential Biodiversity Corridors in the CoCT (Marlene Laros & Ass., 2007)...... 8 Figure 3.4: Land use map showing the project area to occur with an area zoned as Public Open Space ...... 10 Figure 3.5: Project area in context of regional vegetation types. The project area occurs within the Cape Flats Sand (Mucina and Rutherford, 2020)...... 10 Figure 3.6: Delineated project area wetland showing the majority of the project area to occur within a degraded wetland (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020)...... 11 Figure 3.7: CBAs, Conservation Areas and OESA in relation to the project area (CoCT, 2017)...... 11 Figure 3.8: species sensitivity for the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot project area (DEA, 2020)...... 13 Figure 4.1: Distribution of S. pantherina in relation to the project area - black square (IUCN, 2016) ...... 16 Figure 4.2: Formally mapped breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline) (WLTCC, 2016) ...... 17 Figure 4.3: Known breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline)...... 18 Figure 4.4: Distribution of M. capensis in relation to the project area - red square ...... 19 Figure 4.5: Distribution of X. gilli in relation to the project area - red square (IUCN, 2017). . 20 Figure 4.6: C. maurus High animal sensitivity in relation to the project area ...... 28 Figure 4.7: Distribution of C. maurus in relation to the project area - red square (Birdlife Int, 2017)...... 28 Figure 4.8: Important Bird Areas in relation to the project area...... 30 Figure 5.1: Combined SEI for and SCC ...... 33 Figure 7.1: Combined SEI for habitats and SCC ...... 41

LIST OF PLATES Plate 3.1 Photograph of the project area topography...... 6 Plate 3.2: Illustrating little existing human land use of the site other than access and dumping of rubble and garden refuse...... 7 Plate 4.1: S. grayii found at the proposed project area ...... 14

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot iii

Faunal Impact Assessment

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADU Animal demography Units asl above sea level BI Biodiversity Importance CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CI Conservation Importance CITES Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species CoCT City of Cape Town CR Critically Endangered DEAFF Department of Environmental Affairs Forestry and Fisheries DD Data Deficient EA Environmental Authorisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EN Endangered FI Functional Integrity IBA Important Bird Area IRT Integrated Rapid Transit IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KRCA Kenilworth Racecourse Conservation Area LC Least Concerned NEMA National Environmental Management Act NT Near-Threatened OESA Other Ecological Support Area RR Receptor Resilience SA South African SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SCC Species of Conservation Concern SEI Site Ecological Importance VU Vulnerable WC Western Cape WLT Western leopard

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot iv

Faunal Impact Assessment

CONTENTS OF THE SPECIALIST REPORT

The contents of this specialist report complies with the legislated requirements as described in Appendix 6 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998) Regulations of 2014 (as amended) (GN R. 326 of 2017).

SECTION SPECIALIST REPORT REQUIREMENTS ACCORDING TO APPENDIX 6 OF OF GN R. 982 OF 2014, AS AMENDED IN GN R. 326 OF 2017 REPORT

1. A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain— (a) details of— Pg. vii (i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Appendix D (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae;

(b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be pg. viii specified by the competent authority;

(c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report Section 1.3 was prepared;

(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the References specialist report;

(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of Chapter 6 the proposed development and levels of acceptable change;

(d) the duration, date and season of the site investigation and the Chapter 2 relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment; and Section 1.4

(e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and Chapter 2 modelling used;

(f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated Chapter 5 structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives;

(g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Chapter 5

(h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site Chapter 5 including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

(i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps Section 1.4 in knowledge;

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot v

Faunal Impact Assessment

(j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such Chapter 6 findings on the impact of the proposed activity or activities;

(k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr;

(l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Chapter 6 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation;

(n) a reasoned opinion— (i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; (iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and Chapter 7 (ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;

(o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during Section the course of preparing the specialist report; 4.1.2

(p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any To be consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and included following Public review of Draft report

(q) any other information requested by the competent authority (CA). To be included following CA review of Draft report

2. (2) Where a government notice by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, Noted the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot vi

Faunal Impact Assessment

PROJECT TEAM

Ms Amber Jackson (Faunal Specialist)

Amber is a Principal Environmental Consultant and has been employed with CES since September 2011. She holds a Masters in Environmental Management and has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her honours and undergraduate degree focused on Ecology, Conservation and Environment with particular reference to landscape effects on Herpetofauna, while her masters focused on the environmental management of social and ecological systems. With a dissertation in food security that investigated the complex food system of informal and formal distribution markets. During her time at CES Amber has worked extensively in Mozambique managing a number of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. Amongst which she has conducted large scale faunal impact assessments in the both South Africa and northern of Mozambique to both national standards and international lenders standards (AfDB, EIB and IFC), alone and assisted by and to Prof Bill Branch. Her interests include, lenders requirements, range limitation, island biogeography, ecology as well

Ms Tarryn Martin (Report Review)

Tarryn holds a BSc (Botany and Zoology), a BSc (Hons) in African Vertebrate Biodiversity and an MSc with distinction in Botany from Rhodes University. Tarryn’s Master’s thesis examined the impact of fire on the recovery of C3 and C4 Panicoid and non-Panicoid grasses within the context of climate change for which she won the Junior Captain Scott-Medal (Plant Science) for producing the top MSc of 2010 from the South African Academy of Science and Art as well as an Award for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Range and Forage Science from the Grassland Society of Southern Africa.

Tarryn specializes in conducting vegetation assessments in Africa, specifically southern Africa and has worked in the following countries: Mozambique, Zambia, Lesotho and South Africa. She has also recently undertaken work in Cameroon. The types of projects she has worked on include mines (graphite, oil and heavy minerals), solar PV facilities and windfarms (including powerlines), bulk transportation of water and the construction of dams. A number of these projects have been to IFC standards and in addition to a botanical baseline and impact assessment, have included further reporting such as assessments to determine if the site is a trigger for critical habitat, the drafting of site-specific biodiversity management plans and alien invasive species management plans and, recently, an ecosystem services assessment.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot vii

Faunal Impact Assessment

DECLARATION

Role on Study Declaration of independence Team

Report • I, Amber Jackson, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental production Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017; • I act as the independent specialist in this application; • I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; • I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; • I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; • I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; • I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; • I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; • All the particulars furnished by me in this report are true and correct; and • I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Name: Amber Jackson signed on the 14.06.2021

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot viii

Faunal Impact Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Cape Town (CoCT) have proposed the construction of a bus depot in Wynberg to facilitate the expansion of the Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) system in Cape Town. The site is located on a vacant piece of land (Erf 91191, Erf 90470 and Erf 90475-RE) on Wetton Road across from the Kenilworth Racecourse (Figure A). CHAND Environmental Consultants have been appointed to conduct the Basic Environmental Assessment (BA) for the proposed development.

This faunal specialist study forms part of the BA Process undertaken by CHAND in order to apply for Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the proposed development. The scope of work undertaken by CES is to (i) identify the presence of faunal species and their habitats, (ii) identify any faunal species of conservation concern (iii) assess the sensitivity of the of the various faunal groups and faunal habitats and rate the impacts the project may have on these and lastly (iv) to identify and describe measures and management prescriptions that need to be implemented to ensure that the fauna and faunal habitats will not be severely negatively impacted on by the project.

Figure A: Location of the proposed development.

The project area is in the southern suburbs in an urban area and is currently zoned Public Open Space. The project area is bordered by the Wynberg Sports Club fields, Bonnytoun Informal Settlement, Kenilworth Golf Village, the M5 highway and Wetton Road. The project area is currently used to access the Bonnytoun Informal Settlement and is otherwise vacant, covered in kikuyu grass and used as a dumping ground for rubble and garden refuse.

Although the site is classified by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) as critically endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos, the site is considered transformed, completely degraded and infested with

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot ix

Faunal Impact Assessment

alien and invasive plants. However, the two neighbouring sites, Youngsfield and Kenilworth Racecourse conservation area, contain important pockets of intact Cape Flats Sand Fynbos. This may be the reason the site is listed as an ‘Other Ecological Support Area’ Buffer 2 namely for Animal movement (Holmes & Pugnalin, 2016). NFEPA (2011) lists the wetland vegetation type is Southwest Sand Fynbos within which depression wetlands are listed as Vulnerable. However, the majority of the wetland in the project area is considered degraded with a small area to the north east classified as less degraded. The proposed development will result in the loss of degraded wetland and less degraded depression wetland (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020). The less degraded wetland that holds wetland vegetation species still retains some of its ecological functioning. Of the 60 species of amphibians known to occur in the Western Cape 19 of these species have a distribution that coincides with the project area (Turner & de Villiers, 2017; Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017; IUCN, 2020). Approximately 13 of these 19 species have been recorded within a 2km radius of the project area. During the field survey only S. grayii was found in the project area along the access road to Bonnytoun Informal Settlement around dumped refuse and small puddles of water and in the less degraded depression wetland. During the night surveys approximately 20-30 calls from different individual s could be heard.

The WC supports 15 known threatened and near-threatened species (Turner & de Villiers, 2017, Minter et al., 2004). Three threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area these are the Micro (Microbatrachella capensis) listed as Critically Endangered and the Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherine) and Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli) which are both listed as Endangered. Two near-threatened species; the Cape Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus) and Flat Caco ( platys) have been recorded at the KRCA located across Wetton Road from the project area.

Of the 153 reptile species that occur in the WC, 51 species have a distribution that coincides with the project area (IUCN, 2020; Branch, 1998; Bates et al. 2014; Turner & de Villers, 2017). Approximately 11 of these species have been recorded in a 2km radius of the project area with the majority of them recorded in the KRCA. The WC supports 21 threatened or near threatened reptile species and 22 endemic reptile species (Bates et al., 2014; Turner & Villiers, 2017). The project area intersects the distribution of one threatened reptile species the Southern Adder (Bitis armata) and one near-threatened reptile species the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum). Both B. pumilum and B. armata are endemic to the Western Cape. Due to lack of habitat B. armata is unlikely to occur in the project area. B. pumilum may occur in the taller vegetation of the less degraded wetland however, they are not exclusively dependent on the project area and the loss of the area will not impact on the viability of the population.

The WC is home to 172 mammal species, 113 of which have a distribution which includes the Project Area and of those 44 may occur within the project area (Birss, 2017; Child et al., 2016, IUCN, 2020).Approximately 12 mammal species have been recorded at the KRCA and an additional eight species within 5km of the project area. (KRCA, 2020; ADU, 2020). The only mammal observed onsite was the Four-striped Grass Mouse recorded during the field survey. The Western Cape has 24 threatened mammal species and 13 near threatened species (Birss, 2017). One (1) vulnerable species and three (3) Near-Threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area. Eight (8) mammal species are endemic to the Western Cape and ten (10) are near endemic. Of these five (5) endemic and three (3) near endemic mammal species have distribution ranges that included through the project area. According to Avibase approximately 350 bird species have a distribution range which includes Wynberg and the Cape Magisterial Area, Western Cape Province (Lepage, 2020). The project area falls within the distribution ranges of 11 threatened and 11 near-threatened species. Of the threatened species four are considered endangered and seven vulnerable Although the site may provide a suitable hunting area it is unlikely that any species of concern use the site

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot x

Faunal Impact Assessment

to breed. Site is dominated by common bird species that readily adapt to urban environments. The Species Environmental Assessment guideline (SANBI, 2020) was applied to assess the Site Ecological Importance of the project area. The habitats on site the species of conservation concern were assessed based on their conservation importance, functional integrity and receptor resilience. The combination of these resulted in a rating of SEI ➢ The less degraded depression wetland is considered to have a Very Low SEI ➢ The degraded depression wetland is considered to be Very Low SEI.

S. pantherina may utilise the project area as a non-breeding area due to the proximity of the project area being within 2km of two known breeding areas. If found during non-breeding, in the project area will have a High RR and thus a Medium SEI.

Figure B: Habitat Sensitivity map illustrating preferred and alternative layout The impacts of the proposed development are considered to have a Low after the application of avoidance, minimisation and mitigation are applied. WLT Design Checklist and Construction Phase Management Plan must be applied to this project.

Table A: Summary of expected impacts on fauna from the proposed development Preferred Layout Alternative Layout

Impact Pre- Post Pre- Post mitigation Mitigation mitigation Mitigation

Loss of extent of degraded Low –‘ve Low –‘ve Low –‘ve Low –‘ve depression wetland faunal habitat Loss of extent of less degraded No impact Low –‘ve Low +’ve depression wetland faunal habitat Reduced S. pantherina foraging High –‘ve Moderate –‘ve High –‘ve Moderate –‘ve ground (non-breeding)/corridor Disturbance of faunal species due to Low –‘ve Low –‘ve Low –‘ve Low –‘ve operation of the IRT depot. No-Go Low –‘ve N/A Low –‘ve N/A

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot xi

Faunal Impact Assessment

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

The City of Cape Town (CoCT) have proposed the construction of a bus depot in Wynberg to facilitate the expansion of the Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) system in Cape Town. The proposed project is located on a vacant piece of land (Erf 91191, Erf 90470 and Erf 90475- RE) on Wetton Road across from the Kenilworth Racecourse (Figure 1.1). CHAND Environmental Consultants have been appointed to conduct the Basic Environmental Assessment (BA) for the proposed development.

This faunal specialist study forms part of the BA Process undertaken by CHAND in order to apply for Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the proposed development. The scope of work undertaken by CES is presented in the Terms of Reference outlined in Section 1.3 below.

Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed development.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development is for a bus depot to provide staging facilities for 202 busses. While the detailed design of the proposed depot would still be determined, the following basic components would likely apply (Figure 1.2):

➢ Re-alignment of the Bonnytoun access road to the west of the proposed depot. ➢ Refueling area (2 x underground diesel storage tank with capacity of 14m3) which would include a refueling office and an additional AdBlue Store area (to hold an approximately 280 litre tank- i.e. 1% of fuel storage capacity);

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 1

Faunal Impact Assessment

➢ Wash bay (manual wash only), including support buildings (with automated wash bays as well as deep clean wash bays and all water used in the wash bay would be recycled); ➢ Parking area (staff and visitors); ➢ Workshops (where vehicle maintenance and repairs would occur); ➢ Possible spray booth with the following typical components for a closed system; o Spray Booth Structure, manufactured from insulated panels (Rock Wool or EPS); o Air Intake Systems; o Air Intake Filtration System; o Air Extraction Systems; o Entrance and Exit Doors at opposing ends of spray booth; o Heating Systems which automatically regulate the internal temperature during spray painting mode; o Ceiling and Side Wall Lights; and o Electrical Control System. ➢ Admin buildings for drivers and staff (e.g. driver dispatch facility, driver mess and recreational facilities); ➢ Security buildings at the main entrance; ➢ Double-fencing around perimeter; ➢ Landscaped areas around the depot; ➢ Stormwater drainage and attenuation infrastructure; ➢ Emergency Exit Road.

This proposed project area has ready access to power, potable water and waste management via services provided by the City of Cape Town.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 2

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 1.2: Proposed development preferred layout (please note that footprint will remain the same but internal layout may differ during detail design).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 1

Faunal Impact Assessment

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

The aim of this Faunal Impact Assessment is to identify (i) the various habitat formations in the area, (ii) rare, endangered and threatened animal species and (iii) areas of high sensitivity that may be subject to significant impacts as a result of the construction or operation of the Project. The following terms of reference were used for the objectives of this study:

➢ Identify presence of faunal species and faunal habitats and map major faunal habitats, corridors and rivers (including wetlands). ➢ Identify presence of faunal species and faunal habitats of conservation value and/or concern; ➢ Identify areas of high faunal biodiversity; ➢ Assess the sensitivity of the various habitats in the area, in order to assess the significance of habitat loss on faunal groups as a result of the development, for example complex topographical features (especially steep and rocky slopes that provide niche habitats); ➢ Identify and assess the direct and indirect (secondary) construction, operation, cumulative and no-go impacts that the project and its infrastructure would have on the different faunal groups and habitats; and ➢ Identify and describe measures and management prescriptions that need to be put in place to ensure that the fauna and faunal habitats will not be severely negatively impacted on by the project.

1.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This report is based on the information available at the time of the compilation and as such, the following assumptions and limitations are implicit:

➢ This report is based on the project description and layout(s) provided to CES by CHAND. ➢ Descriptions of the natural and social environment provided in this report are based on field work and available literature; ➢ Species of Conservation Concern are difficult to find and identify, thus species described in this report do not comprise an exhaustive list. Additional Species of Conservation Concern could be found during construction and operation of the development. ➢ This report is predominantly based on a combination of desktop and on-site analysis. ➢ It should be emphasised that information, as presented in this document, only has reference to the project area as indicated on the project maps. Therefore, this information cannot be applied to any other area without a detailed investigation being undertaken. ➢ The field survey was conducted at the appropriate time for the breeding of the majority of amphibian species but was too early for the Western Leopard Toad that breeds in August, an additional assessment was conducted in August and September 2020 and is located in the addendum report (CES, December, 2020). Also, the ideal timing for surveying reptiles is in the summer months. However, the data gathered during the survey is sufficient to assess the potential impacts of the project on the reptile species.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 1

Faunal Impact Assessment

2 METHODOLOGY

A literature review of published and unpublished work was completed to assess the known diversity of the terrestrial fauna and terrestrial faunal habitats in and adjacent to the project area and to generate a likely species list for the study area.

The Animal demography Units (ADU) FrogMAP, ReptileMAP and MammalMap databases were used to extract species records for the quarter degree square (QDS) in which the project area occurs and Avibase was used to generate a bird species list for Wynberg and the Cape Metropolitan area. These lists were then refined using the relevant field guides and point count data from the ADU, iNaturalist and GBIF as well as other studies conducted at the KRCA.

This species list was used to establish which species likely to occur in the project area are Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) by checking it against various source including the: ➢ Atlas and Red List of of South African, Lesotho and Swaziland, ➢ Atlas and Red List of Reptiles of South African, Lesotho and Swaziland, ➢ Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, ➢ Red Data book of Birds of South African, Lesotho and Swaziland, ➢ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and ➢ Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). ➢ Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974, as amended 2000) Schedule 1: Endangered Wild and Schedule 2: Protected Wild Animals ➢ Threatened and Protected Species (Section 56(1) Of The NEM:BA, 2004).

Species of Conservation Concern are defined as: ➢ species listed in the Critically endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable categories; ➢ possible threatened species (i.e. taxa currently not assessed in the IUCN Red List whose conservation status has been highlighted subsequently); ➢ those species listed in the Data Deficient or Near Threatened categories of the IUCN Red List. ➢ Endemic and range restricted species

The faunal data compiled during this initial desktop assessment was supplemented by the field data to produce a consolidated faunal species checklist. A field survey was conducted the morning of 29 May 2020 and evening of 4 June 2020. The project area was surveyed using active searching (visual encounter survey) for avifauna, mammals, reptiles and amphibians’ individuals and evidence of presence scat, spoor, nests and feathers. An acoustic survey was conducted at night followed by active searching with a torch.

Potential habitats were mapped prior to the field survey using Google Earth and the Vegetation and Freshwater impact assessment and following the field survey ecological sensitivities of habitats were established. The Species Environmental Assessment guideline (SANBI, 2020) was applied to assess the Site Ecological Importance of the project area. The methodology is presented in detail in Appendix A.

The proposed project related impacts were assessed using CES’s impact assessment methodology which is presented in detail in Appendix B.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 2

Faunal Impact Assessment

The initial Faunal Impact Assessment submitted in June 2020 included a recommendation to assess use of the project area by the Western Leopard Toad (WLT) during breeding season (August).

This recommendation was based on the project areas sensitivity rating, at the time three scenarios were presented using on the precautionary principle:

➢ Scenario 1: WLT breeds in the project area resulting in Very High Site Ecological Integrity (SEI). ➢ Scenario 2: WLT utilises the project area for non-breeding (foraging/corridor) resulting in a Medium SEI. ➢ Scenario 3: WLT does not utilise the project area due to lack of available habitat resulting in a Low SEI.

To establish if the WLT breeds in the project area the specialist conducted sampling during the breeding season (August/September 2020). Sampling methods included acoustic survey and active searching in the evening once a week for four weeks and selected evening when nearby breeding sites were active (Figure 2.1). Following the breeding season, the specialist proposed sampling for potential offspring (tadpoles) in case a breeding session was missed. Development of egg to tadpoles to fully developed toad requires approximately 73 days (du Preez & Carruthers, 2017). Four baited traps were set in the inundated sections of the seasonal wetlands within the project area (Figure 2.1). The inundated areas were ≥50cm deep and inundated at the time (Plate 2.1).

Plate 2.1: Inundated wetland area (i) Trap 1 and Trap 2 along Wetton Rd and (ii) Trap 3.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 3

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 2.1: August and September 2020 sampling points at proposed development site.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 4

Faunal Impact Assessment

3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA

3.1 CLIMATE

Cape Town boasts a Mediterranean climate typical to that of the Western Cape Province of South Africa, with warm, dry summers and mild, moist winters (Figure 3.1). Average daily temperatures range from 25.7°C in February to 17.9°C in July. The coldest temperatures are recorded during the month of June/July when temperatures drop to a low of 6.4°C during the night. Cape Town is a winter rainfall area receiving an average of 93mm of rain in June (Weather & Climate, 2020). The monthly rainfall for May 2020 was 155mm recorded at the nearest weather station in Kirstenbosch (SA WeatherService, 2020).

Figure 3.1: Graphs illustrating the average monthly maximum and minimum temperature and average monthly precipitation for Cape Town (Weather & Climate, 2020).

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The project area is situated on a relatively flat area with the highest point in the south-west (29m above sea level (asl)) between the informal settlement and driving range sloping downhill towards the wetland in the east (26m asl) and Wetton Road in the north (28m asl) (Google Earth Pro, 2020) (Figure 3.2). The area was previously cultivated, and large mounds of rubble have been overgrown leaving ground very uneven (Plate 3.1).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 5

Faunal Impact Assessment

SW NE

Figure 3.2: Topography of the project area (South West to North East) (Google Earth Pro, 2020).

N

Plate 3.1 Photograph of the project area topography.

3.3 CURRENT LAND USE

The project area is in the southern suburbs in an urban area and is currently zoned Public Open Space (Figure 3.4). The project area is bordered by the Wynberg Sports Club fields, Bonnytoun Informal Settlement, Kenilworth Golf Village, the M5 highway and Wetton Road. The project area is currently used to access the Bonnytoun Informal Settlement and is otherwise vacant, covered in kikuyu grass and used as a dumping ground for rubble and garden refuse (Plate 3.2).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 6

Faunal Impact Assessment

M5 Wetton Road

Wetland

Existing access road

Dumping of refuse

Existing access road

Plate 3.2: Illustrating little existing human land use of the project area other than access and dumping of rubble and garden refuse.

3.4 VEGETATION

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) have classified the broader area as critically endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos (Figure 3.5), however, the site is considered transformed, completely degraded and infested with alien and invasive plants. Terrestrial species found on the project area include Rapistrum rugosum (Wild Mustard), Lupinus angustifolius (Blue Lupin), Acacia saligna (Port Jackson Willow), Malva sylvestris (Common Mallow), and Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu) (Mugabe and Steytler, 2020). Wetland vegetation was dominated by Arundo donax (Spanish Reed), Typha capensis, Juncus kraussi and very dense clumps of Pennisetum clandestinum (Mugabe and Steytler, 2020).

According to the Botanical Impact Assessment report, if developed no significant botanical loss would occur (Altern, 2020). However, it is worth noting that the intact and important pockets of Cape Flats Sand Fynbos at neighbouring sites at the Kenilworth Racecourse and Youngsfield Military Base are of ecological importance. These areas may form part of the corridor that provides a refugia for important species and facilitates the movement of species

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 7

Faunal Impact Assessment

within an urban area (Figure 3.3). However, the project area occurs just outside of the formalised biodiversity corridors in the CoCT.

Figure 3.3: Potential Biodiversity Corridors in the CoCT (Marlene Laros & Ass., 2007).

3.5 WETLAND AND HYDROLOGY

The Freshwater Impact Assessment (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020) identified the wetland in the study area as a single depression wetland with two non-perennial drainage lines that occur within 500m of the study area; one is north of the project area at the Kenilworth Racecourse and the other immediately east of the Golf Driving Range (Figure 3.6).

The wetland vegetation type is classified as Southwest Sand Fynbos (NFEPA, 2011) within which depression wetlands are listed as Vulnerable according to the National Wetlands Map 5 (SANBI 2019) and the City of Cape Town’s 2017 wetland layer. Southwest Sand Fynbos is “likely to support any endangered or rare biota or populations of unique species despite falling within the historical distribution of a Critically Endangered terrestrial vegetation type (Cape Flats Sand Fynbos) and an Endangered wetland vegetation type (Peninsula Granite Fynbos)” (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020).

However, the wetland in the project area has been highly impacted and transformed by dumping and alien invasive species is described as “degraded” and ‘less degraded”. The proposed development will result in the loss of a 5ha portion of degraded wetland and 0,3ha portion of less degraded depression wetland (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020). The portion that holds

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 8

Faunal Impact Assessment

wetland vegetation species still retains some of its ecological functioning. Mugabe & Steytler, (2020) also note that there is no opportunity to incorporate a meaningful terrestrial buffer around the wetland due to existing transportation infrastructure and buildings.

3.4 PROTECTION LEVEL: OTHER ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREA

The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan is a tool that identifies priority areas of biodiversity and provides land use guidelines for developers. City of Cape Town Biodiversity Network (2017) classifies the study area as ‘Other Ecological Support Area’, Buffer 2 (OESA) (Figure 3.7). OESA is a category of Critical Biodiversity Area classified as open space that has been irreversibly modified by agriculture or other activities but has some conservation significance (Table 3.1) (Holmes & Pugnalin, 2016). This project areas conservation significance is listed as Animal movement. OESA’s however have not been selected by C-plan or have been initially excluded due to having either poor habitat condition or for being irreversibly modified so that better condition sites are considered first (Holmes & Pugnalin, 2016).

Table 3.1: C-Plan OESA Significance & Descriptions of Permissible Activities Spatial Development Buffer 2 Category

Critical Biodiversity Area OESA (CBA) Category

CBA Name Irreversibly modified site of Conservation Significance

Subtype Other Ecological Support Area,

Open space irreversibly modified by agriculture or other activities. Description Essential for protected sites.

These areas may be required for long-term ecological functioning of Significance of Habitat neighbouring natural ecosystems. Loss would result in degradation of ecological processes & potential loss of biodiversity elements.

Maintain as open space & where appropriate restore degraded land Objective to natural or near-natural for improved ecological functioning.

Ensure agricultural activity is compatible with ecosystem processes. Action Where possible, acquire, rezone & rehabilitate. High priority but low urgency (15-year horizon).

Generally outside urban edge. Existing agricultural practices may continue, or other compatible farming may occur but the long-term Compatible Activities vision is to restore natural ecosystem structure to some of the area to improve ecological processes.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 9

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 3.4: Land use map showing the project area to occur with an area zoned as Public Open Space

Figure 3.5: Project area in context of regional vegetation types. The project area occurs within the Cape Flats Sand Fynbos (Mucina and Rutherford, 2020).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 10

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 3.6: Delineated project area wetland showing the majority of the project area to occur within a degraded wetland (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020).

Figure 3.7: CBAs, Conservation Areas and OESA in relation to the project area (CoCT, 2017).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 11

Faunal Impact Assessment

3.6 PROTECTED AREAS

Kenilworth Racecourse Conservation Area (KRCA)

The Kenilworth Racecourse Conservation Area (KRCA) is the located just north of the project area across Wetton Road. The KRCA was established in 2006 through a management agreement between the City of Cape Town, CapeNature and Kenilworth Racing (Pty) Ltd (KRCA, 2020). The KRCA is 52 hectares and is the best example of critically endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos of which less than 1% remains. The KRCA hosts more than 310 indigenous plant species of which 34 are considered to be threatened with extinction (KRCA, 2020). It is also an amphibian hotspot hosting 11 known amphibian species including the Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis) which is Critically Endangered and the Cape platanna (Xenopus gilli) which is Endangered. It also hosts 17 reptile species one of which is listed as Vulnerable the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum), 10 small mammal species and 80 bird species, three of which are listed as threatened, the African Marsh-Harrier (Circus ranivorus) (EN), Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus) (EN) and the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) (NT) (KRCA, 2020).

3.7 SCREENING TOOL: SENSITIVE SPECIES

The Department of Environmental Affairs Forestry and Fisheries (DEAFF) preapplication screening tool recently included a category for species specific environmental assessment to ensure the inclusion of specific flora and fauna species in the environmental assessment process (SANBI, 2020). The screening report illustrates that a portion of the proposed Wynberg IRT depot location (EIA application area) in relation to animal species is of high sensitivity due to the likely presence of the Endangered Black Harrier and the remainder is listed as medium sensitivity due to the likely presence of the Western Leopard Toad (Endangered), the Cape Platanna (Endangered) and the Micro Frog (Critically Endangered) (Table 3. 2 and Figure 3.7) (DEA, 2020).

Table 3.2: The terrestrial vertebrate faunal species that triggers sensitivity includes: Scientific name Common Name Status Sensitivity Aves Circus maurus Black Harrier Endangered High Amphibia Sclerophrys pantherina Western Leopard Toad Endangered Medium Xenopus gilli Cape Platanna Endangered Medium Microbatrachella capensis Micro Frog Critically Endangered Medium

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 12

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 3.8: Animal species sensitivity for the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot project area (DEA, 2020).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 13

Faunal Impact Assessment

4. REGIONAL AND PROJECT AREA FAUNA

South Africa is a diverse country, with approximately 1,663 terrestrial vertebrate faunal species of which 850 species are birds, 343 species are mammals, 350 species are reptiles and 120 species are amphibians spread across seven biomes and 122 million km². The Western Cape (WC) Province is home to approximately 153 reptile species, 55 amphibian species, 172 mammal species and 674 bird species (Turner, 2017). 4.1 AMPHIBIANS

4.1.1 AMPHIBIANS OF THE WESTERN CAPE

Of the 60 species of amphibians known to occur in the Western Cape 19 of these species have a distribution which coincides with the project area (Appendix C1) (Turner & de Villiers, 2017; Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017; IUCN, 2020).

Approximately 13 of these 19 species have been recorded within a 2km radius of the project area, namely the Cape River Frog (Amietia fuscigula), Cape Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus), Flat Caco (Cacosternum platys), Cape Sand Toad ( angusticeps), Clicking Stream Frog ( grayii), Banded Stream Frog (Strongylopus bonaespei), Arum Lily Frog (Hyperolius horstockii), Rattling Frog (Semnodactylus wealii), Cape Sand Frog (Tomopterna delalandii) and Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis) (ADU, 2020; KRCA, 2020). During the field survey only the Clicking Stream Frog (S. grayii) was found in the project area along the access road to Bonnytoun Informal Settlement around dumped refuse and small puddles of water (Plate 3.2) and in the less degraded depression wetland (Plate 4.1). During the night surveys approximately 20-30 individuals calling could be heard.

Plate 4.1: S. grayii found at the proposed project area

During the August/September survey between 25-50 Stream Frogs (Strongypolus) tadpoles were collected in each trap and tadpoles were at various stages of metamorphous. Selected tadpoles were collected and photographed for identification (Plate 4.2). The presence of this species is not surprising given S. grayii adults were found both in the project area and adjacent to it during the previous survey. Within the project area between 5-10 individuals could be heard calling along the access road to Bonytoun, between 10-20 individuals could be heard calling at the area proposed for the attenuation pind and outside the project area between 20- 30 individuals could be heard calling from the less degraded wetland.

During the acoustic surveys two additional species could be heard calling, namely, the Arum Lily Frog (Hyperolius horstockii) and Cape Sand Frog (Tomopterna delalandii). No WLT could be heard calling during the breeding season and no tadpoles were found.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 14

Faunal Impact Assessment

Plate 4.2: Strongylopus tadpoles

4.1.2. AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

The WC supports 15 known threatened and near-threatened species (Turner & de Villiers, 2017, Minter et al., 2004). Three threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area these are the Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis) listed as Critically Endangered and the Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherine) and Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli) which are both listed as Endangered. Two near-threatened species; the Cape Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus) and Flat Caco (Cacosternum platys) have been recorded at the KRCA located across Wetton Road from the project area.

Western Leopard Toad (Schlerophrys pantherina) S. patherina is listed as endangered [B1ab(ii,iii,iv)+2ab(ii,iii,iv)] and is a charismatic species that is endemic to the Western Cape (IUCN, 2016, Measey et al., 2012). It has a distribution range of 3,824km2, also referred to as extant of occurrence (EOO) and is found to only occupy 405km2 (area of occupancy) (IUCN, 2016). Two subpopulations exist, one in Cape Metropolitan Area and the other south of Hermanus (Figure 4.1). These subpopulations are thought to be genetically distinct form one another and each subpopulation have experienced a genetic bottleneck (Da Silva et al. 2017; Measey & Tolley, 2011).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 15

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 4.1: Distribution of S. pantherina in relation to the project area - black square (IUCN, 2016)

The Western Leopard Toad is protected under the Nature Conservation Ordinance (19 of 1974) of the Western Cape Province (CapeNature, 2013; FrogMAP, 2020). A number of groups are involved in its conservation namely the Western Leopard Toad Conservation Committee (WLTCC) comprising of representatives from SANBI, Cape Nature, SANParks and City of Cape Town as well as NGOs including Endangered Wildlife Trust, WWF, Table Mountain Fund and CTEET and volunteer groups such as the local conservation group the ToadNUTS (CapeNature, 2013; Measey et al., 2014, Noordhoek Community Hub, 2020). The co-ordinated conservation actions from all stakeholders aim to reduce the threat level of the Western leopard toad (Measey et al., 2012).

This species inhabits fynbos and thicket habitat breeding in pans, vleis and dams with relatively deep (50cm) still permanent water (du Preez & Carruthers, 2017). It is however not restricted to pristine natural habitat and occurs in gardens, urban open spaces and farmlands, some breeding grounds may even experience some level of pollution and eutrophication (du Preez & Carruthers, 2017, FrogMAP, 2020). Outside of breeding they spend most of their time foraging within a few kilometres of their breeding ground (IUCN, 2016).

S. patherina breeding season is between July-September, primarily in August and is known to breed in number of locations in the Cape Metropolitan Area, 80% of which is unprotected (FrogMAP, 2020; IUCN, 2016, Measey et al., 2014). These locations include (FrogMAP, 2020, CoCT, 2015):

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 16

Faunal Impact Assessment

• Bergvliet • Grassy Park • Observatory • Sun Valley • Clovelly, • Hout Bay • Ottery • Strandfontein • Constantia, • Kalk Bay • Noordhoek • Tokai • Diep River, • Kirstenhof • Philippi • Valkenberg, • Fish Hoek, • Kommetjie • Scarborough • Rondevlei • Glencairn, • Lakeside • Southfield • Zeekoevlei, • Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve (northern limits)

The formally identified breeding sites within 2km was mapped in 2016 and illustrated below (Figure 4.2).

S. Pantherina has not been recorded at KRCA but has been recorded within 2km of the project area (ADU, 2020; KRCA, 2020). The nearest records are along Rosemead Avenue to the west of KRCA and 200m east of the project area at the Rosemead Dump (perrs. Comms Margaret Kahle, 2020). Two known active breeding sites occur within 2km of the project area at the Cape Royal Golf Club and at the Youngsfield dams and potentially its vleis (perrs. Comms Margaret Kahle, 2020) it also occurs on the edge of Ottery which is listed as a breeding area (Figure 4.3). This is important because the project area may be used to access nonbreeding sites or act as a non-breeding site. Generally seasonal wetlands have very little faunal diversity when dry but become diverse when inundated. Given the seasonal nature of the wetland in the project area it is unlikely that the WLT uses the area permanently during non-breeding season. No WLT were found breeding in the inundated wetland areas within the project area nor were tadpoles found following the breeding season. Although not conclusive it is unlikely that the WLT utilises the project area for breeding. It is possible that this species uses the project area as a corridor to access non-breeding sites as individuals have been found north of the project area while the breeding site is south of the project area. It is important to note that the proposed development will only remove a portion of the corridor leaving a width of 65m at its narrowest point in the south and 325m at its widest on Wetton Road.

Figure 4.2: Formally mapped breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline) (WLTCC, 2016)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 17

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 4.3: Known breeding and non-breeding locations of S. pantherina in relation to the project area (red outline).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 18

Faunal Impact Assessment

Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis) M. capensis is Critically Endangered as it has only been recorded at four locations in the Western Cape (Figure 4.4) and although its EOO is 1,559 km2 the AOO is a mere 7.3 km2 (FrogMAP, 2020; IUCN, 2017; turner & de Villiers, 2017). This species has specialized habitat requirements for breeding and is restricted to low lying (10-80m asl) coastal fynbos areas where wetlands filled with black acidic waters (pH 4.0-7.0) (FrogMAP, 2020; IUCN, 2017). The majority of these wetlands (>85%) dry up in summer and these tiny frogs (18mm) will bury themselves and aestivate during the dry season (FrogMAP, 2020; du Preez & Carruthers, 2017). During the breeding season it is estimated that in prime habitat up to 1000 adults can occupy 50m2 (FrogMAP, 2020; IUCN, 2017). The KRCA hosts one of the smallest populations and the only remaining Cape Flats population restricted to <10ha of wetland habitat (KRCA, 2020; FrogMAP, 2020). Although the project area occurs within the distribution range of M. capensis it is highly unlikely it will occur outside of the KRCA.

Figure 4.4: Distribution of M. capensis in relation to the project area - red square (IUCN, 2017)

Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli) X. gilli is listed as endangered due to competition with X. laevis, habitat loss and degradation. This species does not tolerate habitat alteration. X. gilli current AOO is 60km2 and is known from nine locations (Figure 4.3.) (IUCN, 2017). It occupies the same habitat as M. capensis and is only found in Cape fynbos heathland in certain acid (<3.6pH) blackwater sponges and lakelets in low-lying wetlands but occurs more widely than M. capensis (IUCN, 2017; turner & de Villiers, 2017). It is also a winter breeder (July to October) and aestivates if waterbodies dry up (IUCN, 2017). The only record is in the (ADU, 2020) and has been recorded on the KRCA (2020). Given the habitat requirements for this species and the degraded nature of the wetlands, it is unlikely to occur in the project area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 19

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 4.5: Distribution of X. gilli in relation to the project area - red square (IUCN, 2017).

Endemic species In total, 36 amphibian species are endemic to the Western Cape Province (Turner & de Villiers, 2017) and seven (7) of these have a distribution which includes the project area, namely the Micro Frog (Microbatrachella capensis), Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherine), Cape Platanna (Xenopus gilli), Cape Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus), Cape Sand Toad (Vandijkophrynus angusticeps), Flat Caco (Cacosternum platys) and Arum Lily Frog (Hyperolius horstockii) (Table 4.1). None of these are endemic to the project area.

Due to the transformed nature of the site and the lack of suitable, available habitat it is unlikely that C. platys will occur in the project area. Both B. gibbosus and V. angusticeps may occur in the project area however, they are not exclusively dependent on the project area and the loss of the area will not impact on the viability of the population.

Table 4.1: Amphibians Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020). Distribution Species name Status Habitat (IUCN SSC ASG, 2017)

Cacosternum NT It is a species of fynbos heath land, and platys in the dry season individuals have been found aestivating under stones or logs and among the roots of dead reed-like plants in dried up watercourses. It typically breeds in seasonally inundated fynbos (IUCN SSC ASG, 2017).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 20

Faunal Impact Assessment

Breviceps NT Favours well-drained soils slightly sloping gibbosus ground in southwestern Cape. Natural habitat is in Renosterveld, but also found in parks and gardens in urban areas (IUCN SSC ASG, 2017).

Vandijkophrynus LC Temporary rain-filled depressions in angusticeps sandy soil in the WC (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013).

Hyperolius LC The Arum Lily Frog inhabits coastal horstockii fynbos heathland and require relatively permanent water and temporary depressions in sandy/clay areas/soils, respectively (IUCN SSC ASG, 2013).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 21

Faunal Impact Assessment

4.2. REPTILES

Of the 153 reptile species that occur in the WC, 51 species have a distribution that coincides with the project area (Appendix B2) (IUCN, 2020; Branch, 1998; Bates et al. 2014; Turner & de Villers, 2017).

Approximately 11 of these species have been recorded in a 2km radius of the project area with the majority of them recorded in the KRCA, including the Cape Legless Skink (Acontias meleagris), Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko (Afrogecko porphyreus), Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum), Short-legged Seps (Tetradactylus seps), Common slug eater (Duberria lutrix), Olive House Snake (Lycodonomorphus inornatus), Brown Water Snake (Lycodonomorphus rufulus) and Mole Snake (Pseudaspis cana) (ADU, 2020). No reptiles were recorded during the field survey and one resident at Bonnytoun reported seeing a large black snake with big eyes that every so often moves through the project area.

4.2.1. REPTILES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

The WC supports 21 threatened or near threatened reptile species and 22 endemic reptile species (Bates et al., 2014; Turner & Villiers, 2017). The project area intersects the distribution of one threatened reptile species the Southern Adder (Bitis armata) and one near-threatened reptile species the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum). Both B. pumilum and B. armata are endemic to the Western Cape. Due to lack of habitat B. armata is unlikely to occur in the project area. B. pumilum may occur in the taller vegetation of the less degraded wetland however, they are not exclusively dependent on the project area and the loss of the area will not impact on the viability of the population.

Table 4.2: Threatened Reptiles Endemic to the Western Cape Province in relation to the project area (black squares) (IUCN, 2020). Species Status Habitat Distribution name

Occurs in a variety of habitats Bradypodion including fynbos, renosterveld, pumilum Near thicket, riparian vegetation and Threatened some exotic and native trees.

(Tolley, Can also be found in urban 2018) gardens (Tolley, 2018).

Bitis armata Vulnerable Shelters under limestone rock slabs in coastal fynbos between dense shrubs (Maritz & Turner, 2018).

(Turner, 2014)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 22

Faunal Impact Assessment

4.3. MAMMALS

The WC is home to 172 mammal species, 113 of which have a distribution which includes the Project Area and of those 44 may occur within the project area (Birss, 2017; Child et al., 2016, IUCN, 2020) (Appendix 1d).

Approximately 12 mammal species have been recorded at the KRCA and an additional eight species within 5km of the project area. (KRCA, 2020; ADU, 2020). These 20 species are separated into each class as follows: 11 Rodentia, five Carnivora, one Afrosoricida, one Bovidae, one Eulityphla and one Chiroptera. Namely the Southern African Mole-rat (Cryptomys hottentotus), Cape Mole-rat (Georychus capensis), Cape Dune Mole-rat (Bathyergus suillus), Southern African Pygmy Mouse (Mus minutoides), House Mouse (Mus musculus), Brown Rat (Rattus norvegicus), House Rat (Rattus rattus), Four-striped Grass Mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio), Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Vlei Rat (Otomys irroratus), Grey African Climbing Mouse (Dendromus melanotis), Marsh Mongoose (Atilax paludinosus), Cape Grey Mongoose (Herpestes pulverulentus), African Clawless Otter (Aonyx capensis), Cape Genet (Genetta tigrine), Common Genet (Genetta genetta), Cape Golden Mole (Chrysochloris asiatica), Cape Grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis), Musk Shrew (Crocidura) and Cape Serotine (Neoromicia capensis).

The only mammal observed onsite was the Four-striped Grass Mouse recorded during the field survey.

4.3.1. MAMMALS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

The Western Cape has 24 threatened mammal species and 13 near threatened species (Birss, 2017). One (1) vulnerable species and three (3) Near-Threatened species have a distribution which includes the project area (Table 4.3). Table 4.3: Threatened Mammal Species with a distribution that includes the project area Common name Species name Conservation status (EWT, 2016) White-tailed Rat Mystromys albicaudatus Vulnerable Fynbos Golden Mole Amblysomus corriae Near-threatened African Clawless Otter Aonyx capensis Near-threatened Laminate Vlei Rat Otomys lainatus Near-threatened

M. albicaudatus is listed as Vulnerable C2a(i) and has a declining population of 6,997-13,648 that inhabits an AOO of 3719km2 (Avenant, 2019). This species is a habitat specialist, ordinarily this would assist in locating the species, however, even in suitable habitats this species is difficult to find. They occur in Dune Thicket on sloped clay soils in Succulent Karoo and Fynbos and in the WC have only been recorded from the Blaauwberg Conservation Area in 2005. They are never found on soft, sandy substrate, rocks, wetlands or riverbanks (Avenant, 2019). M. albicaudatus is very unlikely to occur in the project area and therefore will not be assessed further.

Eight (8) mammal species are endemic to the Western Cape and ten (10) are near endemic. Of these five (5) endemic and three (3) near endemic mammal species have distribution ranges that included through the project area (Table 4.4).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 23

Faunal Impact Assessment

Table 4.4: Endemic and Near-endemics WC Mammals with a distribution that includes the project area Common name Status Habitat Distribution Endemic to Western Cape

Associated with rocky areas on mountain slopes in fynbos vegetation and is Cape Spiny Mouse almost entirely dependent on fynbos that has all its functional components. LC (Acomys subspinosus) Considered a Keystone species because it buries fynbos seeds (Palmer, et al., 2017).

(Palmer, et al., 2017)

Alluvial Sandy and loamy soils along Riverine and Sandveld habitats. Prefers Cape Dune Mole-rat fynbos vegetation, however, has adapted to transformed areas incl. agricultural LC areas and road verges. It is a pest to wheat farmers and golf estates. (Maree, et (Bathyergus suillus) al., 2017). Endemic to the Cape Floristic region, 124,192 km2 (Maree, et al., 2017).

(Maree, et al., 2017).

Cape Gerbil LC In Karoo and shrubland fringes in sandy soils (Cassola, 2016). (Gerbilliscus afra)

(Cassola, 2016).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 24

Faunal Impact Assessment

Not exclusively a WC endemic as it occurs throughout Africa however it does African marsh rat LC have a WC population. This species occurs wide variety of habitats, including (Dasymys incomtus) forest and savanna habitats, swampland and grasslands (Taylor, 2016).

(Taylor, 2016).

Includes a variety of habitats including: Renosterveld, Fynbos, Strandveld Cape Golden Mole DD Succulent Karoo and in urbanised areas including parks, gardens and cultivated (Chrysochloris asiatica) lands and even beaches (Bronner, 2015).

(Bronner, 2015) Near-endemic to Western Cape

The Cape Mole-rat prefers deep, sandy soils, particularly coastal dunes and sandy alluvial deposits along rivers and montane areas of the Western Cape and requires Cape Mole-rat LC areas with vleis or in close proximity to rivers (Maree, 2017). Often found in golf (Georychus capensis) courses, gardens and even at the main campus of the University of Cape Town (Maree, et al., 2017). (Maree, et al., 2017) LC Primarily associated with the Fynbos Biome locally common in thickets, shrublands Cape Grysbok and the fynbos habitats. Dense cover is an important habitat requirement (Palmer, (Raphicerus melanotis) et al., 2017). Is an adaptable species and can survive in human-modified landscapes provided that vegetation with the required understorey cover remains (Palmer, et al., 2017). (Palmer, et al., 2017).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 25

Faunal Impact Assessment

LC

Lowland and montane fynbos vegetation depends largely on Proteaceae seeds Verreaux's Mouse recognised as a valuable, and often essential, pollinator for ground Protea species (Relton, et al., 2017). They have been recorded as fairly abundant in riverine (Myomyscus verreauxi) forests, living in scrub on grassy slopes and the edges of forests (Relton, et al., 2017).

(Relton, et al., 2017)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 26

Faunal Impact Assessment

4.4. BIRDS

According to Avibase approximately 350 bird species have a distribution range that includes Wynberg and the Cape Magisterial Area, Western Cape Province (Lepage, 2020). The birds seen in the project area include the Little Egret, Common Fiscal, Butcher bird, Neddicky, Cape Sparrow, Black-shouldered Kite and Helmeted Guineafowl.

A study conducted at the KRCA by Turpie and Cohen (1998) looked at three habitats within the grounds and found the intact Sand Fynbos vegetation to have the highest species richness. 54 of the potential 79 species that may occur in the area were recorded while the lawns and ornamental trees only hosted 14 of the 79 species and these were common generalist urban species. The third habitat consisted of alien trees, degraded habitat and remnant vegetation and 25 of a possible 33 species were recorded. Of note are the number of birds that use these trees for roosting or as a hunting perch. Notable raptor species include the Black Sparrow Hawk, African Goshawk, Steppe Buzzard, Forest Buzzard, Spotted Eagle Owl and Black Shouldered Kite.

The KRCA falls within a green corridor that birds use as a flyway to access the north and south of the peninsula, birds include the Kelp Gull, Hartlaubs Gull and Swift Terns (Turpie and Cohen, 1998). The field survey found the project area to be dominated by common bird species that readily adapt to urban environments.

4.4.1. BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

The project area falls within the distribution ranges of 11 threatened and 11 near-threatened species. Of the threatened species four are considered endangered and seven vulnerable (Table 4.5).

Black Harrier (Circus maurus)

C. maurus triggered the animal sensitivity in the screening tool (Figure 4.6) and was designated high animal sensitivity. It’s distribution range is restricted to southern Africa and is concentrated in the WC (Figure 4.6). This species is listed as Endangered because it has a declining population with current population estimated between 251-999 individuals (BirdLife Int., 2017). BirdLife Int. (2017) states that in the WC C. maurus population may have declined by at least 50% and is expected to experience future declines of more than 20% in the next 15 years. This species occurs in coastal and montane fynbos in the Western Cape particularly near vleis, marshes, streams or dams. They build nests on the ground and lay eggs between June-November (BirdLife Int., 2017). The closest sightings of the C. maurus is south in Diep River (4.5km away) and Zeekovlei (6 km away). It has also been recorded in Philippi (6km), Observatory (8km) and at the University of Cape Town (5km) and is mostly recorded on the Peninsula (GBIF, 2020). Youngsfield and KRCA potentially offer as important areas for the Black Harrier to breed because it offers intact fynbos in relatively protected areas where according to Jenkins and Simmons (2011) Harrier prefer intact patches exceeding 100ha. Youngsfield and KRCA combined have an area of just less than 100ha. As discussed in detail above the project area is highly transformed and no fynbos is present. Although the project area may provide a suitable hunting area it is unlikely that any species of concern use the project area to breed.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 27

Faunal Impact Assessment

Figure 4.6: C. maurus High animal sensitivity in relation to the project area

Figure 4.7: Distribution of C. maurus in relation to the project area - red square (Birdlife Int, 2017).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 28

Faunal Impact Assessment

Table 4.5: Bird SCC with a distribution range that includes the project area Use of Common name Status Habitat Project Area Bushy savanna and grass-covered plains, Small Buttonquail EN thickets, rank grassland, crops, stubble Unlikely (Turnix sylvaticus) and weedy fallow fields (Birdlife Int., 2016) Mountain fynbos and coastal strandveld Hottentot Buttonquail (Birdlife Int., 2016). The closest EN Unlikely (Turnix hottentottus) recordings are at Cape Point (GBIF, 2020). Requires permanent inland/coastal wetlands for breeding and forages fynbos, African Marsh-Harrier grasslands, floodplains and croplands Possible EN (Circus ranivorus) (Taylor et al., 2015). Recorded at the (Hunting) False Bay Nature Reserve (GBIF, 2020). Has been recorded at KRCA. Black Harrier Possible EN Discussed in detail below. (Circus maurus) (Hunting) Requires water, breeds at nutrient-rich shallow lakes, dams and may use Maccoa Duck sewagefarms (Taylor et al., 2015). VU Unlikely (Oxyura maccoa) Recorded at Youngsfield and within a 10km buffer of the project area (Ottery, Plumstead and Bergvliet). SA Endemic. Occurs in Renosterveld and Strandveld Fynbos and prefers natural habitat (Taylor et al., 2015). Individuals Black Bustard VU recorded on Table Mountain, Signal Hill, Unlikely (Eupodotis afra) along the SwartRiver in Rondebosch and at the False Bay Nature Reserve (GBIF, 2020). Found throughout sub-Saharan Africa in a variety of habitats savannah, forest edges Martial Eagle and open shrubland (Taylor et al., 2015). VU Unlikely (Polemaetus bellicosus) The are no trees in the project area and there is only one recording on GBIF for the CoCT recorded om Table Mountain. Is distributed throughout Africa across 5 Verreaux's Eagle biomes. Nests on rocky outcrops and VU Unlikely (Aquila verreauxii) occasionally trees and pylons (Taylor et al., 2015). Throughout SA this species occurs widely but sparsely. Favours open grassland Lanner Falcon cleared woodlands and agricultural areas Possible VU (Falco biarmicus) (Taylor et al., 2015). Multiple recordings (Hunting within 10km of the project area (GBIF, 2020). Has been recorded at KRCA. Endemic species. Edges of forest patches Knysna Warbler and in thickets (Taylor et al., 2015). VU Possible (Bradypterus sylvaticus) Multiple recordings within 10km of the project area (GBIF, 2020).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 29

Faunal Impact Assessment

Important Bird Area: False Bay Nature Reserve

Important Bird Area (IBA) are sites critical for the long-term survival of bird species that are globally threatened, have a restricted range, are restricted to specific biomes/vegetation types and/or have significant populations (BirdLife SA, 2020). South Africa has 101 Global IBAs and an additional 21 Regional IBAs. The nearest IBA is the False Bay Nature Reserve 5,7km southwest of the project area (Figure 4.8).

This man-made wetland habitat is comprised of Zeekoevlei, Rondevlei and Strandfontein Sewage Works (BirdLife SA, 2020). It hosts 168 species and has been known to support 23,200 individuals. This high diversity of waterbirds is due to the wide range of wetland habitats present, and the proximity to the ocean, which permits both freshwater and coastal species to exploit the system, using it to forage and breed (BirdLife SA, 2020).

76 freshwater wetland species have been recorded within this IBA of which 45 of these species are confirmed to use the area as a breeding ground. 18 are coastal species that visit the area to roost or breed. When the water is low enough for islands to form, the IBA regularly hosts 3,000 terns including Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Sandwich Tern (S. sandvicensis) and Greater Crested Tern (S. bergii) (BirdLife SA, 2020). It also hosts threatened and near-threatened species such as the: Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber), Pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus), African Marsh Harrier (Circus ranivorus), Caspian Stern (Sterna caspia) and Chestnut-banded Plover (Charadrius pallidus) (BirdLife SA, 2020). The project area is of little significance to this IBA and the species that utilise it.

Figure 4.8: Important Bird Areas in relation to the project area.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 30

Faunal Impact Assessment

5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The Species Environmental Assessment guideline (SANBI, 2020) was applied to assess the Site Ecological Importance of the project area. The habitats and the species of conservation concern in the project area were assessed based on their conservation importance, functional integrity and receptor resilience (Table 5.1). The combination of these resulted in a rating of SEI and interpretation of mitigation requirements based on the ratings (refer to Appendix A for a summary of rating system)

The sensitivity map was developed using available spatial planning tools as well as by applying the SEI sensitivity based on the field survey (Figure 5.1).

Table 5.1: Criteria for establishing Site Ecological importance and description of criteria Criteria Description

Conservation The importance of a site for supporting biodiversity features of Importance (CI) conservation concern present e.g. populations of IUCN Threatened and Near-Threatened species (CR, EN, VU & NT), Rare, range-restricted species, globally significant populations of congregatory species, and areas of threatened ecosystem types, through predominantly natural processes.

Functional a measure of the ecological condition of the impact receptor as Integrity (FI) determined by its remaining intact and functional area, its connectivity to other natural areas and the degree of current persistent ecological impacts.

Biodiversity Importance (BI) is a function of Conservation Importance (CI) and the Functional Integrity (FI) of a receptor

Receptor the intrinsic capacity of the receptor to resist major damage from Resilience (RR) disturbance and/or to recover to its original state with limited or no human intervention.

Site Ecological Importance (SEI) is a function of Biodiversity Importance (BI) and Receptor Resilience (RR)

Habitat level SEI The habitat available to terrestrial faunal species in the project area consists of a depression wetland (5.3ha) that had been transformed to varying degrees due to infilling and dumping of rubble and garden refuse and the presence of alien invasive plant species mainly kikuyu grass. The wetland is separated into two portions namely, degraded and less degraded. Less degraded depression wetland The less degraded wetland portion has no confirmed or highly likely populations of faunal SCC or range-restricted species. Also, more than 50% of the site has been transformed, it is therefore not characteristic of the natural vegetation expected to occur there and therefore has a limited potential to support SCC. Its CI is thus considered to be Low.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 31

Faunal Impact Assessment

The FI is considered to be Very Low mainly due to its limited size of 0.3ha in extent and lack of habitat connectivity even though key wetland vegetation species are present, and it retains some ecological functioning (Mugabe & Steytler, 2020). The resilience of the less degraded wetland habitat is considered to be Very high. Should this habitat experience damage from a major disturbance it is likely to recover quickly (<5yrs) to its former transformed and degraded state. The SEI of the less degraded depression wetland is considered to be Very Low. Thus, the proposed development activities must include – Minimization & restoration mitigation i.e. “Development activities of medium to high impact acceptable followed by appropriate restoration activities” Degraded depression wetland The degraded wetland portion has no confirmed or highly likely populations of SCC, range- restricted species and has no natural habitat remaining. Its CI is thus Very Low. The FI is considered to be Low because it is 5ha in extent and may facilitate migrations across some transformed or degraded natural habitat and a very busy used road network surrounds the area. The resilience of the degraded wetland habitat is considered to be Very high. Should this habitat experience damage from a major disturbance it is likely to recover quickly (<5yrs) to its former transformed and degraded state. The SEI of the degraded depression wetland is considered to be Very Low. Thus, the proposed development activities must include – Minimization & restoration mitigation i.e. “Development activities of medium to high impact acceptable followed by appropriate restoration activities” Species level SEI Although unlikely to occur in the project area Xenopus gilli and Microbatrachella capensis have been assessed for SEI because they have been highlighted in the Screening Report. Xenopus gilli is considered endangered under criteria B1ab(ii,iii,v)+2ab(ii,iii,v) and has an EOO of 4,602 km2 thus it is considered to have a High CI and because the project area does not offer the appropriate habitat for this species it is considered to have a Very Low FI and is highly unlikely to occur in the project area thus it has been designated as having a Very High RR. Ultimately the SEI for these species is Very Low thus even if development activities had a medium to high impact it would be considered acceptable and restoration activities may not be required

Microbatrachella capensis is considered Critically endangered under criteria B2ab(ii,iii) and has an EOO of 1,559 km2 thus it is considered to have a High CI and because the project area does not offer the appropriate habitat for this species it is considered to have a Very Low FI and is highly unlikely to occur in the project area thus it has been designated as having a Very High RR. Ultimately the SEI for these species is Very Low thus even if development activities had a medium to high impact it would be considered acceptable and restoration activities may not be required. Sclerophrys pantherina is considered endangered under criteria B1ab(ii,iii,iv)+2ab(ii,iii,iv) and has an EOO of 3,824km2, thus it is considered to have a High CI and because the project area may offer a corridor to non-breeding season appropriate habitat across transformed habitat with a very busy road network surrounding it, this species is considered to have a Low FI.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 32

Faunal Impact Assessment

S. pantherina may utilise the project area as a non-breeding area. Likely due to the proximity of the project area being within 2km of two known breeding areas. If found during non- breeding, in the project area will have a High RR and thus a Medium SEI. Medium SEI finds medium impacts acceptable for development activities provided restoration occurs.

Circus maurus is considered Endangered under criteria C2a(ii) and has an EOO of 134000km2 thus it is considered to have a High CI and because the site does not offer the appropriate habitat for this species it is considered to have a Very Low FI and is highly unlikely to occur onsite to breed. However, it is possible that it may forage in the area and it thus has been designated as having a Very High RR. Ultimately the SEI for these species is Very Low which means that even if development activities had a medium to high impact it would be considered acceptable and restoration activities may not be required.

Table 5.2: Summary of SEI of habitat and SCC Habitat / Species CI FI RR SEI

Less Degraded Wetland Habitat Low Very Low Very High Very Low Degraded Wetland Habitat Very Low Low Very High Very Low Xenopus gilli High Very Low Very High Very Low

Microbatrachella capensis High Very Low Very High Very Low

Sclerophrys pantherina High Low High Medium

Circus maurus High Low Very High Very Low

Figure 5.1: Combined SEI for habitats and SCC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 33

Faunal Impact Assessment

6 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

6.1 IDENTIFIED IMPACTS

The impacts presented below are associated with the establishment of structures at the sites identified as suitable for the proposed development (the preferred location alternatives) and are assessed from a faunal sensitivity perspective.

Impact 1: Loss of extent of faunal habitat and reduced faunal diversity Cause and Comment Vegetation clearance for the construction of the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot will most likely result in the loss of extent of faunal habitat, namely, degraded depression wetland and less degraded depression wetland for the footprint of the proposed development. The loss of extent in available habitat is likely to reduce the number of fauna that it can sustain and thus displace the fauna currently utilising the habitat. Construction activities will introduce increased noise and vibration levels into the proposed development area. The fauna that do occur on site will generally move away from the source of disturbance, especially if activity increases rapidly. Displaced fauna may return after construction and/or new individuals may inhabit the area. Significance Statement The developable area will reduce faunal habitat and replace it with the footprint of the development and will most likely result in the permanent loss of faunal habitats however, this is unlikely to decrease or diminish the size of faunal populations, due to extent of transformed and degraded state of the site. The portion of habitat lost is considered small in size and there is enough habitat surrounding the proposed development in which fauna can inhabit and escape to. The severity of the impact for the construction of the IRT Depot site will be low negative.

PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE

Preferred Layout and Alternative: Alternative Layout Alternative Layout Loss of extent of degraded Loss of extent of less degraded Potential impact and risk: depression wetland faunal depression wetland faunal habitat habitat

Nature of impact: Negative Negative

Extent and duration of Localised and permanent Localised and permanent impact:

Consequence of impact or Slight Slight risk:

Probability of occurrence: Definite Definite

Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss Resource will be lost Resource will be partially lost of resources:

The activity will lead to an Degree to which the impact The activity will lead to an impact that is permanent can be reversed: impact that is permanent regardless of the

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 34

Faunal Impact Assessment

regardless of the implementation implementation of mitigation of mitigation measures. measures.

Indirect impacts: No known indirect impacts exist No known indirect impacts exist

Cumulative impact prior to The project area is in an urban area but no other developments are mitigation: known to remove habitat in the immediate vicinity

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low - Low - (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

This portion can be avoided with no buffer. Degree to which the impact Impact cannot be avoided can be avoided: The ‘future building’ in Figure 1.2 should ideally not be included in this development.

Degree to which the impact This feature has been included Impact cannot be managed can be managed: into the design.

Degree to which the impact Difficult Difficult can be mitigated:

All stormwater must be dealt with onsite and cannot flow straight into the wetland. Control is required to prevent hydrocarbons from entering the Restore onsite wetland at north- system. If hard surfaces are eastern boundary and used a retention pond may be incorporate as a feature for the required. Ideally it wouldn’t be Proposed mitigation: administration building and staff redirected into the road either rest areas to look onto and plan because then the existing buildings in such a way that this wetland receives less water and can be appreciated (Figure 1.2). therefore less recharge. A stormwater management plan would need to be designed for the site in conjunction with a wetland specialist.

Residual impacts: None None

May provide a better habitat for faunal species to utilise Cumulative impact post No known cumulative impacts increasing the fauna in the mitigation: exist amphibians and wetland bird species.

Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low - Low + (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium- High, High, or Very-High)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 35

Faunal Impact Assessment

Impact 2: Reduced faunal SCC diversity due to construction phase habitat clearing Cause and Comment The only terrestrial vertebrate SCC that may be impacted on by the proposed development is S. pantherina which may utilise the degraded portion as a foraging ground or at the very least a corridor to reach foraging grounds. The loss of this land for the construction of the proposed Wynberg IRT Depot will most likely result in the loss of extent of available habitat. Significance Statement The severity of the impact for the construction of the project depends on the use of the project area by S. pantherina. If used as a corridor will have a moderate impact because the project is only taking up a portion of the corridor. Due to the fact that the absence of S. pantherina using the site cannot be proved beyond all doubt the precautionary approach has been applied.

PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE

Alternative: Preferred Layout and Alternative Layout

Reduced S. pantherina foraging Potential impact and risk: ground/corridor

Nature of impact: Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Localised and permanent

Consequence of impact or risk: Moderate

Probability of occurrence: Definite

Degree to which the impact may cause Resource will be partially lost irreplaceable loss of resources:

The activity will lead to an impact that is Degree to which the impact can be reversed: permanent

Indirect impacts: No known indirect impacts exist

The project area is in an urban area, but no Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: other developments are known to remove habitat in the immediate vicinity

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very- High - High)

Degree to which the impact can be avoided: Impact cannot be avoided

Impact can be minimised through appropriate Degree to which the impact can be managed: design of development features

Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Difficult

• Implement the Western Leopard Toad Construction Phase Environmental Proposed mitigation: Management Plan and Construction Checklist. • Implement the Western leopard toad Development Design Guideline.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 36

Faunal Impact Assessment

• Employed a suitably trained individual during WLT migrations i.e. before and after breeding (late July-early sept) to check the project area for and move out of harm’s way. • Check for roadkill. Preserve any individuals found and submit with GPS coordinates to SANBI at Kirstenbosch. • Record any individuals found as per the ToadNuts requirements and submit findings. • Development must only be within the development footprint • Access road must have an underpass (flat bottom culvert). • Ensure development is setback from the road to allow for vegetated pavement to act as a corridor.

Residual impacts: None

Cumulative impact post mitigation: None

Significance rating of impact after mitigation (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very- Moderate - High)

Impact 3: Disturbance of faunal species due to use of project area during operation Cause and Comment The establishment of the IRT Depot on the site will increase the number of people and vehicles accessing and using the area thus increased noise and disturbances will occur. Significance Statement The project area already experiences a large amount of disturbance due to its proximity to busy roads namely Wetton Road and the M5 highway. The fauna that occurs onsite are typically generalist species and are already habituated to the disturbance.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

Alternative: Preferred Layout and Alternative Layout

Disturbance of faunal species due to operation of the Potential impact and risk: IRT depot.

Nature of impact: Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Permanent and Localised

Consequence of impact or risk: Slight

Probability of occurrence: Probable

Degree to which the impact may cause Resource will not be lost irreplaceable loss of resources:

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 37

Faunal Impact Assessment

Degree to which the impact can be The activity will lead to an impact that can be reversed reversed:

Indirect impacts: No known indirect impacts

The project area is in an urban area, but no other Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: developments are known to remove habitat in the immediate vicinity

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation Low (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Degree to which the impact can be Impact cannot be avoided avoided:

Degree to which the impact can be Impact cannot be minimised managed:

Degree to which the impact can be Achievable mitigated:

Ensure all vehicles adhere to the relevant noise restrictions Proposed mitigation: Installation of low UV emitting lights, such as most LEDs.

Despite mitigation, the operation of the IRT Depot will Residual impacts: create a disturbance but this will not be significantly more than what already exists.

Cumulative impact post mitigation: None

Significance rating of impact after mitigation Low - (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

Impact 4: No-go Cause and Comment The project area and immediate surrounds are considered highly transformed, degraded and subject to historic infilling and current dumping of rubble and refuse. The degraded area offers little ecological function and the less degraded area maintains some functionality albeit very low. It may function as a corridor but if the portion of degraded wetland was to be lost, this would have little impact on the function of the corridor. It is likely that the site will continue to be used as a dumping ground despite the Wynberg Dump located nearby. The addition of the Wynberg IRT Depot is considered to be more beneficial than the potential negative impact on fauna, there has been no evidence to date that the WLT breedS onsite. Significance Statement The project area will continue to degrade and what little functionality the less degraded wetland habitat has, may be lost and is unlikely to recover without assistance and maintenance.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 38

Faunal Impact Assessment

NO-GO

Potential impact and risk: No-Go

Nature of impact: Negative

Extent and duration of impact: Permanent and Localised

Consequence of impact or risk: Moderate

Probability of occurrence: Probable

Degree to which the impact may cause The resource will be lost without intervention irreplaceable loss of resources:

Degree to which the impact can be The activity will lead to an impact that can be reversed reversed:

The proposed project will be placed at another site and Indirect impacts: faunal impacts at that site is unknown.

The site will continue to be used as a dumping ground and further loss to the already compromised Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: functionality of the less degraded wetland habitat will continue.

Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation LOW (-) (e.g. Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)

6.2 LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES IMPACT SUMMARY

The preferred layout will not impact on the less degraded wetland portion. The preferred layout allows for slightly larger corridor with the preferred layout corridor width at 330m and the alternative layout at 300m in the north and the preferred layout corridor width at 80m and the alternative layout at 70m in the south. The preferred alternative will have a slightly lower impact on the WLT corridor that the layout alternative.

Preferred Layout Alternative Layout

Impact Pre- Post Pre- Post mitigation Mitigation mitigation Mitigation

Loss of extent of degraded Low negative Low negative Low negative Low negative depression wetland faunal habitat

Loss of extent of less degraded No impact Low negative Low positive depression wetland faunal habitat

Reduced S. pantherina foraging Moderate High Moderate High negative ground (non-breeding)/corridor negative negative negative

Disturbance of faunal species due Low negative Low negative Low negative Low negative to operation of the IRT depot.

No-Go Low negative N/A Low negative N/A

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 39

Faunal Impact Assessment

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 40

Faunal Impact Assessment

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The project area is vacant, covered in kikuyu grass and used as a dumping ground for rubble and garden refuse. It is surrounded by urban development and busy road networks that include the M5 highway to the east and Wetton Road to the north. The project area has one habitat type namely the depression wetland which can be separated into two portions (i) degraded and (ii) less degraded. Generalist faunal species are expected to occur onsite with the exception of raptors that may utilise the area as a hunting ground. The Western Leopard Toad (S. pantherina) is the only threatened and endemic species that may occur onsite and most likely uses it as a corridor to access nonbreeding habitat. The impacts of the proposed development are considered to have a Low faunal significance after the application of avoidance, minimisation and mitigation are applied. The WLT Design Checklist and Construction Phase Management Plan must be implemented. Following review of this report the CoCT adjusted the boundary of the size of the depot to avoid the Less Degraded wetland which may offer non-breeding foraging area (Figure 7.1). The impact on loss of extent of less degraded depression wetland faunal habitat thus no longer applies. The preferred layout will not impact on the less degraded wetland and will allow for a slightly larger corridor for faunal movements including that of the WLT thus the preferred layout is favoured over the alternative layout. It is also recommended that this report be submitted to [email protected] and [email protected] for review. As well as Dr Jeanne Tarrant ([email protected]); Suretha Dorse ([email protected]) and Wendy Collinson ([email protected]).

Figure 7.1: Combined SEI for habitats and SCC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 41

Faunal Impact Assessment

8 REFERENCES

Altern, S, 2020. Botanical Impact Assessment for Wynberg IRT Bus Depot, Western Cape Province. NCC Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd. Avenant, N., Wilson, B., Power, J., Palmer, G. & Child, M.F. 2019. Mystromys albicaudatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T14262A22237378. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 1.RLTS.T14262A22237378.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Bates, M. F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Mariais, J., Alexander, G.J. & De Villiers, M. S. (eds). 2014. Atlas and Red List if the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. BirdLife International (2020) Important Bird Areas factsheet: False Bay Nature Reserve. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 19/06/2020. BirdLife International. 2017. Circus maurus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22695379A118433168. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 3.RLTS.T22695379A118433168.en. Downloaded on 23 June 2020. BirdLife International. 2016. Turnix sylvaticus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22680500A90008182. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22680500A90008182.en. Downloaded on 23 June 2020. BirdLife International. 2019. Turnix hottentottus (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T22725519A155494803. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019- 3.RLTS.T22725519A155494803.en. Downloaded on 23 June 2020. Birss, C. 2017. Mammals. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western CAPE Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch. Bronner, G. 2015. Chrysochloris asiatica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T40600A21288387. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 2.RLTS.T40600A21288387.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. CapeNature (2013) Western leopard toad Tuesday, November 26, 2013 by CapeNature accessed on https://www.capenature.co.za/fauna-and-flora/western-leopard-toad/ accessed on 09 June 2020. Cassola, F. 2016. Gerbilliscus afra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T21509A22427174. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 2.RLTS.T21509A22427174.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. CoCT, 2015. The Endangered Western Leopard Toad. Accessed from http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/Graphics%20and%20e ducational%20material/Western_Leopard_Toad_leaflet_2015-02.pdf accessed on 09 June 2020.

Da Silva J.M., Feldheim K.A., Measey G.J, Doucette‐Riise S., Daniels R.J., Chauke L.F. and Tolley K.A. 2017. Genetic diversity and differentiation of the Western Leopard Toad (Sclerophrys pantherina) based on mitochondrial and microsatellite markers. African Journal of Herpetology 66(1): 25‐38. Du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. (2017). Frogs of Southern Africa: A Complete Guide. Struik Nature, Cape Town.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 42

Faunal Impact Assessment

FrogMAP. 2020. Bufo pantherinus A. Smith, 1828. Animal Demography Unit. Accessed from http://frogmap.adu.org.za/?sp=345; on 2020-06-16 01:06:55. FrogMAP. 2020. Microbatrachella capensis (Boulenger, 1910). Animal Demography Unit. Accessed from http://frogmap.adu.org.za/?sp=700; on 2020-06-16 10:06:49. GBIF.org (15 June 2020) GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.qpjgne Holmes, P. and Pugnalin, A (2016) The Biodiversity Network for the Cape Town Municipal Area C-Plan & Marxan Analysis: 2016 Methods & Results. Environmental Resource Management Department (ERMD), City of Cape Town, June 2016. iNaturalist, 2020. Western Leopard Toad. Accessed from https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/17400-western-leopard-toad accessed on 09 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA- FRoG). 2016. Sclerophrys pantherina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T54723A77159333. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T54723A77159333.en. Downloaded on 09 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA- FRoG). 2017. Microbatrachella capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T13318A77158116. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T13318A77158116.en. Downloaded on 16 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA- FRoG). 2017. Xenopus gilli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T23124A77164368. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T23124A77164368.en. Downloaded on 16 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA- FRoG). 2017. Breviceps gibbosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T3069A77162627. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T3069A77162627.en. Downloaded on 16 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA- FRoG). 2017. Cacosternum platys. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T58072A100022964. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T58072A100022964.en. Downloaded on 16 June 2020. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2013. Vandijkophrynus angusticeps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T54573A3016485. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 2.RLTS.T54573A3016485.en. Downloaded on 16 June 2020. Kenilworth Racecourse Conservation Area (KRCA) (2020) accessed from http://krca.co.za/biodiversity accessed on 10 June 2020. Kenilworth Racecourse Conservation Area (KRCA) (2020) accessed from https://krca.co.za/sites/krca.co.za/files/site_images/FAUNA.pdf accessed on 10 June 2020. Jenkins, A. and Simmons, R. 2011. Conservation of the Black Harrier in the Western Cape: tracking birds through land transformation and across landscapes accessed from http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/news/conservation-black-harrier-western-cape- tracking-birds-through-land-transformation-and-across-0 accessed on 23 June 2020. Marlene Laros and Associates (2007). Identification & prioritisation of a Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town. Accessed from

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 43

Faunal Impact Assessment

http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/City%20research%20re ports%20and%20review/BioDNet_Final_Report_02_2007_19122007172753_465.pdf accessed on 18.06.2020. Maree, S., Jarvis, J., Bennett, N.C. & Visser, J. 2017. Bathyergus suillus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T2620A110017759. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T2620A110017759.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Maree, S., Visser, J., Bennett, N.C. & Jarvis, J. 2017. Georychus capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T9077A110019425. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T9077A110019425.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Measey, J., Dorse, S, and Faraday, A. 2012. Conservation of the Western Leopard Toad by a Dedicated Multi-Stakeholder Group in the City of Cape Town. FrogLog 20 (4); Issue number 103 (July 2012). Measey, J., Annecke, w., Davies, S., Dorse, C., Stafford, L., Tolley, K. and Turner, A. 2014. Cape Collaborations For Amphibian Solutions. FrogLog 22 (1), Number 109 (January 2014). Measey, G.J. and Tolley, K.A. 2011. Investigating the cause of the disjunct distribution of Amietophrynus pantherinus, the Endangered South African western leopard toad. Conservation Genetics 12: 61-70 Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ & Kloepfer D (eds). 2004. Atlas and Red Data book of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series no. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. (eds.) The Vegetation of South Africa. Lesotho & Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria Mugabe, J. and Steytler, N. (2020). Freshwater Impact Assessment for the proposed Wynberg IRT Bus Depot. Enviroswift 15.04.2020. Noordhoek Community Hub, 2020. accessed from https://www.thenoordhoekhub.com/groups/toadnuts/ accessed on 09 June 2020. Palmer, G., Midgley, J., Pence, G. & Avery, M. 2017. Acomys subspinosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T275A110016981. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T275A110016981.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Palmer, G., Birss, C., Kerley, G., Feely, J., Peinke, D. & Castley, G. 2017. Raphicerus melanotis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T19306A50193334. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T19306A50193334.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Relton, C., Avery, M. & Palmer, G. 2017. Myomyscus verreauxii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T45097A110021083. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 2.RLTS.T45097A110021083.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. SA WeatherService, 2020. Access from https://www.weathersa.co.za/images/data/climate/nr_month_rai.pdf accessed on 09 June 2020. South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2020. Draft Species Environmental Assessment Guideline. Guidelines for the implementation of the Terrestrial Flora (3c)

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 44

Faunal Impact Assessment

& Terrestrial Fauna (3d) Species Protocols for environmental impact assessments in South Africa. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Version 1.0. Taylor, P.J. 2016. Dasymys incomtus (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T6269A115080446. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T6269A22436584.en. Downloaded on 20 June 2020. Tolley, K. 2018. Bradypodion pumilum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T42683517A115668083. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T42683517A115668083.en. Downloaded on 17 June 2020. Turpie, J. and Cohen, C. 1998. Avifaunal Study for the proposed rezoning of the Kenilworth Racecourse. Orthnothologist Consultants, July 1998. Turner, A. 2014. Bitis armata. In Bates, M. F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Mariais, J., Alexander, G.J. & De Villiers, M. S. (eds). 2014. Atlas and Red List if the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria Turner, A.A. & de Villers, A.L. 2017. Amphibians. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western CAPE Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch. Turner, A.A. & de Villers, A.L. 2017. Reptiles. In. Turner, A.A. (ed.) 2017. Western CAPE Province State of Biodiversity 2012. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch. Weather & Climate, 2020. Access from https://rewatersolutions.wordpress.com/rainwater- harvesting/cape-town-rainfall-pattern/ accessed on 09 June 2020.

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 45

Faunal Impact Assessment

APPENDIX A: SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The importance of a site for supporting biodiversity features of conservation concern present e.g. populations of IUCN Threatened and Near-Threatened species (CR, EN, VU & NT), Rare, range-restricted species, globally significant populations of congregatory species, and areas of threatened ecosystem types, through predominantly natural processes. Conservation Importance Fulfilling Criteria

Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of CR, EN, VU or Extremely Rare or Critically Rare species that have a global Extent of Occurrence of < 10 km2

Very High Any area of natural habitat of a CR ecosystem type or large area (> 0.1 % of the total ecosystem type extent) of natural habitat of EN ecosystem type.

Globally significant populations of congregatory species (>10% of global population) Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of CR, EN, VU species that have a global Extent of Occurrence of > 10 km2. IUCN threatened species (CR, EN, VU) must be listed under any criterion other than A. If listed as threatened only under Criterion A, include if there are less than 10 locations or < 10 000 mature individuals remaining.

High Small area (>0.01% but < 0.1 % of the total ecosystem type extent) of natural habitat of EN ecosystem type or large area (> 0.1 %) of natural habitat of VU ecosystem type.

Presence of Rare species.

Globally significant populations of congregatory species (>1% but <10% of global population). Confirmed or highly likely occurrence of populations of NT species, threatened species (CR, EN, VU) listed under A criterion only and which have more than 10 locations or more than 10 000 mature individuals.

Medium Any area of natural habitat of threatened ecosystem type with status of VU

Presence of range-restricted species

> 50 % of receptor contains natural habitat with potential to support SCC

No confirmed or highly likely populations of Species of Conservation Concern

Low No confirmed or highly likely populations of range-restricted species

< 50 % of receptor contains natural habitat with limited potential to support SCC

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 46

Faunal Impact Assessment

No confirmed and highly unlikely populations of SCC

Very Low No confirmed and highly unlikely populations of range-restricted species

No natural habitat remaining

a measure of the ecological condition of the impact receptor as determined by its remaining intact and functional area, its connectivity to other natural areas and the degree of current persistent ecological impacts.

Functional Intergreity Fulfilling Criteria Very large (>100 ha) intact area for any conservation status of ecosystem type or >5 ha for CR ecosystem types

High habitat connectivity serving as functional ecological corridors, limited Very High road network between intact habitat patches

No or minimal current negative ecological impacts with no signs of major past disturbance (e.g. ploughing)

Large (>20 ha but <100 ha) intact area for any conservation status of ecosystem type or >10 ha for EN ecosystem types

High Good habitat connectivity with potentially functional ecological corridors and a regularly used road network between intact habitat patches

Only minor current negative ecological impacts (e.g. few livestock utilising area) with no signs of major past disturbance (e.g. ploughing) and good rehabilitation potential

Medium (>5 ha but <20 ha) semi-intact area for any conservation status of ecosystem type or > 20 ha for VU ecosystem types

Only narrow corridors of good habitat connectivity or larger areas of poor Medium habitat connectivity and a busy used road network between intact habitat patches

Mostly minor current negative ecological impacts with some major impacts (e.g. established population of alien and invasive flora) and a few signs of minor past disturbance; moderate rehabilitation potential

Small (>1 ha but <5 ha) area

Low Almost no habitat connectivity but migrations still possible across some transformed or degraded natural habitat and a very busy used road network surrounds the area. Low rehabilitation potential

Several minor and major current negative ecological impacts

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 47

Faunal Impact Assessment

Very small (<1 ha) area

Very Low No habitat connectivity except for flying species or flora with wind- dispersed seeds.

Several major current negative ecological impacts

Conservation Importance Biodiversity

Importance Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Very High Very High Very High High Medium Low

High Very High High Medium Medium Low

Medium High Medium Medium Low Very Low

Low Medium Medium Low Low Very Low

FunctionalIntegrity Very Low Medium Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

the intrinsic capacity of the receptor to resist major damage from disturbance and/or to recover to its original state with limited or no human intervention.

Receptor Resilience Fulfilling Criteria Habitat that can recover rapidly (~ less than 5 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a very high likelihood of remaining at a Very High site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a very high likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed Habitat that can recover relatively quickly (~ 5-10 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a high likelihood of remaining at a site High even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a high likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed Will recover slowly (~more than 10 years) to restore > 70 % of the original species composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a moderate likelihood of remaining at a site even when a Medium disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a moderate likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed Habitat that is unlikely to be able to recover fully after a relatively long period: > 15 years required to restore ~less than 50 % of the original Low species composition and functionality of the receptor functionality, or species that have a low likelihood of remaining at a site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, or species that have a low likelihood of returning to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 48

Faunal Impact Assessment

Habitat that is unable to recover from major impacts, or species that are unlikely to remain at a site even when a disturbance or impact is occurring, Very Low or species that are unlikely to return to a site once the disturbance or impact has been removed

Site Ecological Biodiversity Importance

Importance Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Very Low Very High Very High High Medium Low

Low Very High Very High High Medium Very Low

Medium Very High High Medium Low Very Low

High High Medium Low Very Low Very Low

Receptor Receptor Resilience Very High Medium Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

Site Ecological Interpretation in relation to proposed development activities Importance

Avoidance mitigation - No destructive development activities should be considered. Offset mitigation not acceptable/not possible (i.e. last Very High remaining populations of species, last remaining good condition patches of ecosystems/unique species assemblages. Destructive impacts for species/ecosystems where persistence target remains. Avoidance mitigation wherever possible. Minimization mitigation – Changes to project infrastructure design to limit the amount of habitat High impacted; limited development activities of low impact acceptable. Offset mitigation may be required for high impact activities. Minimization & restoration mitigation - Development activities of Medium medium impact acceptable followed by appropriate restoration activities Minimization & restoration mitigation - Development activities of Low medium to high impact acceptable followed by appropriate restoration activities Minimization mitigation - Development activities of medium to high Very Low impact acceptable and restoration activities may not be required

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 49

Faunal Impact Assessment

APPENDIX B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

1 Impact Rating Methodology

To ensure a balanced and objective approach to assessing the significance of potential impacts, a standardised rating scale was adopted which allows for the direct comparison of specialist studies. This rating scale has been developed in accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix 1 of the EIA Regulations (2014 and subsequent 2017 amendments).

Impact significance pre-mitigation This rating scale adopts four key factors to determine the overall significance of the impact prior to mitigation: 1. Temporal Scale: This scale defines the duration of any given impact over time. This may extend from the short-term (less than 5 years, equivalent to the construction phase) to permanent. Generally, the longer the impact occurs the greater the significance of any given impact. 2. Spatial Scale: This scale defines the spatial extent of any given impact. This may extend from the local area to an impact that crosses international boundaries. The wider the impact extends the more significant it is considered to be. 3. Severity/Benefits Scale: This scale defines how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be. This negative/positive scale is critical in determining the overall significance of any impacts. 4. Likelihood Scale: This scale defines the risk or chance of any given impact occurring. While many impacts generally do occur, there is considerable uncertainty in terms of others. The scale varies from unlikely to definite, with the overall impact significance increasing as the likelihood increases.

For each impact, these four scales are ranked and assigned a score. These scores are combined and used to determine the overall impact significance prior to mitigation.

Table A.1: Pre-mitigation Evaluation Criteria Temporal Scale Short term Less than 5 years

Medium term Between 5-20 years

Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective Long term also permanent

Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will Permanent always be there

Spatial Scale

Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent

Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs

Regional District and Provincial level

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 50

Faunal Impact Assessment

National Country

International Internationally

Severity Scale Severity Benefit

Slight impacts on the affected Slightly beneficial to the affected Slight system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

Moderate impacts on the Moderately beneficial to the affected Moderate affected system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

Severe/ Severe impacts on the affected A substantial benefit to the affected Beneficial system(s) or party(ies) system(s) and party(ies)

Very Severe/ Very severe change to the A very substantial benefit to the Beneficial affected system(s) or party(ies) affected system(s) and party(ies)

Likelihood Scale

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur

* In certain cases, it may not be possible to determine the severity of an impact thus it may be determined: Don’t know/Can’t know.

Table A.2: Description of Overall Significance Rating SIGNIFICANCE RATE DESCRIPTION

Impacts of low significance are typically acceptable impacts for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The LOW LOW impact by itself is insufficient, even in combination with other NEGATIVE POSITIVE low impacts, to prevent the development being approved. These impacts will result in negative medium to short term effects on the natural environment or on social systems.

Impacts of moderate significance are impacts that require mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the MODERATE MODERATE implementation of the project but in conjunction with other NEGATIVE POSITIVE impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in a negative medium to long-term effect on the natural environment or on social systems.

Impacts that are rated as being high are serious impacts HIGH HIGH and may prevent the implementation of the project if no NEGATIVE POSITIVE mitigation measures are implemented, or the impact is very difficult to mitigate. These impacts would be considered by

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 51

Faunal Impact Assessment

society as constituting a major and usually long-term change to the environment or social systems and result in severe effects.

Impacts that are rated as very high are very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself to prevent the VERY HIGH implementation of the project. The impact may result in VERY HIGH POSITIVE permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.

Impact significance post-mitigation Once mitigation measures are proposed, the following three factors are then considered to determine the overall significance of the impact after mitigation.

1. Reversibility Scale: This scale defines the degree to which an environment can be returned to its original/partially original state. 2. Irreplaceable loss Scale: This scale defines the degree of loss which an impact may cause. 3. Mitigation potential Scale: This scale defines the degree of difficulty of reversing and/or mitigating the various impacts ranges from very difficult to easily achievable. Both the practical feasibility of the measure, the potential cost and the potential effectiveness is taken into consideration when determining the appropriate degree of difficulty.

Table A.3: Post-mitigation Evaluation Criteria Reversibility

Reversible The activity will lead to an impact that can be reversed provided appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.

Irreversible The activity will lead to an impact that is permanent regardless of the implementation of mitigation measures.

Irreplaceable loss

Resource will not The resource will not be lost/destroyed provided mitigation measures be lost are implemented.

Resource will be The resource will be partially destroyed even though mitigation partly lost measures are implemented.

Resource will be The resource will be lost despite the implementation of mitigation lost measures.

Mitigation potential

The impact can be easily, effectively and cost effectively Easily achievable mitigated/reversed.

The impact can be effectively mitigated/reversed without much difficulty Achievable or cost.

Difficult The impact could be mitigated/reversed but there will be some difficultly

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 52

Faunal Impact Assessment

in ensuring effectiveness and/or implementation, and significant costs.

The impact could be mitigated/reversed but it would be very difficult to Very Difficult ensure effectiveness, technically very challenging and financially very costly.

The following assumptions and limitations are inherent in the rating methodology: ➢ Value Judgements: Although this scale attempts to provide a balance and rigor to assessing the significance of impacts, the evaluation relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. ➢ Cumulative Impacts: These affect the significance ranking of an impact because it considers the impact in terms of both on-site and off-site sources. This is particularly problematic in terms of impacts beyond the scope of the proposed development. For this reason, it is important to consider impacts in terms of their cumulative nature. ➢ Seasonality: Certain impacts will vary in significance based on seasonal change. Thus, it is difficult to provide a static assessment. Seasonality will need to be implicit in the temporal scale and, with management measures being imposed accordingly (e.g. dust suppression measures being implemented during the dry season).

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 53

Faunal Impact Assessment

APPENDIX C: FAUNAL SPECIES LISTS

Appendix C1 – Amphibian checklist

Recorded at Threat Recorded Kennelworth Racecourse Recorded within 2km of the project Scientific name Common name the KRCA Status onsite Conservation Area area outside of KRCA (ADU, 2020) Amietia delalandii Delalande's River Frog LC Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC 1 Y Amietia poyntoni Poynton's River Frog LC Microbatrachella capensis Micro Frog CR 12 Y Brevicitidae Breviceps gibbosus Cape Rain Frog NT Y Breviceps montanus Cape Mountain Rain Frog LC Breviceps rosei Sand Rain Frog LC Bufonidae Cacosternum platys Flat Caco NT Y Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad LC Sclerophrys gutturalis Gutteral Toad ALIEN

Sclerophrys pantherina Western Leopard Toad EN Y Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape Sand Toad LC Y Hyperolidae Hyperolius horstockii Arum Lily Frog LC Y Y Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog LC 1 Y Strongylopus bonaespei Banded Stream Frog LC Y Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog LC 20 9 Y Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog LC 11 Y Pipidae Xenopus gilli Cape Platanna EN Y Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC Y 1 5 13 2

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 54

Faunal Impact Assessment

Appendix C2 – Reptile checklist

Recorded within Likelihood of Red list 2km of the occurance in Scientific name Common name ENDEMIC category project area the project (ADU, 2020) area Lizards Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink Least Concern 1 Probable Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko Least Concern 5 Probable Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern Unlikely Agama hispida Spiny ground Agama Least Concern Possible Bradypodion pumilum Cape Dwarf Chameleon Vulnerable 14 ENDEMIC Unlikely Chamaesaura anguina Cape Grass Lizard Least Concern Possible Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated plated Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Karusasaurus polyzonus Karoo Girdled Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Meroles knoxii Knox's Desert Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Nucras lalandii Delalande's sandveld lizard Least Concern Unlikely Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko Least Concern Unlikely Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Comman sand lizard Least Concern Unlikely Pseudocordylus microlepidotus microlepidotus Cape Crag Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Scelotes bipes Silvery Dwarf Burrowing Skink Least Concern Possible Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps Least Concern 19 Possible Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps Least Concern Possible Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern 1 Probable Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern Possible Tropidosaura gularis Cape Mountain Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Tropidosaura montana montana Common Mountain Lizard Least Concern Unlikely Snakes

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 55

Faunal Impact Assessment

Amplorhinus mutimaculatus Many-spotted Snake Least Concern KRCA Possible Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern Possible Bitis armata Southern Adder Vulnerable ENDEMIC Unlikely Bitis atropos Berg adder Least Concern Possible Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake Least Concern Possible Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Herald Snake Least Concern KRCA Possible Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater Least Concern Possible Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern Possible Duberria lutrix Common slug eater Least Concern 5 Possible Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Least Concern Unlikely Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake Least Concern Possible Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake Least Concern KRCA Possible Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake Least Concern Unlikely Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied House Snake Least Concern Possible Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake Least Concern Possible Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive House Snake Least Concern 1 Possible Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake Least Concern 8 Possible Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern KRCA Possible Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout Least Concern Possible Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake Least Concern KRCA Possible Psammophis leightoni Cape Sand Snake Vulnerable Possible Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand snake/whip snake Least Concern Possible Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake Least Concern KRCA Possible Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake Least Concern 4 Possible Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake Least Concern Possible Tortoises and terrapins Chersina angulate Angulate Tortoise Least Concern Unlikely Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Tortoise Least Concern 27 Unlikely

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 56

Faunal Impact Assessment

Pelomedusa galeata South African Helmeted Terrapin Least Concern 4 Unlikely Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin Least Concern KRCA Unlikely Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern Unlikely 11 recorded in 2km radius + 51 additional 6 that 2 may occur at KRCA

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 57

Faunal Impact Assessment

Appendix C3 – Mammal checklist

# Located within 5km of Kenilworth Red list Racecourse Family Scientific name Common name Endemic the project category area Conservation Area (ADU, 2020) Bovidae Cetartiodactyla Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok Least Concern Near endemic Y Carnivora Herpstidae Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose Least Concern Y Herpstidae Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose Least Concern Herpstidae Herpestes ichneumon Egyptian Mongoose Least Concern Herpstidae Herpestes pulverulentus Cape Grey Mongoose Least Concern Y Mustelidae Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter Near Threatened 2 Viverridae Genetta tigrina Cape Genet Least Concern 2 Viverridae Genetta genetta Common Genet Least Concern Y Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus capensis Cape Hare Least Concern Leporidae Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare Least Concern Afrosoricida Chrysochloridae Amblysomus corriae Fynbos Golden Mole Near Threatened WC Chrysochloridae Chrysochloris asiatica Cape Golden Mole Data Deficient WC 5 Y Eulityphla Socricidae Crocidura cyanea Reddish-gray Musk Shrew Least Concern Y Socricidae Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew Least Concern Socricidae Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew Least Concern Socricidae Myosorex varius Forest Shrew Least Concern Rodentia Bathyergidae Bathyergus suillus Cape Dune Mole-rat Least Concern WC Y Bathyergidae Cryptomys hottentotus Southern African Mole-rat Least Concern 3 Bathyergidae Georychus capensis Cape Mole-rat Least Concern Near endemic 2 Y Hystricidae Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine Least Concern Acomys (Subacomys) Cape Spiny Mouse Least Concern WC Muridae subspinosus

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 58

Faunal Impact Assessment

Muridae Dasymys incomtus African marsh rat Least Concern WC Muridae Gerbilliscus afra Cape Gerbil Least concern WC Muridae Gerbilliscus paeda Hairy-footed gerbil Least concern Muridae Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Rat Least concern Muridae Mus minutoides Southern African Pygmy Mouse Least Concern 2 Y Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse Least Concern 1 Muridae Myomyscus verreauxi Verreaux's Mouse Least Concern Near endemic Muridae Otomys irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat Least Concern Y Muridae Otomys karoensis Robert's Vlei Rat Least Concern Muridae Otomys lainatus Laminate Vlei Rat Near Threatened Muridae Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat Least Concern 4 Muridae Rattus rattus House Rat Least Concern 2 Muridae Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse Least Concern 1* Y Nesomidae Dendromus melanotis Grey African Climbing Mouse Least Concern Y Nesomidae Dendromus mesomelas Brants's climing mouse Least Concern Nesomidae Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Rat Vulnerable Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Grey Squirrel Least Concern 21 Chiroptera Miniopteridae Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat Least Concern Vespertilionidae Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Least Concern 1 Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffriy's Horseshoe Bat Least Concern Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat Least Concern Molossidae Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat Least Concern Pteropodidae Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit Bat Least Concern

44 6 (WC) 3 (NE) 12 12

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 59

Faunal Impact Assessment

Appendix C4 – Avifaunal checklist

KRCA (Bird Avifauna Common name Scientific name Endemic Status species study Radius Onsite list, 1998 2020) ANSERIFORMES: Anatidae White-backed Duck Thalassornis leuconotus Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca Y South African Shelduck Tadorna cana Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis Y Hottentot Teal Spatula hottentota Cape Shoveler Spatula smithii Y African Black Duck Anas sparsa Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata Y Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Cape Teal Anas capensis Red-billed Duck Anas erythrorhyncha Y Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa Vulnerable GALLIFORMES: Numididae Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris Y Y GALLIFORMES: Phasianidae Common Quail Coturnix coturnix Cape Spurfowl Pternistis capensis Endemic Y Red-necked Francolin Pternistis afer Grey-winged Francolin Scleroptila afra Endemic Y PODICIPEDIFORMES: Podicipedidae Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis Y Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 60

Faunal Impact Assessment

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis COLUMBIFORMES: Columbidae Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea Y African-olive Pigeon Columba arquatrix Y Rock Dove Columba livia Y Lemon Dove Columba larvata Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata Y Ring-necked Dove Streptopelia capicola Y Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis Y Y Namaqua Dove Oena capensis OTIDIFORMES: Otididae Karoo Bustard Eupodotis vigorsii Near-threatened Black Bustard Eupodotis afra Endemic Vulnerable CUCULIFORMES: Cuculidae White-browed Coucal Centropus superciliosus Burchell's Coucal Centropus burchelli Y Dideric Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius Klaas's Cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas Red-chested Cuckoo Cuculus solitarius CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Caprimulgidae Eurasian Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus Fiery-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus pectoralis Y Freckled Nightjar Caprimulgus tristigma CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Apodidae Alpine Swift Apus melba Y Common Swift Apus apus African Swift Apus barbatus Little Swift Apus affinis Y Horus Swift Apus horus White-rumped Swift Apus caffer Y

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 61

Faunal Impact Assessment

African Palm-Swift Cypsiurus parvus GRUIFORMES: Sarothruridae Buff-spotted Flufftail Sarothrura elegans Red-chested Flufftail Sarothrura rufa Striped Flufftail Sarothrura affinis Vulnerable GRUIFORMES: Rallidae African Rail Rallus caerulescens Spotted Crake Porzana porzana Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Y Red-knobbed Coot Fulica cristata Y African Swamphen Porphyrio madagascariensis Black Crake Zapornia flavirostra CHARADRIIFORMES: Burhinidae Water Thick-knee Burhinus vermiculatus Y Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis Y Y CHARADRIIFORMES: Recurvirostridae Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta CHARADRIIFORMES: Charadriidae Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus Y Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus Kittlitz's Plover Charadrius pecuarius Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris Y White-fronted Plover Charadrius marginatus Chestnut-banded Plover Charadrius pallidus Near-threatened CHARADRIIFORMES: Rostratulidae Greater Painted-Snipe Rostratula benghalensis CHARADRIIFORMES: Jacanidae

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 62

Faunal Impact Assessment

African Jacana Actophilornis africanus CHARADRIIFORMES: Scolopacidae Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata Near-threatened Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Near-threatened Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Ruff Calidris pugnax Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Near-threatened Sanderling Calidris alba Red Knot Calidris canutus Near-threatened Little Stint Calidris minuta African Snipe Gallinago nigripennis Y Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Y CHARADRIIFORMES: Turnicidae Small Buttonquail Turnix sylvaticus Endangered Hottentot Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus Endemic Endangered CHARADRIIFORMES: Glareolidae Burchell's Courser Cursorius rufus Double-banded Courser Smutsornis africanus CHARADRIIFORMES: Laridae Grey-headed Gull Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus Cape Gull Larus vetula Y Hartlaub's Gull Larus hartlaubii Y Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia White-winged Tern Chlidonias leucopterus Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 63

Faunal Impact Assessment

Swift Tern Sterna bergii Y Great Crested Tern Thalasseus bergii CICONIIFORMES: Ciconiidae African Openbill Anastomus lamelligerus Black Stork Ciconia nigra White Stork Ciconia ciconia SULIFORMES: Anhingidae African Darter Anhinga rufa Y SULIFORMES: Phalacrocoracidae Long-tailed Cormorant Microcarbo africanus Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax lucidus Y Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus Y PELECANIFORMES: Pelecanidae Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Y PELECANIFORMES: Scopidae Hamerkop Scopus umbretta PELECANIFORMES: Ardeidae Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Y Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala Y Goliath Heron Ardea goliath Purple Heron Ardea purpurea Y Great Egret Ardea alba Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia Little Egret Egretta garzetta Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Y Y Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax PELECANIFORMES: Threskiornithidae Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Y

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 64

Faunal Impact Assessment

African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus Y Hadada Ibis Bostrychia hagedash Y African Spoonbill Platalea alba Y ACCIPITRIFORMES: Pandionidae Osprey Pandion haliaetus ACCIPITRIFORMES: Accipitridae Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Y Y African Harrier-Hawk Polyboroides typus Y European Honey-buzzard Pernis apivorus Cape Griffon Gyps coprotheres Black-chested Snake-Eagle Circaetus pectoralis Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus Vulnerable Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii Vulnerable Booted Eagle Aquila pennatus Y Pale Chanting-Goshawk Melierax canorus Gabar Goshawk Micronisus gabar African Marsh-Harrier Circus ranivorus Endangered Y Black Harrier Circus maurus Endangered African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro Y Little Sparrowhawk Accipiter minullus Rufous-breasted Sparrowhawk Accipiter rufiventris Y Black Goshawk Accipiter melanoleucus Black Sparrowhawk Accipiter ovampensis Y Black Kite Milvus migrans African Fish-Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Forest Buzzard Buteo trizonatus Near-threatened Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus Y STRIGIFORMES: Tytonidae

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 65

Faunal Impact Assessment

Barn Owl Tyto alba STRIGIFORMES: Strigidae Cape Eagle-Owl Bubo capensis Spotted Eagle-Owl Bubo africanus Y Verreaux's Eagle-Owl Bubo lacteus African Wood-Owl Strix woodfordii Marsh Owl Asio capensis Y COLIIFORMES: Coliidae Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus White-backed Mousebird Colius colius Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus BUCEROTIFORMES: Upupidae Eurasian Hoopoe Upupa epops BUCEROTIFORMES: Phoeniculidae Green Woodhoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus CORACIIFORMES: Alcedinidae Half-collared Kingfisher Alcedo semitorquata Near-threatened Malachite Kingfisher Corythornis cristatus Brown-hooded Kingfisher Halcyon albiventris Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maxima Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis Y CORACIIFORMES: Meropidae European Bee-eater Merops apiaster PICIFORMES: Lybiidae Pied Barbet Tricholaema leucomelas Black-collared Barbet Lybius torquatus PICIFORMES: Indicatoridae Wahlberg's Honeyguide Prodotiscus regulus Lesser Honeyguide Indicator minor Greater Honeyguide Indicator indicator

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 66

Faunal Impact Assessment

PICIFORMES: Picidae Cardinal Woodpecker Chloropicus fuscescens Olive Woodpecker Chloropicus griseocephalus Ground Woodpecker Geocolaptes olivaceus Near-threatened FALCONIFORMES: Falconidae Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus Vulnerable Y Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Near-threatened Y PASSERIFORMES: Oriolidae Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolus oriolus African Black-headed Oriole Oriolus larvatus PASSERIFORMES: Platysteiridae Cape Batis Batis capensis PASSERIFORMES: Malaconotidae Southern Tchagra Tchagra tchagra Southern Boubou Laniarius ferrugineus Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus Y PASSERIFORMES: Dicruridae Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis PASSERIFORMES: Monarchidae African Crested-Flycatcher Trochocercus cyanomelas African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis PASSERIFORMES: Laniidae Southern Fiscal Lanius collaris y PASSERIFORMES: Corvidae House Crow Corvus splendens Cape Crow Corvus capensis Pied Crow Corvus albus Y

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 67

Faunal Impact Assessment

White-necked Raven Corvus albicollis PASSERIFORMES: Paridae Grey Tit Melaniparus afer PASSERIFORMES: Remizidae Southern Penduline-Tit Anthoscopus minutus PASSERIFORMES: Alaudidae Grey-backed Sparrow-Lark Eremopterix verticalis Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea Large-billed Lark Galerida magnirostris PASSERIFORMES: Macrosphenidae Cape Crombec Sylvietta rufescens Y Cape Grassbird Sphenoeacus afer Y Victorin's Warbler Cryptillas victorini Endemic PASSERIFORMES: Cisticolidae Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis Bar-throated Apalis Apalis thoracica Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa Y Kopje Warbler Euryptila subcinnamomea Red-headed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla Y Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens Y Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla Y Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis Cloud Cisticola Cisticola textrix PASSERIFORMES: Acrocephalidae African Reed Warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus Y Lesser Swamp Warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris Y PASSERIFORMES: Locustellidae Knysna Warbler Bradypterus sylvaticus Vulnerable Little Rush-Warbler Bradypterus baboecala Y

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 68

Faunal Impact Assessment

PASSERIFORMES: Hirundinidae Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola Y Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Banded Martin Riparia cincta Rock Martin Ptyonoprogne fuligula Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Y White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis Y Pearl-breasted Swallow Hirundo dimidiata Greater Striped Swallow Cecropis cucullata Y Common House-Martin Delichon urbicum Black Sawwing Psalidoprocne pristoptera PASSERIFORMES: Pycnonotidae Sombre Greenbul Andropadus importunus Terrestrial Brownbul Phyllastrephus terrestris Black-fronted Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis Y Y PASSERIFORMES: Phylloscopidae Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Yellow-throated Woodland-Warbler Phylloscopus ruficapilla PASSERIFORMES: Sylviidae Layard's Warbler Sylvia layardi Chestnut-vented Warbler Sylvia subcoerulea PASSERIFORMES: Zosteropidae Orange River White-eye Zosterops pallidus Cape White-eye Zosterops virens Y Y PASSERIFORMES: Sturnidae Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris Y Wattled Starling Creatophora cinerea Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup Red-winged Starling Onychognathus morio

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 69

Faunal Impact Assessment

Black-bellied Starling Notopholia corusca African Pied Starling Lamprotornis bicolor Endemic Cape Starling Lamprotornis nitens PASSERIFORMES: Turdidae Olive Thrush Turdus olivaceus Y Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi Y PASSERIFORMES: Muscicapidae African Dusky Flycatcher Muscicapa adusta Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Fiscal Flycatcher Melaenornis silens Karoo Scrub-Robin Cercotrichas coryphoeus Cape Robin-Chat Cossypha caffra Y Chorister Robin-Chat Cossypha dichroa Sentinel Rock-Thrush Monticola explorator Cape Rock-Thrush Monticola rupestris Endemic African Stonechat Saxicola torquatus Sickle-winged Chat Emarginata sinuata Karoo Chat Emarginata schlegelii Southern Anteater-Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora Mountain Wheatear Myrmecocichla monticola Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata Familiar Chat Oenanthe familiaris PASSERIFORMES: Promeropidae Cape Sugarbird Promerops cafer Endemic PASSERIFORMES: Nectariniidae Collared Sunbird Hedydipna collaris Orange-breasted Sunbird Anthobaphes violacea Endemic Mouse-colored Sunbird Cyanomitra veroxii Amethyst Sunbird Chalcomitra amethystina Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 70

Faunal Impact Assessment

Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus Y Greater Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris afer Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus PASSERIFORMES: Ploceidae Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis Y Southern Masked-Weaver Ploceus velatus Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis Y PASSERIFORMES: Estrildidae Swee Waxbill Coccopygia melanotis Y Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild Y Red-headed Finch Amadina erythrocephala Quailfinch Ortygospiza atricollis Bronze Mannikin Spermestes cucullata PASSERIFORMES: Viduidae Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura Y Y PASSERIFORMES: Passeridae House Sparrow Passer domesticus Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus Y Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus Y PASSERIFORMES: Motacillidae Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis Y African Pied Wagtail Motacilla aguimp African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis Plain-backed Pipit Anthus leucophrys Cape Longclaw Macronyx capensis Y PASSERIFORMES: Fringillidae Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 71

Faunal Impact Assessment

Forest Canary Crithagra scotops Black-throated Canary Crithagra atrogularis Brimstone Canary Crithagra sulphurata Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis Protea Canary Crithagra leucoptera Endemic Near-threatened Cape Siskin Crithagra totta Endemic Cape Canary Serinus canicollis Y Black-headed Canary Serinus alario PASSERIFORMES: Emberizidae Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani 354 11 11T, 11NT 85

CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services CoCT Wynberg IRT Depot 72