ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF RAND WATER K2 PIPELINE, LOCATED IN THE EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY. MAY 2018 Page 0 of 60 Title: ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF RAND WATER K2 PIPELINE, LOCATED IN THE EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY. Authors: Minenhle Ndlovu Reviewed by: Nonkanyiso Zungu Status of report: DRAFT Document control First Issue: MAY 2018 Approved by: …………………………………… Nonkanyiso Zungu, Pr.Nat.Sci (Reg. No. 400194/10) Specialist Ecologist/Wetland specialist Date: MAY 2018 Page 1 of 60 Indemnity This report is based on survey and assessment techniques which are limited by time and budgetary constraints relevant to the type and level of investigation undertaken. The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on the author’s best scientific and professional knowledge as well as information available at the time of study. Therefore the author reserves the right to modify aspects of the report, including the recommendations, if and when new information may become available from ongoing research or further work in this field, or pertaining to this investigation. Although the author exercised due care and diligence in rendering services and preparing documents, she accepts no liability, and the client, by receiving this document, indemnifies the author against all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses arising from or in connection with services rendered, directly or indirectly by the author and by the use of this document. Page 2 of 60 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i. INTRODUCTION Sazi Environmental Consulting cc was appointed by Rand Water to conduct a biodiversity assessment study for the proposed augmentation and maintenance of Rand Water K2 pipeline; on the farm known as Mooderfontein 76-IR, ERF No 00023 .The proposed site is within the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng (Figure 2). This report presents the fauna and flora assessment results for the proposed site development. The field assessment was undertaken on the 26 April 2018. ii. METHODOLOGY Data sources from the literature consulted and used for the execution of this study included: IUCN, NFEPA, NPAES, CBA and ESA for Gauteng, SIBIS. Lists of mammals and reptiles which are likely to occur at the site were derived based on distribution records from the literature and various spatial databases (SANBI’s SIBIS and BGIS databases). An ecological sensitivity map of the site was produced by integrating the information collected on-site with the available ecological and biodiversity information available in the literature and various spatial databases. iii. RESULTS The majority of the site consisted of grassland (natural, burnt and trampled), disturbed areas with bare ground, rocky outcrops and sporadic trees. The study area falls within the Soweto Highveld Grassland, classified under the Mesic Highveld Grassland (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012).The site for the proposed development housed a number of alien invasive species and weeds. Vertebrates No vertebrate species were observed on site during the time of assessment. Page 3 of 60 Avifauna An avifauna species (Saxicola torquatus) was observed on site. Weaver nests were located on trees, therefore showing that the site serves as a habitat for various bird species. Invertebrates No invertebrate were observed on site during the time of assessment. No Arachnids or Molluscs were observed. No Red or Orange Listed or priority invertebrates were observed on site. Red data species and critical biodiversity None of the plant species recorded in the study area are found in the “Red Data List of Southern African Plants” or on the updated PRECIS database of the National Botanical Institute (NBI), Pretoria. None of the animal species recorded on site are red listed and due to human disturbance in the area, no red data fauna and flora species are likely to occur on the site. According to the Gauteng C-Plan, a portion of the proposed K2 pipeline area lies in an ecological supported area. Due diligence and care must be undertaken by the Environmental Control Officer (ECO) of the project during the construction phase, to identify species of importance that may have been missed. Sensitivity The proposed study area is regarded to as that of Medium sensitivity status based on the following: The site constitutes the Endangered, Soweto Highveld Grassland; The site consists of indigenous grass species; Although alien invasive species were observed at various sections of the study area, indigenous vegetation was dominant; The artificial seepage wetland observed on site habitat for a variety of indigenous avifauna and invertebrate species; Page 4 of 60 No red data species were observed; and No species of conservation value were observed iv. RISK FACTOR AND RECOMMENDATION Individuals of protected species within the development footprint, if found, should be translocated to a safe area on the property. A permit obtainable from the Department of Environmental Affairs (at a national level) and the Gauteng Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (provincial level), is required before any protected species may be interfered with. The details of the impacts and recommendations are included in the report. v. CONCLUSION The Soweto Highveld Grassland occurs in moderately undulating landscapes on the Highveld Plateau and supports 'short to medium-high, dense, tufted grassland dominated by Themeda triandra and accompanied by a variety of other grasses such as Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Heteropogon contortus and Tristachya leucothrix' (Mucina et al. 2006). The vegetation type of this unit is classified as being endangered of which only isolated remnants remain. More than 47% has already been destroyed and only 0.2% is conserved (Mucina and Rutherford, 2012). The proposed K2 project site is regarded as of Medium sensitivity. Having undertaken a vegetation assessment of the proposed area, our assessment is that the proposed activity, if undertaken in accordance with the above mentioned mitigation measures (recommendations) and detailed Environmental Management Programme will have limited significance. Although no sensitive or red data species were observed during the time of assessment, minimum destruction of the environment must be adhered to. From an ecological perspective, due care must be undertaken when developing on this area and all relevant mitigation measures implemented. Page 5 of 60 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................................................................................... 9 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................... 11 1.2 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................... 11 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 12 2.1 GENERAL LOCATION AND LANDUSE ............................................................... 12 3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 15 3.1 DATA SOURCING AND REVIEW ......................................................................... 15 3.2 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 15 3.3 FAUNA ................................................................................................................. 16 3.4 SENSITIVITY MAPPING AND ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 16 3.5 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS (EAS’s) ....... 17 3.6 SITE VISIT ............................................................................................................ 17 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 18 4.2 VEGETATION IDENTIFIED ON SITE ................................................................... 21 4.2.1 TREES AND SHRUBS .................................................................................. 22 4.2.2 FLOWERS AND HERBS ............................................................................... 24 4.2.3 GRASS .......................................................................................................... 29 4.2.4 DECLARED WEEDS AND INVADERS .......................................................... 33 4.2.5 MEDICINAL PLANT SPECIES ...................................................................... 35 4.3 FAUNA (VERTEBRATES AND INVERTEBRATES) ............................................. 35 4.3.1 MAMMALS .................................................................................................... 36 4.3.2 AVIFAUNA ..................................................................................................... 37 4.3.3 INVERTEBRATES ......................................................................................... 37 5 RED DATA SPECIES .................................................................................................