CC 9 Toulouse, 2 Minto Place, Morningside Manor, Johannesburg. P.O. Box 368 Rivonia 2128 Telephone: 082-411-8033 Email: [email protected] AMPHIBIAN HABITAT AND WETLAND STUDY PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED K109 ROAD IN THE GLEN AUSTIN AREA. 8 MAY 2017 PREPARED BY: VINCENT CARRUTHERS, VC MANAGEMENT SERVICES CC CONSULTANT: DELIA DE LANGE – LOKISA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING CC CLIENT: APHANE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD (ON BEHALF OF GAUTRANS). 1 CONTENTS SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Proposed activity and site ................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Purpose of the project ...................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Terms of reference and procedure .................................................................................. 6 1.4 Assumptions and limitations ............................................................................................ 6 1.5 Indemnity and independence ........................................................................................... 6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Specialist reports for use in the application for environmental authorisation. ............... 7 2.2 Reports commissioned for other purposes but relevant to the current application....... 8 2.3 Government reports and regulations applicable to the application. ............................... 8 2.4 Socio-economic reports. ................................................................................................... 9 3. MEETING WITH CONSULTING ENGINEERS ........................................................................ 10 4. SITE VISIT ........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Glen Austin Pan .............................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Sedge Pan ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Grassland ........................................................................................................................ 14 4.5 Seepage wetland ............................................................................................................ 15 4.6 Valley bottom wetland ................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Regulatory findings ......................................................................................................... 17 5.1.1 Rejection of design ................................................................................................... 17 5.2 Protected areas and biodiversity findings ...................................................................... 18 5.2.1 Conservation of Giant Bullfrogs and habitats .......................................................... 18 5.2.2 Threatened ecosystem ............................................................................................. 20 5.2.3 Threatened grassland ............................................................................................... 21 5.3 Wetland delineation findings ......................................................................................... 21 5.3.1 Glen Austin and Sedge Pans ..................................................................................... 22 5.3.2 Valley bottom wetland ............................................................................................. 23 5.4 Hydrological findings ...................................................................................................... 23 5.4.1 Surface drainage ....................................................................................................... 23 5.4.2 Ground water ........................................................................................................... 24 5.4.3 Water quality ............................................................................................................ 24 5.5 Cumulative impacts ........................................................................................................ 24 2 5.5.1 Adjacent development ............................................................................................. 24 5.5.2 Refuse dumping ....................................................................................................... 25 5.6 Socio-economic impacts ................................................................................................. 25 5.6.1 Reason for road ........................................................................................................ 25 5.6.2 Traffic forecasts ........................................................................................................ 25 5.6.3 Pedestrian traffic and public transport .................................................................... 25 5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 26 Option 1. Do not proceed with the proposed road – the ‘no go’ option. ............................ 26 Option 2. Re-align the road to the east to by-pass sensitive wetland areas. ...................... 28 Option 3. Deflect the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers. .. 30 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 32 7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 34 3 SUMMARY This study is based on an assessment of various reports and other documents relevant to the proposed K109 road as well as a field inspection of the site. Its purpose is to recommend appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts. Six categories of potential impacts are identified: - Potential regulatory transgressions - Possible disturbance to biodiversity and protected or sensitive areas - Potential wetland encroachment - Potential hydrological disturbance (surface runoff, ground water and water quality) - Cumulative impacts - Socio-economic impacts Three possible options are considered: 1. No go. This option is not recommended because it would fail to meet the socio- economic needs that the road would fulfil. 2. Re-routing of the alignment of the road. This option is not recommended because of the legal and economic impracticality. 3. Deflect the road alignment within the road reserve to avoid wetland buffers. This option is recommended subject to the following conditions (abbreviated): - A collaborative project to clear and control refuse dumping. - Implementation of GDACEL and GDACE 2004/5 stipulations. - A comprehensive management plan for construction and long term operation. - A detailed hydrological management plan for surface water runoff, ground water recharge, contamination, protection of wetland services, biodiversity and habitats. - Alignment of the road outside of delineated wetland buffers. - Bridges over valley bottom wetland. - A foraging and dispersal corridor across a 300m front between Glen Austin Pan and Sedge Pan. - Three 30m bridges over the corridor. - A fine mesh durable fence on both sides of the road. - A dump-rock base under the road to allow percolation of seepage. - Rehabilitation and monitoring of working areas after construction. - Construction camps and storage sited away from wetlands. - An embargo on construction during Giant Bullfrog breeding season. 4 1. INTRODUCTION The proposed K109 road through the Glen Austin area has been planned for many years. Environmental authorisation is now being sought in terms of regulations under the National Environmental Management Act so that construction of the road can commence. 1.1 Proposed activity and site The proposed activity is the alignment and construction of the K109 road through Glen Austin (portion 183 of the farm Olifantsfontein 410 JR) a suburb of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality. The proposed road will link Dale Road on the south (25o 58’ 54”S and 28o 09’ 47”E) to the R 562 Olifantsfontein Road (25o 56’ 58”S and 28o 10’ 44”E) in the north. The length of the section under review is 4.1km with a planned road reserve of approximately 50m. The activity is a linear development with potential impacts of six types: - Regulatory transgressions. - Loss of biodiversity and protected areas. - Wetland encroachment. - Hydrology disturbance. Figure 1. Approximate study area - Cumulative impacts. and proposed K109 road - Socio-political impacts. (Extracted from 1:50,000 map 2528CC Centurion) The study area for this report includes agricultural holdings, residential plots, grassland and wetlands along the proposed road including Glen Austin Pan also known as the Austin Roberts Bird Sanctuary, a municipal nature reserve noted for its birdlife and Giant Bullfrog population and regarded as highly sensitive. Other wetlands and grassland in the area are also sensitive to potential impacts. 1.2 Purpose