APPENDIX D: HERPETOFAUNA REPORT - BA for 3 Canals/2... · 2014. 2. 3. · FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern

Biodiversity Report: DRD (Klipspruit) canal September 2013 11 of 11 pages

APPENDIX D: HERPETOFAUNA REPORT

Herpetofauna Report: DRD (Klipspruit) Canal September 2013 1 of 19 pages

Herpetofauna

Habitat Assessment

of

PORTION 1 OF THE FARM VLAKFONTEIN 238IQ AND PORTION 37 OF THE FARM ROODEPOORT

237 IQ KNOWN AS THE DRD (KLIPSPRUIT) CANAL

September 2013

Report author: Mr. J.C.P van Wyk (Pri.Sci.Nat: M.Sc)

Biodiversity & Aquatic Specialists 638 Turf Street

Wingate Park, 0181 Tel: 012-345 4891 Fax: 086 675 6136

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HABITAT STUDY 4

3. STUDY AREA 4 4. METHOD 5

5. RESULTS 7 6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS 14

7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE 16 8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 16

9. CONCLUSION 17 10. LITERATURE SOURCES 18

FIGURES:

Figure 1: Locality map of the study site. ................................................................ 5 Figure 2: A moribund termite heap in the foreground............................................ 7

Figure 3: The rocky ridge which forms rupiculous habitat on the study site. ......... 8 Figure 4: Man-made rupiculous habitat. ................................................................ 8

Figure 5: A northern view of the study site of part of the Klipspruit ....................... 9 Figure 6: A southerly view of a wetland area next to rupiculous habitat. ............... 9

Figure 7: An easterly view of the extended wetland area in the Klipspruit. ........... 9 Figure 8: A temporary man-made pan. ............................................................... 10

Figure 9: Illegal mining activities in the Klipspruit. ............................................... 10 Figure 10: Herpetofauna habitat map ................................................................. 15

Figure 11: Herpetofaunal Sensitivity map ........................................................... 18

TABLES:

Table 1: Reptile and Amphibian species observed . ........................................... 11

Table 2: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed ............................ 14


Declaration of Independence:

I, Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk (68080450410845) declare that I:

hold a MSc in the biological sciences, which allowed registration by SACNASP (SA Council for National Scientific Professions) as a Professional Zoologist and sanction me to function independently as a specialist scientific consultant

declare that as per prerequisites of the Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003 this project was my work from inception and reflects exclusively my observations and unbiased scientific interpretations, and executed to the best of my ability

abide by the Code of Ethics of the SACNASP

am committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognize the need for economic development. Whereas I appreciate the opportunity to also learn through the processes of constructive criticism and debate, I reserve the right to form and hold my own opinions and therefore will not willingly submit to the interests of other parties or change my statements to appease them

abide by the Code of Ethics of the S.A. Council for Natural Scientific Professions

act as an independent specialist consultant in the field of zoology

am subcontracted as specialist consultant by Galago Environmental CC for the project “Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment on Portion 1 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ and Portion 37 of the farm Roodepoort 237 IQ” described in this report

have no financial interest in the proposed development other than remuneration for work performed

have or will not have any vested or conflicting interests in the proposed development

undertake to disclose to the Galago Environmental CC and its client as well as the competent authority any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2006

Our intellectual property in this report will only be transferred to the client (the party/ company that commissioned the work) on full payment of the contract fee. Upon transfer of the intellectual property, we recognise that written consent of the client will be required for release of any part of this report to third parties.

J.C.P. van Wyk


1. INTRODUCTION Galago Environmental CC was appointed to undertake a Herpetofaunal (reptile and amphibian) habitat survey on a Portion 1 of the Farm Vlakfontein 238 IQ and Portion 37 of the farm Roodepoort 237 IQ (elsewhere referred to as the study site), scheduled for the development of a storm water canal. The objective was to determine which herpetofauna species might still reside on the site. Special attention had to be given to the habitat requirements of all the Red Data species, which may occur in the area. This survey focuses on the current status of threatened herpetofauna species occurring, or which are likely to occur on the proposed development site, and a description of the available and sensitive habitats on the site. This assignment is in accordance with the 2010 EIA Regulations (No. R. 543-546, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 18 June 2010) emanating from Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998).

2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HABITAT STUDY

To qualitatively and quantitatively assess the significance of the herpetofaunal habitat components and current general conservation status of the property;

Identify and comment on ecological sensitive areas;

Comments on connectivity with natural vegetation and habitats on adjacent sites;

To provide a list of herpetofauna which occur or might occur, and to identify species of conservation importance;

To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on the herpetofauna of the study site, and

To provide management recommendations to mitigate negative and enhance positive impacts should the proposed development be approved.

3. STUDY AREA This study site lies in the quarter degree grid cell 2627BB (Roodepoort), east of the R558. Most of the study site lies south of the Randfontein (R41) Road. The entire area is 156.714 hectares in extent and 2.65 kilometres long. The study site is bordered by tarred roads, mining activities and residential developments. To the north-west of the study side lays Witpoortjie residential area and to the west lays Loratong Village. Elsewhere the terrain enjoys a fair degree of connectivity to undeveloped land, but the undeveloped terrain itself is ecologically disturbed and is also surrounded by roads, residences or mining activities. The entire study site has been environmentally damaged over a long period of time by diggings, dumping, alien plants, overgrazing, squatters, illegal mining, veld fires and neglect. The Klipspruit Stream flows through the middle of the study site and forms part of an extended wetland. Most of the study site slopes towards the Klipspruit Stream. Another important topographical feature is the stony ridge west of the Klipspruit Stream. The substrate is mostly sandy soil and well vegetated, but near the stream the soil consists of clay. Some parts of the study site was burned at the time of the inspection.


The study site lies inside the Soweto Highveld Grassland (Gm 8) vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Figure 1: Locality map of the study site.

4. METHOD A site visit was conducted on 24 August 2013. During this visit the observed and derived presence of reptiles and amphibians associated with the recognised habitat types of the study site were recorded. This was done with due regard to the well-recorded global distributions of Southern African herpetofauna, coupled with the qualitative and quantitative nature of recognised habitats. The 500 metres of adjoining properties were scanned for important fauna habitats. 4.1 Field Surveys During the site visits, reptiles and amphibians were identified by visual sightings through random transect walks. Amphibian diversity was also established by means of acoustic identification. No trapping was conducted, as the terms of reference did not require such intensive work.


4.2 Desktop Surveys

As the majority of reptiles and amphibians are secretive, nocturnal and/or poikilothermic or seasonal, distributional ranges and the presence of suitable habitats were used to deduce the presence or absence of these species based on authoritative tomes, scientific literature, field guides, atlases and databases. This can be done irrespective of season. The probability of the occurrence of reptile and amphibian species was based on their respective geographical distributional ranges and the suitability of on-site habitats. In other words, high probability would be applicable to a species with a distributional range overlying the study site as well as the presence of prime habitat occurring on the study site. Another consideration for inclusion in this category is the inclination of a species to be common to the area, i.e. normally occurring at high population densities. Medium probability pertains to a herpetofaunal species with its distributional range peripherally overlapping the study site, or required habitat on the site being sub-optimal. The size of the site as it relates to its likelihood to sustain a viable breeding population, as well as its geographical isolation is taken into consideration. Species categorised as medium normally do not occur at high population numbers, but cannot be deemed as

rare. A low probability of occurrence would imply that the species’ distributional range is peripheral to the study site and habitat is sub-optimal. Furthermore, some reptiles and amphibians categorised as low are generally deemed to be rare. Based on the impressions gathered during the site visit, as well as publications, such as FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa (Branch, 1998), A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa (Alexander and Marais, 2007), Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa (Channing 2001), Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Minter, et al, 2004) and A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa (Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009), a list of species which may occur on the site was compiled. The latest taxonomic nomenclature was used and the vegetation type was defined according to the standard handbook by Mucina and Rutherford (eds) (2006). 4.3 Specific Requirements

During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of Red Data species in Gauteng (Alexander and Marais, 2007; Minter, et al, 2004 and Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009), such as:

Giant Bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus);

Striped Harlequin Snake (Homoroselaps dorsalis);

The Southern African Python (Python natalensis).


5. RESULTS The vegetation types of the site were analysed according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006). Herpetofauna Habitat Assessment: The local occurrences of reptiles and amphibians are closely dependent on broadly defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupiculous (rock-dwelling) and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the presence or absence of reptile and amphibian species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global distribution ranges. From a herpetological habitat perspective, it was established that three of the four major habitats are naturally present on the study site, namely terrestrial, rupiculous and wetland-associated vegetation cover habitat. Large parts of the study site consist of transformed grassland. The natural grasslands have been transformed by man-made activities like, over-grazing, veld fires, invasive plants, dumping, illegal mining and rock carving and are thus ecologically disturbed. Currently the study site is grazed by cattle, and at the time of the site visit the basal cover was poor and would not provide adequate nourishment and cover for small terrestrial herpetofauna. There are many termitaria on the study site, of which several are moribund, providing excellent retreats for reptiles and amphibians (Figure 2).

Figure 2: A moribund termite heap in the foreground among rupiculous habitat.

Note the invasive trees where the Klipspruit Stream flows in the background.


A ridge next to the stream (on the western side) provides natural rupiculous habitat for herpetofauna (Figures 2, 3 & 6). Many moribund termitaria occur among the rocks of the ridge which is ideal habitat for several herpetofaunal species. Illegal building rubble dumping and stone carving have provided manmade rupiculous habitat. (Figure 4)

Figure 3: The rocky ridge which forms rupiculous habitat on the study site.

Figure 4: Man-made rupiculous habitat.

Noticeable absentees from the study site are indigenous trees. The many invader trees which are present along the drainage line are all exotics such as wattle trees and Eucalyptus. Due to the many squatters and illegal miners, who use wood for their fires,

there are very few dead logs along the Klipspruit. These logs could have provided shelter and food for some herpetofauna. Reptiles narrowly reliant on an arboreal habitat are excluded from the species list. Permanent and temporary water sources occur on the study site. The Klipspruit (Figure 5) flows through the study site. Depending on the amount of rain, a fairly large seasonal floodplain may be formed (Figures 6 & 7). A few temporary pans, both man-made and natural, are also formed from runoff rainwater towards the Klipspruit (Figure 8). Although some of the wetland areas appear functional from a distance they are severely polluted. Unfortunately due to the large-scale illegal mining (Figure 9) in the Klipspruit and pollution through dumping and other sources, the water appears very silted and sterile, and contain a lot of rubbish. These factors have a detrimental effect on


herpetofauna numbers and diversity.

Figure 5: A northern view of the study site of part of the Klipspruit, north of the

R41 Road. Note the disturbed stream banks.

Figure 6: A southerly view of a wetland area next to rupiculous habitat.

Figure 7: An easterly view of the extended wetland area in the Klipspruit.


Figure 8: A temporary man-made pan.

Figure 9: Illegal mining activities in the Klipspruit.

Connectivity as a whole is fair to poor. In an unpolluted state, real opportunities for migration exist along the Klipspruit Stream. Sight records were also used to compile this herpetofaunal report. Threatened and Red listed Reptile Species The study site falls outside the natural range of the Southern African python, and this species should not occur on the study site. The striped harlequin snake has not been recorded on this quarter degree square (TVL Museum Records or Ditsong Museum of Natural History) but several moribund termitaria, where this species is most likely to be found, are present on the study site. It is very difficult to confirm whether this cryptic snake is present on any study site, but there is a possibility that it occurs on this particular study site. Red Data Listed Amphibians The study site contains a few natural and man-made pans/dams, which are potential breeding places for giant bullfrogs if the water is not polluted. Many of these breeding sites are temporary, which bullfrogs prefer in order to avoid predation from fish. Some of these pans/dams also have gentle slopes. A gentle slope allows for shallow water (less


than 9cm deep), which enables the female bullfrog to stand when she lays her eggs outside the water for the male to fertilise. Many parts of the study site consist of sandy soil and are very suitable as a dispersal area, which combines feeding and aestivation. It is essential that the soil be suitable for burrowing on a daily basis during the short activity period at the beginning of the rainy season and for deeper retreats during the resting periods. Although the Klipspruit flows through the centre of the study site, the stream is not suitable for giant bullfrogs. The Klipspruit is polluted and the stream is also flowing and too cold for giant bullfrogs to breed in. They prefer warm, stagnant water, which giant bullfrog tadpoles need for rapid development (Van Wyk, Kok & Du Preez, 1992). It is important to note that in the latest literature (Measey (ed.) 2011 and Carruthers & Du Preez 2011); the giant bullfrog’s status has changed officially from Near Threatened (Minter et al, 2004) to Least Concern in South Africa.

Expected and Observed Herpetofauna Species Richness: Of the 45 reptile species which may occur on the study site (Table 1), none was confirmed during the site visit and of the possible 15 amphibian species which may occur on the study site (Table 1); one was confirmed during the site visit. Table 1 lists the reptiles & amphibians which were observed on or deduced to occupy the site. The American red-eared terrapin (Trachemys scripta elegans) and the Brahminy blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus) are the only two feral reptile or amphibian species known to occur in South Africa (De Moor and Bruton, 1988; Picker and Griffiths, 2011), but with only a few populations, they are not expected to occur on this particular site. The species assemblage is typical of what can be expected of habitat that is severely disturbed, but with sufficient habitat to sustain populations. Most of the species of the resident diversity (Table 1) are fairly common and widespread in natural unpolluted environment (viz. the marsh terrapin, brown house snake, mole snake, eastern striped skink, water monitor, guttural toad, raucous toad, red toad, common platanna and the common river frog). The species richness is fair due to size of the study site and the three habitat types occurring on the study site.

Table 1: The Reptile and Amphibian species observed on or deduced to occupy the site.

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME

CLASS: REPTILIA REPTILES

Order: TESTUDINES TORTOISES & TERRAPINS

Family: Pelomedusidae Side-necked Terrapins

√ Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh or Helmeted Terrapin

Order: SQUAMATA SCALE-BEARING REPTILES

Suborder:LACERTILIA LIZARDS

Family: Gekkonidae Geckos



√ Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Thick-toed or Transvaal Gecko

* Pachydactylus capensis Cape Thick-toed or Cape Gecko ? Lygodactylus capensis Cape Dwarf Gecko

Family: Agamidae Agamas

√ Agama aculeate Ground Agama

√ Agama atra Southern Rock Agama

Family: Scincidae Skinks

√ Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink

√ Trachylepis punctatissima Montane Speckled Skink

√ Trachylepis varia Variable Skink

* Panaspis wahlbergii Wahlberg’s Snake-eyed Skink

? Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Leggless Skink Family:Lacertidae Old World Lizards or Lacertids

? Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard

? Ichnotropis squamulosa Common Rough-scaled Lizard

? Nucras lalandii Delalande’s Sandveld Lizard

Family: Gerrhosauridae Plated Lizards

√ Gerhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard

Family: Cordyidae

* Cordylus vittifer Transvaal Girdled Lizard

Family: Varanidae Monitors

? Varanus albigularis Rock Monitor

√ Varanus niloticus Water Monitor

Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKES

Family: Typhlopidae Blind Snakes

? Typhlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake

? Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande’s Beaked Blind Snake

Family: Leptotyphlopidae Thread Snakes

* Leptotyphlops conjunctus Cape Thread or Worm Snake

* Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peter’s Thread or Worm Snake

Family: Atractaspididae African burrowing Snakes

? Atractapis bibronii Southern Stiletto Snake

√ Aparallactus capensis Cape or Black-headed Centipede Eater

? Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake NT? Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Snake

Family: Colubridae Typical Snakes

√ Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Brown Water Snake

√ Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake

? Lamprophis aurora Aurora House Snake

? Lamprophis inornatus Olive House Snake

√ Lycophidion capense Cape or Common Wolf Snake

* Mehelya capensis Southern or Cape File Snake

? Duberria lutrix Common Slug Eater

√ Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake ? Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall’s Shovel-snout

* Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Skaapsteker

√ Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass or Sand Snake



√ Psammophis crucifer Crossed Whip Snake

? Philothamnus hoplogaster Green Water Snake √ Dasypeltis scabra Common or Rhombic Egg Eater

* Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Herald Snake

Family: Elapidae Cobras, Mambas and Others

? Elapsoidea sunderwallii Sundevall’s Garter Snake

√ Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Family: Viperidae Adders

* Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder

√ Brits arietans Puff Adder

CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS

Order: ANURA FROGS

Family: Pipidae Clawed Frogs

√ Xenopus laevis Common Platanna

Family: Bufonidae Toads

√ Amietaophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad

√ Amietaophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad

? Amietaophrynus poweri Western Olive Toad

√ Schismaderma carens Red Toad

Family: Hyperoliidae Reed Frogs

√ Kassina senegalesis Bubbling Kassina

? Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog

Family Phrynobatrachidae Puddle Frog

? Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog

Family: Pyxicephalidae √ Amietia angolensis Common River Frog

* Amietia fusigula Cape River Frog

* Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog

√ Cocosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco or Common Caco NT? Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog

√ Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog

* Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog Systematic arrangement and nomenclature according to Branch (1998), Alexander and Marais (2007), Minter, et.al (2004) & Du Preez and Carruthers (2009). √ Definitely there or have a high probability of occurring; * Medium probability of occurring based on ecological and distributional parameters; ? Low probability of occurring based on ecological and distributional parameters. Red Data species rankings as defined in Branch, The Conservation Status of South Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89 – 103..In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), ‘The State of Southern Africa’s Species (2002) and Minter, et.al, Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (2004) are indicated in the first column: CR= Critically Endangered, En = Endangered, Vu = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, DD = Data Deficient. All other species are deemed of Least Concern.


Table 2: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site, observed indicators and habitat.

SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION INDICATOR

HABITAT

Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Sight record In a pool next to the Klipspruit Stream

The Common Platanna, listed in Table 2, should be abundant on the study site and elsewhere in its range.

6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS The study site has important topographical features in the form of the Klipspruit and its wetlands, as well as the rocky ridge. The study site contains three herpetofaunal habitats, namely terrestrial, rupiculous and wetlands. The study site is ecologically disturbed in parts by over-grazing, veld fires, invasive plants, dumping, water pollution, illegal mining and rock carving. Species richness: Due to the presence of three habitat types, especially all forms of aquatic types, the study site should have a fair number of species, but it must be emphasised that the species richness is estimated for the general area and NOT for the study site itself. Endangered species: The possibility exists that the giant bullfrog may occur on the study site. There are potential breeding sites for giant bullfrogs and the possibility exists that at least some individuals may use the study site for feeding and aestivation. Several moribund termitaria, where the striped harlequin snake is most likely to be found, are present on the study site. It is very difficult to confirm whether this cryptic snake is present on any study site, but there is a possibility that it occurs on this particular study site. Sensitive species and/or areas (Conservation ranking): The Klipspruit and its wetlands as well as the rocky ridge are sensitive ecological systems. Habitat(s) quality and extent: The terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality has been jeopardised by over-grazing, invasive plants, dumping, water pollution, illegal mining and rock carving. Impact on species richness and conservation: The construction of the storm water canal will have a significant and lasting effect on species richness and conservation, because of the construction of the canal itself, which will influence the linear integrity and flow dynamics of the Klipspruit and its wetlands. During the construction phase at least temporary buildings and new access roads will be built, which will influence herpetofaunal movement. These structures will result in a decrease in connectivity. The construction of the water canal will have a large and permanent footprint. If the construction of the water canal should go ahead, a very important effect would be the likely impact that the proposed development might have on the migration of water-dependent herpetofauna to and from the canal. If the canal has steep sides, it will act as a death trap and will present a barrier for herpetofaunal species which are unable to climb out of the canal. This manmade canal will make access to the drainage line difficult for some frog species to breed, because there is no side with a gentle slope for frogs to move into the canal for amplexus (mating) and to release the eggs into the water.


Water-dependent reptilian species will also be hampered in their movement to and from the canal. The canal could have a negative impact on the herpetofauna. Connectivity: Connectivity as a whole is fair to poor. In an unpolluted state, real opportunities for migration exist along the Klipspruit because the stream is a distribution corridor for many water-dependent herpetofauna, which may also forage on the study site. Immigration of herpetofauna towards the study site is a possibility. Management recommendation: It is recommended that during the construction of the water canal on the study site, measures be taken to stop water pollution from dumping, squatters and illegal mining in the Klipspruit. Structures to help animals escape from the canal should be included in the construction of the canal and could include gradually sloping ramps or steps (grids) at the sides of the canal at regular intervals. The size of the canal (depth or width) is not so much a problem as the shape. It is impossible for herpetofaunal species to obtain purchase on smooth, curved walls, which will cause them to keep slipping to the bottom of the canal. Using rough concrete rather than smooth will allow the animals to escape from the canal more easily. The removal of exotic trees will increase the water quality and habitat of water-dependent herpetofauna. General: Actions taken on site must prevent water pollution of the Klipspruit downstream. Strict mitigation measures should be applied during the construction phase of the project to minimize the effect on herpetofauna.

Figure 10: Herpetofauna habitat map


7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

Galago Biodiversity and Aquatic Specialists are committed to the conservation of biodiversity but concomitantly recognise the need for economic development. Whereas we appreciate the opportunity to learn through the processes of constructive criticism and debate, we reserve the right to form and hold our own opinions and therefore will not willingly submit to the interest of other parties or change statements to appease them. Even though every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this report, environmental assessment studies are limited in scope, time and budget. To some extent discussions and proposed mitigations are made on reasonable and informed assumptions built on bone fide information sources, as well as deductive reasoning. Deriving a 100% factual

report based on field collecting and observations can only be done over several years and seasons to account for fluctuating environmental conditions and migrations. Since environmental impact studies deal with dynamic natural systems, additional information may come to light at a later stage. Galago Biodiversity and Aquatic Specialists can therefore not accept responsibility for conclusions and mitigation measures made in good faith based on own databases or on the information provided at the time of the directive. This report should therefore be viewed and acted upon with these limitations in mind.

8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Protection of the Klipspruit and its wetlands:

Every effort should be made to retain the linear integrity, flow dynamics and water quality of the Klipspruit, its wetlands and associated riparian vegetation. Preventing water pollution of the Klipspruit must be a priority.

The following mitigation measures are proposed by the specialist.

If the Giant Bullfrog or any herpetological species are encountered or exposed during the construction phase, they should be removed and relocated to natural areas in the vicinity. This remedial action requires the employment of a herpetologist to oversee the removal of any herpetofauna during the initial ground clearing phase of construction (i.e. initial ground-breaking by earthmoving equipment).

The contractor must ensure that no herpetofauna species are disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed during the construction phase. Any herpetofauna that are inadvertently killed during earthmoving operations should be preserved as museum voucher specimens. Conservation-orientated clauses should be built into contracts for construction personnel, complete with penalty clauses for non-compliance.

Alien and invasive plants must be removed.

An Ecological Management Plan is required (see below). It is suggested that application of this plan is audited on an annual basis by a specialist registered (in the field of Ecological Science)in terms of the Natural Scientific Professions Act (No. 27 of 2003).


During the construction phase there will be increased surface runoff and a decreased water quality (with increased silt load and pollution). Completing construction during the winter months would mitigate the environmental impact.

The following mitigation measures were developed by GDARD (Directorate of Nature Conservation, 2012) and are applicable to the study site.

An appropriate management authority (e.g. the body corporate) that must be contractually bound to implement the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Record of Decision (ROD) during the operational phase of the development should be identified and informed of their responsibilities in terms of the EMP and ROD.

The appropriate agency should implement an ongoing monitoring and eradication program for all invasive and weedy plant species growing within the servitude.

Rehabilitation of natural vegetation should proceed in accordance with a rehabilitation plan compiled by a specialist registered in terms of the Natural Scientific Professions Act (No. 27 of 2003) in the field of Ecological Science.

Any post-development re-vegetation or landscaping exercise should use species indigenous to South Africa. Plant species locally indigenous to the area are preferred. As far as possible, indigenous plants naturally growing along the route, that would otherwise be destroyed during construction, should be used for re-vegetation / landscaping purposes.

9. CONCLUSION

The Klipspruit, with its wetlands and it buffer zone, should be considered as ecologically sensitive. As a rule the normal 32 metres buffer zone inside the urban edge for riparian zones applies, but since this is a special project to improve the quality of surface water, it may not apply. The Rocky Ridge is also sensitive and care must be taken not to impact on the rocky ridge with construction activities. The study site contains a few temporary pans, which are potential breeding places for the giant bullfrog. Several moribund termitaria, where the striped harlequin snake is most likely to be found, are present on the study site. It is very difficult to confirm whether this cryptic snake is present on any study site, but there is possibility that it occurs on this particular study site. Ecologically, the study site is in a downward spiral. The study site has been ecologically disturbed by encroaching urbanisation, over-grazing, veld fires, invasive plants, dumping, water pollution, illegal mining and rock carving. These factors have a detrimental effect on herpetofaunal numbers and diversity. It is recommended that during the construction of the water canal on the study site, measures be taken to stop water pollution from dumping, squatters and illegal mining in the Klipspruit. Structures to help animals escape from the canal should be included in the construction of the canal and could include gradually sloping ramps or steps (grids) at the sides of the canal at regular intervals. The size of the canal (depth or width) is not so much a problem as the shape. It is impossible for herpetofaunal species to obtain purchase on smooth, curved walls, which will cause them to keep slipping to the bottom of the canal. Using rough concrete rather than smooth will allow the animals to escape


from the canal more easily. The removal of exotic trees will increase the water quality and habitat of water-dependent herpetofauna. It is imperative that there should be a joint conservation plan for the whole Klipspruit area because of the acid mine water problem in the Randfontein area.

Figure 11: Herpetofaunal Sensitivity map

10. LITERATURE SOURCES Alexander, G. & Marais J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik

Publishers, Cape Town 408pp. Branch, W.R. (Editor), August 1988. South African Red Data Book – Reptiles and

Amphibians. S.A.National Scientific Programmes, Report No. 151, 244 pp. Branch, W.R. 1998. Field Guide to the Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern Africa. 3rd

edition. Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 399 pp., maps, 112 plates. Branch, W.R. 2002. ‘The Conservation Status of South Africa’s threatened Reptiles’: 89

– 103..In:- G.H.Verdoorn & J. le Roux (editors), ‘The State of Southern Africa’s Species’, Proceedings of a conference held at the Rosebank Hotel, 4 – 7 September 2001. World Wildlife Fund.

Broadley, D.G. 1990. FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa. Jonathan Ball & Ad Donker Publishers. 387pp.

Carruthers, V. & Du Preez L. 2011. Frogs & Frogging. Struik Nature, Cape Town. p108. Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Protea Bookhouse

Pretoria. 470pp.


De Moor I.J. & Bruton M.N. 1988. Atlas of alien and translocated indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa. S.A.National Scientific Programmes, Report No. 144, 310pp.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices.

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDARD. 2012. GDARD requirements for Biodiversity Assessments, Version 2. Gauteng Provincial Government

Du Preez L. & Carruthers V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa.

Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 488 pp. Measey, G.J. (ed.) 2011. Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs: a strategy for

conservation research. SANBI Biodiversity Series 19. South African National

Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.84pp Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Kloepfer, D. eds.

2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Picker M. & Griffiths C. 2011. Alien & Invasive Animals. A South African Perspective.

Struik Nature, Cape Town. P240. Van Wyk, J.C.P., Kok, D.J. & Du Preez L.H. 1992. Growth and behaviour of tadpoles

and juveniles of the African Bullfrog, Pyxicephalus adspersus Tschudi 1838. J Herp. Assoc. Afr. 40:56.

The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) The Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) The National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act No. 10 of 2004).

Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004. The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004. (Act No. 10 of 2004).

Draft List of Threatened Ecosystems. Government Gazette RSA Vol. 1477, 32689, Cape Town, 6 Nov 2009.

The National Forests Act, 2006 (Act No. 84 of 1998 as amended). Government Gazette RSA Vol. 897, 29062, Cape Town, 8 Sept 2006.

The Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act No. 27 of 2003).

APPENDIX D: HERPETOFAUNA REPORT - BA for 3 Canals/2... · 2014. 2. 3. · FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of Southern

Documents