Herpetofauna Habitat Assessmentnalisustainabilitysolutions.co.za/wp-content/... · FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles

Herpetofaunal Report: Wonderboom ptn 277 January 2014 1 of 19 pages

Herpetofauna

Habitat Assessment

of

Portion 277 of the farm Wonderboom 302 JR (Annlin X 97)

January 2014

Report author: Mr. J.C.P van Wyk (Pr.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 15

7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE 16 8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 17 9. CONCLUSION 17 10. LITERATURE SOURCES 18

FIGURES:

Figure 1: Locality map of the study site. ................................................................ 5

Figure 2: A northerly view of the study site. .......................................................... 7 Figure 3: A herd of cattle on the study site. ........................................................... 8 Figure 4: Earth works on the study site. ................................................................ 8

Figure 5: Squatters on the study site. ................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Acacia trees that provide arboreal habitat for some reptile species. ...... 9

Figure 7: Manmade rupiculous habitat. ................................................................. 9 Figure 8: The Wonderboomspruit. ...................................................................... 10 Figure 9: A view of a wetland next to the Wonderboomspruit. ............................ 10

Figure 10: Herpetofauna Habitat Map ................................................................. 16

Figure 11: Herpetofaunal Sensitivity Map. .......................................................... 18

TABLES:

Table 1: The Reptile and Amphibian species observed on or deduced to occupy the site. ........................................................................................................ 12

Table 2: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site, observed indicators and habitat. .................................................................. 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 of Portion 277 on the farm Wonderboom 302 JR (Annlin X97)” 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 of Portion 277 on the farm Wonderboom 302 JR also known as Annlin X97 (elsewhere referred to as the study site), scheduled for the construction of Residential Development. 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 The study site lies in the quarter degree grid cell 2528CA (Pretoria), directly south of the Wonderboom Aerodrome. The entire area is about 37.8 hectares in extent and lies north of the Magaliesberg Mountain Range, in the Annlin suburb. East of the study site lies the Kenley Agricultural Holdings and south of the study site lies the suburb Sinoville. An important topographical feature of the study site is the Wonderboomspruit which bisects the study site from east to west. The Wonderboomspruit is a tributary of the Apies River, which in turn feeds into the Bon Accord Dam. Sizeable wetlands occur along the Wonderboomspruit. The site is undeveloped and is presently used for grazing and also as a dumping site for unscrupulous building contractors. The study site lies inside the Marikana Thornveld vegetation type (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). A characteristic of the Marikana Thornveld vegetation unit is the different indigenous Acacia tree species growing on the study site. Exotic trees grow on the


banks of the water courses and in some other areas of the study site. The substrate consists mostly of heavy black clay, and the fact that no termitaria are found on the study site is probably related to the properties of the clay.

The study site is ecologically disturbed in parts by overgrazing, building rubble, earth works, squatters, trenches/furrows and exotic plants. Water pollution by rubbish, eutrophication (algae bloom), raw sewage, squatters, furrows, and invasive plants threatens the aquatic habitat.

Figure 1: Locality map of the study site.

4. METHOD A six hour site visit was conducted on 28 November 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, arboreal and wetland-associated vegetation cover habitat. Many manmade places of rupiculous habitat are present on the study site. Noticeable absentees from the study site are termitaria. Moribund termitaria normally provide ideal retreats for reptiles and amphibians. Accordingly, it is estimated that the reptile and amphibian diversity and population density of the study site is lower. At the time of the site visit the basal cover was lush in a few places, especially along the Wonderboomspruit, and would provide adequate cover for small terrestrial herpetofauna (Figure 9). However the terrestrial habitat of the study site is ecologically disturbed in parts by overgrazing (Figures 2 & 3), building rubble (Figure 7), earth works (Figure 4), squatters (Figure 5), trenches/furrows and exotic plants.

Figure 2: A northerly view of the study site. Note the overgrazed grass in the

foreground and the hangars of the Wonderboom Aerodrome in the background.


Figure 3: A herd of cattle on the study site.

Figure 4: Earth works on the study site. Note the Magaliesberg Mountain Range in

the background.

Figure 5: Squatters on the study site.


Natural arboreal habitat consists of indigenous Acacia trees. Trees such as A. karroo, A. sieberiana, A. tortilis and A. nilotica, in various stages of development, were recorded (Figure 6). The larger Acacia trees may offer refuge to tree-living reptiles such as Tree Agamas and Flap-neck Chameleons. The exotic trees and shrubs, such as seringa, bugweed and mulberry, grow mostly along the Wonderboomspruit. Despite the presence of some squatters on the study site, there are many dead logs, which provide shelter and food for some herpetofaunal species.

Figure 6: Acacia trees that provide arboreal habitat for some reptile species.

There is no natural rupiculous habitat on the study site, but excellent man-made rupiculous habitat exists in a large number of building rubble piles (Figure 7). These man-made habitats offer nooks and crannies as refuge for rupiculous herpetofauna. Due to the absence of natural rupiculous habitat, some species such as Yellow-throated Plated Lizard, Transvaal Girdled Lizard and Rock Agama were omitted from the species list in Table 1.

Figure 7: Manmade rupiculous habitat.

Permanent and temporary water sources occur on the study site. The Wonderboomspruit flows through the study site (Figure 8). Wetlands occur on the banks of the Wonderboomspruit (Figure 9). Along the spruit, wetlands can be found due to water overflowing the banks. Man-made structures such as weirs have been built in some places along the Wonderboomspruit.


Figure 8: The Wonderboomspruit.

Figure 9: A view of a wetland next to the Wonderboomspruit.

These water sources provide habitat for frogs and water-dependent reptiles. Although some wetlands are artificial and polluted, they are functional, with several wetland plant species and wetland fauna.

All rivers, streams and wetlands are protected and are regarded as sensitive. With the exception of the drainage lines, connectivity is poor. Real opportunities for migration exist along the Wonderboomspruit. Sight records were also used to compile this herpetofaunal report.


Threatened and Red listed Reptile and Amphibian Species The study site falls inside the natural range of the Southern African python. According to Bradley (1990), Southern African pythons favour moist, rocky, well-wooded valleys, plantations or bush country, but seldom if ever stray far from permanent water. The study site thus provides suitable habitat for the Southern African python, but the study site is far too small to support a viable population. It is often estimated that a single python needs at least a 100ha area to forage. The occasional Southern African Python may venture onto the study site via the distribution corridor of the nearby Apies River and Wonderboomspruit. The striped harlequin snake has been recorded on this quarter degree square (TVL Museum Records or Ditsong Museum of Natural History), but no 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 this species should not occur on this particular study site. The study site contains a few temporary dams, which are potential breeding places for giant bullfrogs. Many of these breeding sites are temporary, which bullfrogs prefer in order to avoid predation from fish. Some of these 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. Giant bullfrogs prefer warm, stagnant water, which giant bullfrog tadpoles need for rapid development (Van Wyk, Kok & Du Preez, 1992). Many areas of the study site consist of heavy black clay and are unsuitable 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. This specialist found giant bullfrogs about 10 km north of the study site (quarter degree grid cell 2528CB (Silverton), so there is a good possibility that bullfrogs may occur on the study site. 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 50 reptile species which may occur on the study site (Table 1), three were confirmed during the site visit and of the possible 17 amphibian species which may occur on the study site (Table 1) two were 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 (viz. the marsh terrapin, brown house snake, mole snake, montane speckled skink, Transvaal gecko, water monitor, guttural toad, common caco, common platanna and the common river frog). The species richness is fair due to 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

? Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise

Order: SQUAMATA SCALE-BEARING REPTILES

Suborder:LACERTILIA LIZARDS

Family: Gekkonidae Geckos

√ Hemidactylus mabouia Moreau’s Tropical House Gecko

√ Lygodactylus capensis Cape Dwarf Gecko

√ Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Thick-toed or Transvaal Gecko

* Pachydactylus capensis Cape Thick-toed or Cape Gecko

Family: Agamidae Agamas

? Agama aculeate Ground Agama

√ Acanthocerus atricollis Southern Tree Agama

Family: Chamaeleonidae Chameleons

√ Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-neck Chameleon

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 Legless Skink

Family:Lacertidae Old World Lizards or Lacertids

? Pedioplanis lineoocellata Spotted Sand Lizard

? Ichnotropis squamulosa Common Rough-scaled Lizard

? Nucras ornate Ornate Sandveld Lizard

Family: Varanidae Monitors

√ Varanus niloticus Water Monitor

? Varanus albigularis Rock Montor

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

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

? Psammophylax tritaeniatus Striped Skaapsteker

* Psammophis mossambicus Olive Grass Snake

? Psammophis angolensis Dwarf Whip Snake

√ 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

* Telescopus semiannulatus Eastern or Common Tiger Snake

? Dispholidus typus Boomslang

Family: Elapidae Cobras, Mambas and Others

? Elapsoidea sunderwallii Sundevall’s Garter Snake

* Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra or M’fezi

√ Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals

Family: Viperidae Adders

√ Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder

√ Brits arietans Puff Adder

Family: Pythonidae Pythons

NT? Python natalensis Southern African Python

CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS

Order: ANURA FROGS

Family: Pipidae Clawed Frogs

√ Xenopus laevis Common Platanna

Family: Bufonidae Toads

√ Amietaophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad

? Amietaophrynus poweri Western Olive toad

√ Schismaderma carens Red Toad

Family: Breviceptidae Rain Frogs

? Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog

Family: Hyperoliidae Reed Frogs

√ Kassina senegalesis Bubbling Kassina



Family: Microhylidae Rubber Frogs

? Phrynomantis bifasciatus Banded Rubber Frog

Family Phrynobatrachidae Puddle Frog

* Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog

Family: Ptychadenidae Grass Frogs

? Ptychadena anchietae Plain Grass Frog

? Ptychadena porosissima Strip Grass Frog

Family: Pyxicephalidae

√ Amietia angolensis Common River Frog

? Amieta fuscigula 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

Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia

Herald Snake Sight record Underneath rubble next to the Wonderboomspruit

Panaspis wahlbergii Wahlberg’s Snake-eyed Skink

Sight record Underneath rocks

Hemidactylus mabouia

Moreau’s Tropical House Gecko

Sight record On man-made rupiculous habitat

Amietaophrynus gutturalis

Guttural Toad Sight record of juveniles and tadpoles (Gosner stages 26-38 [Gosner 1960])

Under rocks near the Wonderboomspruit and in the spruit itself

Cocosternum boettgeri

Boettger’s Caco or Common Caco

Vocalisation In wetland near Wonderboomspruit

The Herald Snake is common throughout the wetter eastern half of southern Africa and is often associated with wetlands.


The Wahlberg’s Snake-eyed Skink is common, even in suburban gardens in certain regions. Moreau’s Tropical House Geckos are abundant and are commensal with man. They are commonly found on buildings and building rubble. Both frog species (Guttural Toad and Common Caco), 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 Wonderboomspruit and wetlands. The study site contains three herpetofauna habitats, namely terrestrial, arboreal and wetlands. The study site is ecologically disturbed in parts by overgrazing, building rubble, earth works, squatters, trenches/furrows and exotic plants. Water pollution by rubbish, eutrophication (algae bloom), raw sewage, squatters, furrows, and invasive plants threatens the aquatic habitat. 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 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. There is also a possibility that one or two Southern African pythons may use the study site as part of their range. Sensitive species and/or areas (Conservation ranking): The Wonderboomspruit, the wetlands/temporary pans and 30 metres buffer zones around these aquatic habitats are highly sensitive ecological systems. Habitat(s) quality and extent: The terrestrial habitat quality has been jeopardised by overgrazing, building rubble, earth works, squatters, trenches/furrows and exotic plants. Water pollution by rubbish, eutrophication (algae bloom), raw sewage, squatters, furrows, and invasive plants threatens the aquatic habitat. Impact on species richness and conservation: The construction of a residential development will have a significant and probably lasting effect on species richness and conservation, because of the construction of new buildings and new roads carrying more vehicles. These structures and roads will form an even larger barrier for herpetofaunal movement and it will result in a decrease in connectivity. The proposed development will have a large and permanent footprint. If the development should go ahead, a very important indirect effect would be the likely impact that the proposed development might have on the surface water runoff and water quality of the Wonderboomspruit and wetlands/temporary pans. This could have a negative impact on the herpetofauna. Connectivity: Connectivity is poor but the Wonderboomspruit is a distribution corridor for many water-dependent herpetofauna, which may also forage on the study site. Management recommendation: Measures will have to be taken to stop water pollution of the Wonderboomspruit and wetlands, especially the sewage leaks. The removal of exotic trees will increase the water quality and habitat of water-dependent herpetofauna. General: The integrity of the Wonderboomspruit and wetlands should not be jeopardized in any way by the development. It is finally strongly recommended that


suitable conservation and management structures are put into place to improve the conservation profile of the Wonderboomspruit, since this stream is a tributary of the Apies River, which flows into the Bon Accord Dam.

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 Wonderboomspruit and wetlands:

Every effort should be made to retain the linear integrity, flow dynamics and water quality of the Wonderboomspruit. The same applies to temporary pans/dams, and all the water bodies associated with riparian vegetation.

The following mitigation measures are proposed by the specialist:

If the Giant Bullfrog, Southern African python or any herpetological species be 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 herpetofaunal species are disturbed, trapped, hunted or killed during the construction phase. Conservation-orientated clauses should be built into contracts for construction personnel, complete with penalty clauses for non-compliance.

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.

All areas designated as sensitive in a sensitivity mapping exercise should be incorporated into an open space system. Development should be located on the areas of lowest sensitivity.

The open space system (the water ways) should be managed in accordance with an Ecological Management Plan that complies with the Minimum Requirements for Ecological Management Plans and forms part of the EMP.

9. CONCLUSION

The Wonderboomspruit, wetlands and their buffer zones should be considered as ecologically highly sensitive. The normal 30 metres buffer zone for sites inside the urban edge should apply. The study site contains wetlands which are potential breeding places for the giant bullfrog and the possibility exist that one or two Southern African pythons may occur on the study site from time to time.


If the development should go ahead, a very important indirect effect would be the likely impact that the proposed development might have on the surface water runoff and water quality of the Wonderboomspruit and wetlands. This could have a negative impact on the herpetofauna.

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 10 of 2004): Publication of Lists of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable and Protected Species. Government Notices.

Directorate of Nature Conservation, GDACE. 2008 and revised on February 2009. GDACE 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.

Gosner, K.L. 1960. A simplified table for staging Anuran embryos and lavae with notes on identification. Herpetologi. 16:183-190

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 0f 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 (Act No. 27 of 2003).

Herpetofauna Habitat Assessmentnalisustainabilitysolutions.co.za/wp-content/... · FitzSimons’ Snakes of Southern Africa (Broadley, 1990), Field Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles

Documents