DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DALPARK X 18
FAUNA (Mammals and
Herpetofauna) REPORT
On Portion 461 of the farm
Witpoortje 117-IR
December 2020
Compiled by: Mr Jaco Van Wyk
Pr.Sci.Nat. Reg. No: 400062/09
M.Sc. Zoology
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18
Email: jcpvanwyk@absamail.co.za
December 2020 1 of 25 pages
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 5
2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................ 5
3. STUDY AREA ............................................................................................. 5
4. METHOD .................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Field Surveys ........................................................................................... 7
4.1.1 Mammals.................................................................................................. 7
4.1.2 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................... 7
4.2 Desktop Surveys ...................................................................................... 7
4.2.1 Mammals.................................................................................................. 7
4.2.2 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................... 8
4.3 Specific Requirements ............................................................................. 9
4.3.1 Mammals.................................................................................................. 9
4.3.2 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................... 9
5. RESULTS ................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment ................................................................... 9
5.1.1 Expected and Observed Mammal Species Richness ............................. 12
5.1.2 Threatened and Red Listed Mammal Species ....................................... 13
5.2 Herpetofaunal Habitat Assessment ........................................................ 15
5.2.1 Threatened and Red listed Reptile and Amphibian Species .................. 18
5.2.2 Expected and Observed Herpetofauna Species Richness ..................... 18
6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................... 21
7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE ............... 22
8. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................... 22
9. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 23
10. LITERATURE SOURCES ......................................................................... 24
FIGURES:
Figure 1: Locality map of the study area. .............................................................. 6
Figure 2: Front loader clearing slimes dam material. ............................................ 6
Figure 3: An easterly view of the study site showing good basal cover .............. 10
Figure 4: A few sweet thorn trees growing on the site. ....................................... 10
Figure 5: The drainage line on the site................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Man-made dams in the drainage line. .................................................. 11
Figure 7: An old mine digging/shaft which may act as roosting habitat for bats. . 12
Figure 8: A moribund termitarium on the site. ..................................................... 16
Figure 9: Small area of natural rupicolous habitat. .............................................. 16
Figure 10: A shaft with water. ............................................................................. 17
Figure 11: A dam south of the study site ............................................................. 17
Figure 12: Faunal Sensitivity Map ....................................................................... 24
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 2 of 25 pages
TABLES:
Table 1: Mammal species richness observed or deduced to occupy the site. .... 14
Table 2: Mammal species positively confirmed on the study site, observed
indicators and habitat. .................................................................................. 15
Table 3: Reptile & Amphibian species observed or deduced to occupy the site. 19
Table 4: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site,
observed indicators and habitat ................................................................... 21
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 3 of 25 pages
Declaration of Independence:
I, Jacobus Casparus Petrus van Wyk (6808045041084) declare that I:
hold an MSc in the Biological Sciences, which allows registration by SACNASP
(SA Council for National Scientific Professions) as a Professional Zoologist and
sanctions me to function independently as a specialist scientific consultant
as per prerequisite of the Natural Scientific Professions Act No. 27 of 2003, present
this project as my work from inception and reflects exclusively my observations
and unbiased scientific interpretations, executed to the best of my ability
abide by the Code of Ethics of the SACNASP
am committed to biodiversity conservation but concomitantly recognise the need
for economic development. Even though I appreciate the opportunity to 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 by Galago Environmental CC as vertebrate fauna specialist
consultant for the project “Vertebrate Fauna (Mammal & Herpetofauna) Habitat
Assessment for Dalpark X 18 Mixed Use Residential Development, Gauteng
Province” 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 Galago Environmental 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, 2014 (As amended).
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
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 4 of 25 pages
1. INTRODUCTION
Limnology (pty) Ltd was appointed by Galago Environmental CC to undertake a Mammal
and Herpetofaunal Habitat Assessment on Portion 461 of the farm WITPOORTJE 117
IR, Gauteng Province, scheduled for a Mixed Use Residential Development.
This report focuses on the reigning status of threatened and sensitive mammals, reptiles
and amphibians likely to occur on the proposed development site and whose
conservation status should be considered in the decision-making process. Special
attention was paid to the qualitative and quantitative habitat conditions for Red Data
species deemed present on the site, and mitigation measures to ameliorate the effect of
the proposed development. The secondary objective of the investigation was to gauge
which mammals and herpetofauna might still reside on the site and comment on the
mammals and herpetofauna diversity of the study area.
This assignment is in accordance with the 2014 EIA Regulations, as amended and
emanating from Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act
No. 107 of 1998).
2. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To qualitatively and quantitatively assess the significance of the mammal and
herpetofaunal habitat components and current general conservation status of the
property;
Identify and comment on ecologically sensitive areas;
To comment on connectivity with natural vegetation and habitats on adjacent
sites;
To provide a list of mammals and herpetofauna which occur or might occur, and
to identify species of conservation importance;
To highlight potential impacts of the proposed development on the vertebrate
fauna 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 2628 AD, west of the R23 Road and
south of both the N17 and R554 Roads. The site is 216.6811 hectares in extent and is
spatially more accurately defined by the coordinates 26°16’56.2176”S; 28°19’6.2775”E
(Figure 1). The site lies south of the Dalpark and west of Sunair Park. The site borders a
railway line to the south.
An important topographical feature of the site is the drainage line with a few man-made
dams in this drainage line. In the surrounding area south of the site there are more man-
made dams.
The topography consists of some flat terrain, but the greater part of the study site slopes
towards the drainage line. The study site contains a few small rocky outcrops for
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 5 of 25 pages
rupicolous terrestrial vertebrates. The substrate consists of a red, sandy soil and in some
areas a few termitaria were recorded.
According to the latest vegetation map of South Africa, the proposed development is
located in the Tsakane Clay Grassland vegetation unit (Gm 9) and Eastern Temperate
Freshwater Wetlands (Azf 3) as defined by Mucina and Rutherford, (2006). The site is
almost treeless except for a cluster of sweet thorn trees (Acacia (Vachellia) karroo).
Eucalyptus, Mexican thistle, sisal, syringa, pompom, kikuyu, bugweed, poplars, pampas
grass and giant reed are some of the exotic plants growing on the site.
Most of the site has been altered by mining activities (Figure 2), water pollution, invasive
plants, gravel roads, littering, rubbish dumps, footpaths, burnt grassveld, diggings,
erosion and building ruins. The study site is thus ecologically disturbed in many parts.
Figure 1: Locality map of the study area.
Figure 2: Front loader clearing slimes dam material.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 6 of 25 pages
4. METHOD The site visit was conducted on 14 December 2020. During this visit the observed and derived presence of mammals, reptiles and amphibians associated with the recognised habitat types of the study site was recorded. This was done with due regard to the well- recorded global distributions of Southern African mammals and herpetofauna, coupled with the qualitative and quantitative nature of recognised habitats. The 500 metres of adjoining properties were scanned for important faunal habitats. 4.1 Field Surveys 4.1.1 Mammals During the site visit mammals were identified by sightings through random transect walks. No trapping or mist netting was conducted, as the terms of reference did not require such intensive work. In addition, mammals were also identified by means of spoor, droppings, burrows or roosting sites. Locals were interviewed to confirm occurrences or absences of species. Three criteria were used to gauge the probability of occurrence of mammals on the study site. These include known distribution range, habitat preference and the qualitative and quantitative presence of suitable habitat. 4.1.2 Herpetofauna During the site visits, reptiles and amphibians were identified by 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 4.2.1 Mammals As the majority of mammals are secretive, nocturnal, hibernators and/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. During the field work phase of the project, this derived list of occurrences was audited. The probability of occurrences of mammal species was based on their respective geographical distributional ranges and the suitability of on-site habitat. 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, i.e. normally occurring at high population densities. Medium probability pertains to a mammal 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 also taken into consideration. Species categorised as medium normally do not occur at high population numbers, but cannot be Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 7 of 25 pages
deemed as rare. A low probability of occurrence will mean that the species’ distributional range is peripheral to the study site and habitat is sub-optimal. Furthermore, some mammals categorised as low are generally deemed rare. Based on the impressions gathered during the site visit, as well as publications such as Mammals of the Transvaal (Rautenbach, 1982), The Complete Book of Southern African Mammals (Mills & Hes, 1997), The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (Skinner & Chimimba, 2005), Smithers’ Mammals of Southern Africa; A Field Guide (2012) and Stuarts’ Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa (Stuart & Stuart, 2015), a list of species which may occur on the site was compiled. The latest taxonomic nomenclature was used. The vegetation type was defined according to the standard handbook by Mucina and Rutherford (eds) (2006). 4.2.2 Herpetofauna 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 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), Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Bates, Branch, Bauer, Burger, Marais, Alexander & De Villiers, 2014), 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), Frogs of Southern Africa; A Complete Guide (Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017) and Field Guide to the Frogs & Other Amphibians of Africa (Channing & Rodel, 2019), a list of species which may occur on the site was compiled. Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 8 of 25 pages
4.3 Specific Requirements 4.3.1 Mammals During the visit, the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of South African Red Data mammal species in Gauteng Province (Rautenbach, 1982, Skinner & Chimimba, 2005, Apps, 2012, Stuart & Stuart, 2015 & Child, Roxburgh, Do Linh San, Raimondo & Davies-Mostert, 2016) such as: Juliana’s golden mole (Neamblosomus juliana), Highveld golden mole (Amblysomus septentrionalis), Rough-haired golden mole (Chrysospalax villosus), African marsh rat (Dasymys incomtus), White-tailed rat (Mystromys albicaudatus), a number of shrews such as the the swamp musk shrew (Crocidura mariquensis), Maquassie musk shrew (Crocidura maquassiensis), Southern African hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis), a number of bats such as the Short-eared trident bat (Cloeotis percivali) and Blasius’s (Peak-saddle) horseshoe bat (Rhinolopus blasii), mountain reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula); grey rhebok (Pelea capreolus); oribi (Ourebia ourebi), African clawless otter (Aonyx capensis), Spotted-necked otter (Hydrictis maculicollis) African striped weasel (Poecilogale albinucha) serval (Leptallurus serval) and Brown hyena (Hyaena brunnea). 4.3.2 Herpetofauna During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of Red Data herpetofaunal species in Gauteng Province; (Minter, et al, 2004, Alexander & Marais, 2007, Bates, et al, 2014 and Du Preez & Carruthers, 2017) such as: During the visit the site was surveyed and assessed for the potential occurrence of Red Data species in Gauteng (Minter, Burger, Harrison, Braack, Bishop & Kloepfer, 2004; Alexander & Marais, 2007; Du Preez & Carruthers, 2009 and Bates, Branch, Bauer, Burger, Marais, Alexander & De Villiers, 2014), such as Giant Bullfrog (Pyxicephalus adspersus), Striped Harlequin Snake (Homoroselaps dorsalis), Coppery Grass Lizard (Chamaesaura arenea), Lobatse Hinged-Back Tortoise (Kinixys lobatsiana), Nile Crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) and Southern African Python (Python natalensis). The Southern African Python (Python natalensis) has no Red Data status, but is still legally considered as a ToPS species. 5. RESULTS The vegetation types of the site were analysed according to Mucina and Rutherford (2006). 5.1 Mammal Habitat Assessment The local occurrences of mammals are closely dependent on broadly defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupicolous (rock-dwelling) and wetland-associated vegetation cover. It is thus possible to deduce the presence or absence of mammal species by evaluating the habitat types within the context of global distribution ranges. From a mammal habitat perspective, it was established that mainly three of the four major habitats are naturally present on the study site: mostly terrestrial with some areas of rupicolous and aquatic habitat. Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 9 of 25 pages
The site was first transformed for agricultural purposes such as grazing and later by
anthropogenic influences such as mining activities, water pollution, invasive plants,
gravel roads, littering, rubbish dumps, footpaths, burnt grassveld, diggings, erosion and
building ruins. The study site is thus ecologically disturbed in most parts. A few
termitaria were recorded on the study site. These structures are good indicators of the
occurrence of small mammals. Accordingly, it is estimated that the mammal population
density for the study site is higher. At the time of the site visit the basal cover was good
in some places (Figure 3) and would provide adequate nourishment and cover for small
terrestrial mammals in those areas.
Figure 3: An easterly view of the study site showing good basal cover
Very few indigenous trees grow on the site but they would not provide arboreal habitat
for arboreal mammal species. Even the few clusters of sweet thorn trees (Figure 5)
would not provide habitat for arboreal mammals. Due to the absence of natural arboreal
habitat, many arboreal species such as vervet monkey, South African galago and
woodland dormouse were omitted from the species list in Table 1. A few dead logs
provide shelter and food for some mammals.
Figure 4: A few sweet thorn trees growing on the site.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 10 of 25 pagesThe aquatic habitat consists of a drainage line (Figure 5) with a few man-made dams
(Figure 6) in this drainage line. There are also diggings which are filled with water. The
aquatic habitat on the site provides habitat for common water–dependent mammal
species such as the water mongoose.
Figure 5: The drainage line on the site.
Figure 6: Man-made dams in the drainage line.
There are small areas of natural rupicolous habitats on the study site and manmade
rupicolous habitat exists in the form of building ruins. Due to the absence of large areas
of natural rupicolous habitat, some species such as the Jameson’s red rock rabbit,
klipspringer, mountain reedbuck, grey rhebok and dassie (rock hyrax) were omitted from
the species list in Table 1. However, the eastern rock elephant shrew could occur on
this small natural rupicolous habitat.
The site has no true caves suitable for cave-dwelling bats, although some of the old
mine diggings/shafts (Figure 7) and buildings may act as substitute daytime roosts. It is
likely that common bats commute from roosting sites elsewhere to hawk for insects over
the wetlands of the study site.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 11 of 25 pagesFigure 7: An old mine digging/shaft which may act as roosting habitat for bats. Except for the drainage line on the south-western side of the site, most of the surrounding features are a slimes dam, residential areas, a railway line or busy roads. Therefore connectivity is generally poor. Sight records were also used to compile this mammal report. 5.1.1 Expected and Observed Mammal Species Richness Many large mammals (buffalo, blue wildebeest, black wildebeest, red hartebeest, plain zebra, eland, black and white rhino, lion, wild dog, cheetah and spotted hyena) have long since been extirpated for sport and later to favour livestock farming. Later, medium- sized mammals such as blesbok, springbok, oribi, aardwolf, aardvark, black-back jackal, common duiker and steenbok were also driven to extinction. The species richness is poor due to the severely disturbed nature of the site. Most of the few mammal species still occurring on the study site are common and widespread (viz. scrub hare, multimammate mouse, pygmy mouse, yellow mongoose, Highveld gerbil and African mole rat). Of 37 mammal species expected to occur on the study site (Table 1), four were confirmed during the site visit. It should be noted that potential occurrences are interpreted as being possible over a period of time as a result of environmentally induced expansions and contractions of population densities and ranges, which stimulate migration. Table 1 lists the mammals which are deemed as probable residents on the study site and the 500 metres extended study area. All feral or domesticated mammal species expected to occur on the study site (e.g. house mice, house rats, cattle, sheep, dogs and cats) were omitted from Table 1 since these species are normally associated with human settlements. The bats listed are mostly common in the area wherever they can find daytime roosts in manmade structures. Many bat species commute over considerable distances in search Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 12 of 25 pages
of rich feeding patches, such as insects that are swarming (or may eventually swarm) over wetlands at dusk. 5.1.2 Threatened and Red Listed Mammal Species All Red Data species listed in Table 1 as Critically Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened or Data Deficient are discerning species and became endangered as a result of the deterioration of their preferred habitats. Due to the presences of especially wetland-associated vegetation cover on the property, the possibility of Red listed mammal species occurring increases dramatically. The study site falls outside the natural range of the Maquassie musk shrew (Crocidura maquassiensis), Short-eared trident bat (Cloeotis percivali), Juliana’s golden mole (Neamblysomus julianae) and Highveld golden mole (Amblysomus septentrionalis). These species should not occur on the study site. Due to their ability to fly and to cover large distances, the distribution information on some bat species is insufficient. This has resulted in Red Data species such as the Blasius’s (Peak-saddle) horseshoe bat being included as a precautionary measure. Due to the presence of wetlands, certain Red Data mammals could occur on the study site. There are however not sufficient unpolluted wetlands on the study site for either the Cape clawless otter or the spotted-necked otter (Hydrictis maculicollis), and these two species should not occur on the study site. The water of the drainage line could support small populations of the African marsh rat and the swamp musk shrew on the site. Rough-haired golden moles (Chrysospalax villosus) do not make subsurface runs like other golden mole species, which make it more difficult to detect this species (Skinner & Chimimba, 2005). Due to the presence of areas surrounding the wetland (the most likely place where the rough-haired golden mole should occur), this golden mole species could occur on the site. The oribi (Ourebia ourebi) was driven to extinction long ago and should not occur on the study site. The Southern African hedgehog occurs in a wide variety of habitat types, but must have vegetation. There is a possibility that this species occurs on site. Due to the absence of rupicolous habitat, certain Red Data mammals should be absent from the site, which include mountain reedbuck and grey rhebok. The white-tailed mouse is often found in rocky areas with good grass cover, which are present on the study site. Therefore, this species could occur on the site. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, neither the serval, brown hyeana nor the African striped weasel should occur on the site. No other Red Data or sensitive species are deemed present on the site, either since the site is too disturbed, falls outside the distributional ranges of some species, or does not offer suitable habitat(s). Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 13 of 25 pages
The species richness is poor due to the severely altered habitat by different
anthropogenic influences.
Table 1: Mammal species richness observed or deduced to occupy the site.
SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME
Order: AFROSORICIDA
Family: Chrysochloridae Golden moles
?Vu Chrysospalax villosus Rough-haired golden mole
Order: LAGOMORPHA
Family: Leporidae Hares, rabbits and rock rabbits
√ Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare
Order : RODENTIA
Family: Bathyergidae Mole rats
√ Cryptomys hottentotus African mole rat
Family: Hystricidae Porcupines
? Hystrix afriaeaustralis Cape porcupine
Family: Sciuridae Squirrels
? Xerus inauris South African ground squirrel
Family: Muridae Rats and mice
* Rhabdomys pumelo Four-striped grass mouse
?NT Dasymys incomtus African marsh rat
* Mus indutus Desert pygmy mouse
√ Mastomys coucha Southern multimammate mouse
? Aethomys ineptus Tete veld rat
? Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse
? Otomys angoniensis Angoni vlei rat
√ Otomys irroratus Vlei rat
√ Tatera brantsii Highveld gerbil
?Vu Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed mouse
* Saccostomus campestris Pouched mouse
* Dendromus melanotis Grey pygmy climbing mouse
Order: EULIPOTYPHA
Family Soricidae Shrews
? Suncus varilla Lesser dwarf shrew
?NT Crocidura mariquensis Swamp musk shrew
? Crocidura fuscomurina Tiny musk shrew
* Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew
? Crocidura silacea Lesser grey-brown musk shrew
? Crocidura hirta Lesser red musk shrew
Family: Erinaceidae Hedgehogs
?NT Atelerix frontalis Southern African hedgehog
Order: CHIROPTERA Bats
Family: PTEROPIDAE Epauletted fruit bats
? Eidolon helvum Straw-coloured fruit bat
Family: Embalonuridae Sheath-tailed bats
? Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian tomb bat
Family: Molossidae Free-tailed bats
√ Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat
Family: Vespertilionidae Vesper bats
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 14 of 25 pagesSCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME
? Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered bat
√ Neoromicia capensis Cape serotine bat
? Myotis tricolor Temminck’s hairy bat
Family: Nycteridae Slit-faced bats
? Nysteris thebaica Egyptian slit-faced bat
Family: Rhinolophidae Horseshoe bats
? Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy’s horseshoe bat
?NT Rhinolophus blasii Blasius’s horseshoe bat
Order: CARNIVORA
Family: Viverridae Civets and genets
? Genetta genetta Small-spotted genet
Family: Herpestidae Suricates and mongooses
√ Cynictis penicillata Yellow mongoose
√ Galerella sanguinea Slender mongoose
√ Atilax paludinosus Water mongoose
(Systematics and taxonomy as proposed by Skinner & Chimimba [2005], Apps [2012] Stuart & Stuart [2015],
and Child. et.al. 2016).
√ Definitely present or have a high probability to occur;
* Medium probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters;
? Low probability to occur based on ecological and distributional parameters.
Red Data species rankings as defined in Friedmann and Daly’s S.A. Red Data Book / IUCN (World
Conservation Union) (2004) are indicated in the first column: CR= Critically Endangered, En = Endangered,
Vu = Vulnerable, LR/cd = Lower risk conservation dependent, LR/nt = Lower Risk near threatened, DD =
Data Deficient. All other species are deemed of Least Concern.
Table 2: Mammal species positively confirmed on the study site, observed
indicators and habitat.
SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION HABITAT
INDICATOR
Lepus saxatilis Scrub hare Sight Record and Terrestrial
Scat
Cryptomys African mole rat Tunnels Terrestrial
hottentotus
Atilax paludinosus Water mongoose Scat & Spoor Terrestrial/Aquatic
Tatera brantsii Highveld gerbil Holes Terrestrial
The scrub hare, African mole rat, water mongoose and Highveld gerbil listed in Table 2
should be common on the study site and elsewhere in its range.
5.2 Herpetofaunal Habitat Assessment
The local occurrences of reptiles and amphibians are closely dependent on broadly
defined habitat types, in particular terrestrial, arboreal (tree-living), rupicolous (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 mainly three of the four major habitats are naturally
present on the study site, namely terrestrial, rupicolous and wetland-associated
vegetation cover.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 15 of 25 pagesThe site was first transformed for agricultural purposes such as grazing and later by
anthropogenic influences such as mining activities, water pollution, invasive plants,
gravel roads, littering, rubbish dumps, footpaths, burnt grassveld, diggings, erosion and
building ruins. A few moribund termitaria (Figure 8) were recorded on the study site.
These structures are good indicators of the occurrence of small herpetofauna.
Accordingly, it is estimated that the herpetofauna population density for the study site is
higher. At the time of the site visit the basal cover was poor in many places and would
not provide adequate cover for small terrestrial herpetofauna in those areas.
Figure 8: A moribund termitarium on the site.
There are small areas of natural rupicolous habitats (Figure 9) on the study site and
manmade rupicolous habitat exists in the form of buildings ruins. These man-made
habitats offer nooks and crannies as refuge for common rupicolous herpetofauna. Due
to the presence of natural rupicolous habitat, some species such as the common girdled
lizard and rock agama were added to the species list in Table 3.
Figure 9: Small area of natural rupicolous habitat.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 16 of 25 pagesVery few indigenous and exotic trees grow on the site and they would not provide
arboreal habitat for arboreal herpetofaunal species. Due to the absence of natural
arboreal habitat, many arboreal species such as the flap-neck chameleon were omitted
from the species list in Table 3. A few dead logs provide shelter for some herpetofauna.
Aquatic habitat consists of a drainage line with a few man-made dams in this drainage
line. There are also diggings/shafts (Figure 10) which are filled with water in which
common river frogs were observed. The area south of the study site also contains man-
made dams (Figure 11). The aquatic habitat on the site provides habitat for common
water–dependent herpetofauna.
Figure 10: A shaft with water.
Figure 11: A dam south of the study site
Except for the drainage line on the south-western side of the site, most of the
surrounding features are slimes dams, residential areas, a railway line or busy roads and
therefore connectivity is generally poor.
Sight records were also used to compile this herpetofauna report.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 17 of 25 pages5.2.1 Threatened and Red listed Reptile and Amphibian Species The study site falls outside the natural range of the Nile crocodile, Lobatse hinged-back tortoise and the Southern African python. These species should not occur on the study site. The striped harlequin snake has not been recorded on this quarter degree square [ 2628AD] (TVL Museum Records or Ditsong Museum of Natural History) but a few moribund termitaria, where the striped harlequin snake is most likely to be found, are present on the study site (Alexander & Marias, 2007). It is very difficult to confirm whether this cryptic snake is present on any site, but this species should not occur on this particular study site. The coppery grass lizard has not been recorded on this quarter degree square [2628AD] (TVL Museum Records or Ditsong Museum of Natural History) and due to the lack of pristine grassveld, the coppery grass lizard should not occur on the study site. There are no seasonal pans on the site which would hold water long enough for giant bullfrog tadpoles to complete metamorphosis. There are however pans in the 500 metre surrounding area. There is a possibility that this species could occur on the study site for foraging or/and hibernation-aestivation. 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. However, Du Preez & Carruthers (2017) found that the species is declining in numbers in the nearby Gauteng and the species is now being regarded as a conservation concern. 5.2.2 Expected and Observed Herpetofauna Species Richness Of 36 reptile species expected to occur on the study site (Table 3), none were confirmed during the site visit. Of the 12 amphibian species expected to occur on the study site (Table 3), one was confirmed during the site visit. 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. Most of the species of the resident diversity (Table 3) are fairly common and widespread (viz. the common house snake, common dwarf gecko, common speckled rock skink, ground agama, guttural toad, red toad and Boettger’s caco). The species richness is poor due to the disturbed nature of the site. Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 18 of 25 pages
Table 3: Reptile and Amphibian species observed or deduced to occupy the site.
SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME
CLASS: REPTILIA REPTILES
Order: SQUAMATA SCALE-BEARING REPTILES
Order: CHELONIA TERRAPINS, TURTLES & TORTOISES
Family: Pelomedusidae Terrapins
? Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin
Suborder:LACERTILIA LIZARDS
Family: Gekkonidae Geckos
√ Lygodactylus capensis capensis Common Dwarf Gecko
? Pachydactylus affinis Transvaal Gecko
* Pachydactylus capensis Cape Gecko
Family:Lacertidae Old World Lizards or Lacertids
* Nucras lalandii Delalande’s Sandveld Lizard
Family: Cordylidae
* Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled Lizard
Family: Gerrhosauridae Plated Lizards
√ Gerhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard
Family: Scincidae Skinks
? Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink
√ Afroablepharus wahlbergii Wahlberg’s Snake-Eyed Skink
√ Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink
√ Trachylepis punctatissima Speckled Rock Skink
√ Trachylepis varia Variable Skink
Family: Agamidae Agamas
√ Agama aculeata distanti Eastern Ground Agama
* Agama atra Southern Rock Agama
Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKES
Family: Typhlopidae Blind Snakes
* Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake
Family: Leptotyphlopidae Thread Snakes
? Leptotyphlops incognitus Incognito Thread Snake
√ Leptotyphlops scutifrons scutifrons Peter’s Thread Snake
Family: Viperidae Adders
* Bitis arientans Puff Adder
√ Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder
Family: Lamprophiidae
? Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede Eater
? Atractapis bibronii Bibron’s Stiletto Snake
√ Boaedon capensis Common House Snake
? Lamprophis aurora Aurora Snake
? Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive Ground Snake
* Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake
? Lycophidion capensis capensis Cape Wolf Snake
√ Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass
? Psammophis crucifer Cross-Marked Grass Snake
? Psammophis trinasalis Fork-Marked Sand Snake
? Psammophylax rhombeatus Striped Grass Snake
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 19 of 25 pagesSCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME
rhombeatus
* Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall’s Shovel-Snout
√ Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake
Family: Elapidae Cobras, Mambas and Others
? Elapsoidea sunderwallii Sundevall’s Garter Snake
* Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals
Family: Colubridae
? Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-Lipped Snake
√ Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg Eater
CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS
Order: ANURA FROGS
Family: Pipidae Clawed Frogs
√ Xenopus laevis Common Platanna
Family: Bufonidae Toads
√ Sclerophrysophrys gutturalis Guttural Toad
? Sclerophrysophrys capensis RaucousToad
√ Schismaderma carens Red Toad
Family: Hyperoliidae Reed Frogs
* Kassina senegalesis Bubbling Kassina
Family: Phrynobatrachidae Puddle Frog
? Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog
Family: Pyxicephalidae
√ Amietia delalandii Common River Frog
? Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog
?NT Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bullfrog
√ Cocosternum boettgeri Boettger’s Caco
√ Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog
* Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog
Systematic arrangement and nomenclature according to Branch (1998), Alexander & Marais (2007), Minter,
et.al (2004), Du Preez & Carruthers (2009) and Bates, et.al 2014.
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.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 20 of 25 pagesTable 4: Reptile and Amphibian species positively confirmed on the study site,
observed indicators and habitat
SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH NAME OBSERVATION HABITAT
INDICATOR
Amietia delalandii Common River Frog Sight record Aquatic
The common river frog listed in Table 4 should be abundant or common on the study site
and elsewhere in its range.
6. FINDINGS AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS
An important topographical feature of the site is the drainage line and the few man-made
dams in this drainage line. A few larger pans occur south of the railway line inside the
500-metre surrounding area.
Species richness: The species richness is poor due to the severely disturbed nature of
the site.
Endangered species: The Endangered Species treat the site as part of their home
ranges / territories. There is a small possibility that five mammal species may occur on
site from time to time. The Blasius’s (Peak-saddle) horseshoe bat, rough-haired golden
mole, African marsh rat, swamp musk shrew and Southern African hedgehog are
included as a precautionary measure.
Except for the giant bullfrog, which is a conservation concern in Gauteng, no Red Data
herpetofaunal species should occur on the site.
Sensitive species and/or areas (Conservation ranking): The drainage line and the few
man-made dams in this drainage line are sensitive ecological systems: The study site
falls in the Tsakane Clay Grassland vegetation unit (Gm 9) and Eastern Temperate
Freshwater Wetlands (Azf 3) as defined by Mucina and Rutherford, (2006). The Tsakane
Clay Grassland vegetation unit is considered as an Endangered vegetation type (Mucina
and Rutherford, 2006).
Habitat(s) quality and extent: Most of the site has been altered by mining activities, water
pollution, invasive plants, gravel roads, littering, rubbish dumps, footpaths, burnt
grassveld, diggings, erosion and building ruins. The study site is thus ecologically
disturbed in many parts.
Impact on species richness and conservation: The proposed development will have a
further significant and lasting effect on species richness and conservation, because the
undeveloped area on the study site will be completely destroyed. The construction of
buildings and new roads carrying more vehicles will add to the loss of habitat. These
structures, buildings and roads will form an even larger barrier for mammal and
herpetofauna movement and will result in a decrease in connectivity.
If the development should go ahead, a very important indirect effect would be the likely
impact that the proposed development might have on the water quality of the drainage
line due to the waste water and surface water runoff. This could have a negative impact
on the herpetofauna.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 21 of 25 pagesConnectivity: Except for the drainage line on the south-western side of the site, most of
the surrounding features are a slimes dam, residential areas, a railway line and busy
roads and therefore connectivity is generally poor.
Management recommendation: Measures will have to be taken to stop water pollution of
the drainage line and its man-made dams. The removal of exotic plants is imperative. It
can be expected that the planting of indigenous trees will enhance the species richness
of garden birds and even common rupicolous reptiles.
General: From a mammal and herpetofauna perspective, there is no objection against
the development as long as the development adheres to the mitigation measures.
7. LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND GAPS IN
KNOWLEDGE
Limnology is committed to the conservation of biodiversity but concomitantly recognise
the need for economic development. Even though 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, conclusions
are drawn and proposed mitigation measures suggested based on reasonable and
informed assumptions based 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.
Limnology can therefore not accept responsibility for conclusions drawn and mitigation
measures suggested 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 drainage line and its man-made dams:
Every effort should be made to retain the linear integrity, flow dynamics and
water quality of the drainage line and a man-made storm water drainage line in
the central eastern side of the site. Measures will have to be taken to stop water
pollution, especially from the old slimes dams.
The following mitigation measures are proposed by the specialist:
If any mammal or herpetofaunal species are encountered or exposed during the
construction phase, they should be removed and relocated to natural areas in the
vicinity.
Alien and invasive plants must be removed.
Use indigenous trees for landscaping.
Education of construction staff about the value of wildlife and environmental
sensitivity is imperative.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 22 of 25 pages During the construction phase there will be increased surface runoff and a
decreased water quality (with increased silt load and pollution). Completing
construction near the wetlands during the winter months will help solve this
problem.
9. CONCLUSION
The drainage line and man-made dams, as well as their buffer zones should be
considered as ecologically sensitive. Measures will have to be taken to stop water
pollution of these aquatic habitats.
The Endangered Species treat the site as part of their home ranges / territories. There
is a small possibility that five mammal species may occur on the site from time to time.
The Blasius’s (Peak-saddle) horseshoe bat, rough-haired golden mole, African marsh
rat, swamp musk shrew and Southern African hedgehog are included as a precautionary
measure.
There are however not sufficient unpolluted wetlands on the study site for the spotted-
necked otter (Hydrictis maculicollis), and this species should not occur on the study site.
Rough-haired golden moles (Chrysospalax villosus) do not make subsurface runs like
other golden mole species, which make it more difficult to detect this species. Due to
the presence of areas surrounding the wetland (the most likely place where the rough-
haired golden mole should occur), this golden mole species could occur on the site.
The oribi (Ourebia ourebi) was driven to extinction long ago and should not occur on the
study site.
Except for the giant bullfrog, which is of conservation concern in Gauteng, no Red Data
herpetofaunal species should occur on the site.
The study site consists of transformed grassland. The natural grassland has been
transformed by encroaching mining first and later by urbanisation. Many parts of the
study site are destroyed. Except for the drainage line, the site is isolated, forming a
small ecological island without the benefit of meaningful connectivity and immigration.
The removal of invasive plants and the use of indigenous trees will increase the quality
of habitat for mammals and herpetofauna.
If the development should go ahead, a very important indirect effect would be the likely
impact that the proposed development might have on the water quality of the
Wondersome spruit south of the site due to the waste water and surface water runoff.
This could have a negative impact on both mammals and herpetofauna.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 23 of 25 pagesFigure 12: Faunal Sensitivity Map
10. LITERATURE SOURCES
Alexander, G. & Marais J. 2007. A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik
Publishers, Cape Town 408pp.
Alexander, G. 2014. Python natalensis (A, Smith, 1840). In Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R.,
Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J. & De Villiers, M.S. (eds). 2014.
Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata
1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Bates, M.F., Branch, W.R., Bauer, A.M., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G.J. & De
Villiers, M.S. (eds). 2014. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa,
Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Pretoria.
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.
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.
Channing, A. & Rodel M-O. 2019. Field Guide to the Frogs & Other Amphibian of Africa.
Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 408 pp.
Commpaan, C.P. 2011. Gauteng Conservation Plan Version 3.3 Gauteng Department
of Agricultural and Rural Development (GDARD, C-plan).
Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983).
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 24 of 25 pagesDe 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.
Du Preez, L. & Carruthers V. 2017. The Frogs of Southern Africa; A Complete Guide
Struik Publishers, Cape Town. 520 pp.
Environmental Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).
GDARD, 2014. Requirements for biodiversity assessments, Version 3. Directorate of
Nature Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
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.
National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998).
National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 0f 2004).
Government Gazette RSA Vol. 467, 26436, Cape Town, June 2004.
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.
National Forests Act, 2006 (Act No. 84 of 1998 as amended). Government Gazette RSA
Vol. 897, 29062, Cape Town, 8 Sept 2006.
Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 (Act No. 27 of 2003).
Picker M. & Griffiths C. 2011. Alien & Invasive Animals. A South African Perspective.
Struik Nature, Cape Town. P240.
Rautenbach, I.L. 1978. A numerical re-appraisal of the southern African biotic zones.
Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 6:175-187.
Rautenbach, I.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal. Ecoplan Monograph No. 1.
Pretoria, RSA.
Skinner, J.D. & Chimimba, T.C. 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African
Subregion. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Stuart, C. & Stuart, M. 2013. A Field Guide to the Tracks & Signs of Southern, Central &
East African Wildlife. 4th edition. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Stuart, C. & Stuart, M. 2015. Stuarts’ Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa 5 th
edition. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Mammal & Herpetofauna Report: Dalpark X 18 December 2020 25 of 25 pagesYou can also read
