DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT

Page created by Kyle Perry
 
CONTINUE READING
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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
DALPARK X 18 FAUNA (Mammals and Herpetofauna) REPORT
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 pages
The 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 pages
Figure 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 pages
SCIENTIFIC 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 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. 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 pages
Very 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 pages
5.2.1 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 pages
SCIENTIFIC 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 pages
Table 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 pages
Connectivity: 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 pages
Figure 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 pages
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.
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 pages
You can also read