N2 UPGRADE - WILDERNESS

Transcription

1 N2 UPGRADE - WILDERNESS FAUNA ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ROAD UPGRADES PREPARED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP JANUARY 2017 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES KEN COETZEE 4 CHESTNUT STREET, HEATHER PARK, GEORGE, 6529 TEL / FAX:

2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction Terms of Reference Credentials Declaration of Independence and Competency Limitations and Assumptions The study site Habitat types Vertebrate faunal occurrence Faunal sensitivity and Red Listed species Landscape connectivity considerations Potential impact on the fauna Evaluation of potential impact Discussion Recommendations Conclusion References Appendices 1-6

3 1. INTRODUCTION Ken Coetzee of Conservation Management Services (CMS) was contracted by Mr Jeremy Rose, representing The Environmental Partnership, to provide an evaluation of potential fauna impact in relation to upgrades to sections of the N2 highway in the vicinity of Wilderness in the Southern Cape. The 23 sections of road that constitute the study area (see Appendix 1) were inspected and evaluated in December 2016 to provide the background information for this report. 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE The TOR provided was as follows: i. Review project information and undertake a site visit to identify and describe faunal biodiversity associated with the route, and indicate the sensitive areas likely to be impacted upon by the proposed upgrade. ii. iii. iv. Identify potential faunal or fauna related issues associated with the proposal. Prepare a specialist report for inclusion in the Basic Assessment Report. Respond to faunal and fauna related issues raised by interested and affected parties during the pre-application and assessment phases of the project, particularly SANParks request for wildlife crossings. v. Outline significant limitations and assumptions associated with the study. 1.2 CREDENTIALS The author of this report, Mr Ken Coetzee, is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (Reg No /08) as a Professional Natural Scientist, in the field of Ecological Science. Mr Coetzee is a Master of Technology graduate of the School of Forestry and Nature Conservation of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (Saasveld Campus) in the field of Ecological Science. Mr Coetzee has over 40 years of relevant experience in the field of nature conservation and management, the most recent 20 years of which were selfemployed as a biodiversity specialist consultant, involved in a wide variety of nature conservation, landscape planning, habitat evaluation, Impact Assessment and commercial game ranch and other development projects in a number of African Countries. 1.

4 1.3 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND COMPETENCY I hereby declare that I, Ken Coetzee trading as Conservation Management Services, comply with all the conditions of PWC: DEA&DP for a person appointed in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations to compile a specialist report, viz: I am independent; Have the required expertise, including knowledge of the NEMA, the EIA Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity and specialist input or study; Perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; Comply with NEMA, the EIA Regulations and all other applicable legislation; Disclose to the applicant, EAP and the Department all material information in the possession of the person that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing (i) any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority in terms of these Regulations; or (ii) the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by the person in terms of these Regulations for submission to the competent authority; Ensure EIA and EMP best practice and clear communication on the methodologies used, and the assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge; and Adhere to the National Environmental Management principles contained in Section 2 of NEMA and the general objectives of Integrated Environmental management contained in Section 23 of NEMA. 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS It was beyond the TOR to put together a more accurate inventory of the wildlife that occurs in the area. Use was thus made of the literature as well as other faunal studies that were done by CMS in the area. These checklists provide a general idea of what occurs, or may occur, in the general area and are not specific to the affected areas. Secondly, there is little or no published literature relating to the effectivity of underpasses for wildlife in South Africa. Use was made of publications produced in the United States and the United Kingdom for reference. Animal road deaths is an emotive issue and unfortunately no published or unpublished data is available, or could be located, for the study area or any other relevant area with a similar road improvement project in similar habitats. 2.

5 There has been no study of the invertebrate fauna that may be negatively affected by the proposed road improvements. The invertebrate fauna, however, is very closely associated with the vegetation of their habitat and it is assumed that retaining most of the natural habitats of the area intact will ensure the protection of most of the invertebrate fauna as well. It is not known exactly to what extent the coastal area will still be developed. At the current rate of development expansion, it is assumed that all available land that is not proclaimed as a National Park or Nature Reserve will become fully developed. 2. THE STUDY SITE 2.1 HABITAT TYPES The most important habitat types which are adjacent to the N2 in the study area, or through which it lies, are as follows: (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). A. Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands. B. Cape Lowland Alluvial Vegetation. C. Groot Brak Dune Strandveld. D. Garden Route Granite Fynbos. E. Southern Afrotemperate Forest. F. Southern Cape Valley Thicket. G. Transformed variations of the above, mostly invaded by alien trees or maintained as agricultural grazing pastures. This variety of vegetation types provides a great range of habitats for an equally varied range of animal types. This vertebrate occurrence is discussed in the following section (2.2). In section 2.2 the preferred habitat for each vertebrate species identified to occur in the study area is also given. The N2 highway study area has for decades, been a barrier causing the fragmentation of these natural habitats. Much of the roadside has, however, been transformed or severely degraded, which somewhat softens the overall effects of fragmentation for the fauna. 2.2 VERTEBRATE FAUNAL OCCURRENCE In order to consider the potential for negative impact on the fauna of the study area, it is first necessary to determine what assemblage of wildlife occurs or is likely to occur in the area. The fauna of the study area is typical of the forested and fynbos covered South Cape coastal areas. It is relatively intact, except that many of the original larger mammal species were eradicated by the end of the nineteenth century. Smaller wildlife is, however, also under threat in the Southern Cape area as a result of habitat destruction, the effects of over-frequent fires fueled by invasive alien plants and habitat fragmentation. The effects of domestic cat predation also have a significant effect on small indigenous wildlife, as feral cats are widespread. 3.

6 As no detailed checklists of fauna are available for the specific study area, fauna checklists for the general Wilderness coastal area were drawn up and listed in Appendices 2-5. The individual lists indicate whether each listed species is likely to occur, unlikely to occur, occurrence is a possibility or occurrence is confirmed in the study site area (and not specifically on the affected area). The following description of the fauna is per vertebrate faunal group: A. AMPHIBIANS The disturbed pasture area, thicket/forest and fynbos habitats provide a limited range of suitable habitats for amphibians. Of the 17 species listed, the presence of 8 are considered likely, 1 species is confirmed, 3 are considered a possibility and 4 species are unlikely to occur. (Refer to Appendix 2 for a checklist). Additional long term information regarding the seasonality or permanence of the aquatic habitats is required to refine these predictions. Distribution was determined with reference to Passmore & Carruthers (1995), Carruthers (2001) and Minter et al (2004). B. REPTILES The presence or absence of reptiles is much more difficult to predict than that of the amphibians which have a much more predictable habitat. 3 Chelonians (tortoises), 1 chameleon, 21 snakes, 5 geckos and 10 lizards are predicted to occur in the study area. Of the 40 reptiles predicted to occur, 34 are considered likely to occur (none were confirmed), 6 were seen as possibilities and none were confirmed or considered unlikely to occur on the study area. (See Appendix 3 for a checklist). 15 Of the 42 reptile species are endemic to the subregion, most with very small distribution ranges. Distributions were determined with reference to Bates et al (2014) Branch (1998) and Fitzsimons (1962). C. MAMMALS The general area contains a number of very restricted forest-dependent larger animals. These are the blue duiker which lives in gloomy canopy forest, the bushpig which also forages in fynbos areas, the vervet monkey which is dependent on forest tree fruit and leopard which still occur within the forests of the area. The pasture, forest and fynbos habitats of the study site potentially provide habitat for a surprisingly large diversity of mammal types. Insectivores (shrews, moles) - 8 Chiroptera (bats) - 13 Primates (monkeys) - 2 Lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) - 1 Rodents (rats and mice) - 19 Carnivores (cats, mongooses and otters) - 11 Ungulates (hoofed animals)

7 Of the 59 species predicted to occur in the area, 5 were confirmed, 18 are possibilities, 36 are considered likely to occur and none were considered unlikely to occur on the study site. (See Appendix 4 for a checklist). Of the 13 bat species listed, 11 of them (insectivorous bats) are listed in terms of the potential of the study site for feeding habitat (they feed on insects on the wing), as it is not known to what extent cave roosting sites are available in the escarpment and rocky cliff faces of the area. The 2 species of fruit bat do roost within forest areas. Distribution was determined with reference to Skinner & Chimimba (2005), Stuart & Stuart (1996) and Mills & Hess (1997), Roberts (1951), Taylor (2000) and Friedman and Daly (2004). D. BIRDS (AVIFAUNA) Birds are comparatively more mobile than other animals and their predicted and observed presence on the study area site does not necessarily indicate permanent residence or occupation of the available habitats. The habitats available to birds in the study area may thus constitute only part of the ecological requirements for certain species. The forested parts of the general area are important bird habitat and contain a number of South African endemics which are: Chorister robin Forest buzzard Forest canary Knysna lourie Knysna warbler Knysna woodpecker. The forested parts of the study site are further special in that they contain the significantly different bird fauna of the coastal forest, the Afromontane forest and the Forest/Fynbos ecotone. Fynbos endemic avifauna are represented in the general area by: Cape siskin Orange-breasted sunbird Victorin s warbler. Of the 156 bird species predicted to occur in the general area (either permanently or partly), 6 are confirmed, 106 are considered possibilities or unlikely to occur and 44 (mostly water birds) are considered unlikely to occur. (Appendix 5 contains a full checklist). Distributions were determined with reference to Sinclair et al (1997), Maclean (1985), Taylor (2015) and Harrison et al (1997). NOTE: The marine habitat and coastal birds were not included in this evaluation, as the shoreline will definitely not be impacted by the proposed development. 5.

8 2.3 FAUNAL SENSITIVITY AND RED LISTED SPECIES Animals have been classified in terms of the ever-increasing threats of overexploitation, illegal trade or habitat transformation. They are rated in terms of their vulnerability to extinction in Red Data books, one for each animal group. See Appendix 6 for Red Data classifications (ie, degree of vulnerability). A. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES None of the amphibian or reptile species predicted to occur in the study area are Red listed species. With respect to amphibians, Minter et al (2004), however, state that habitat loss or modification as a result of agriculture and other forms of human activity remains the most important single threat to the survival of amphibian populations, because of the scale of these changes and their relative permanence. At greatest risk are species that have limited distributions. It is thus clear that the remaining wetland habitats in the area should not be impacted in the interests of anuran persistence in the coastal area. The proposed upgrade will have no impact in this regard. B. THREATENED MAMMAL SPECIES Table 1 lists the Red Data listed mammal species which are predicted or confirmed to occur in the general area and possibly within the study area: (See Appendix 3). (According to Friedman & Daly, 2004). RED LIST SPECIES COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RED LIST CATEGORY PREDICTED OCCURRENCE Long-tailed forest shrew Myosorex longicaudatus Near threatened Likely Least dwarf shrew Suncus infinitesimus Data deficient Possible Fynbos golden mole Amblysomus corriae Near threatened Likely Cape golden mole Chrysochloris asiatica Data deficient Likely Geoffroy s horseshoe bat Rhinolophus clivosus Near threatened Possible Cape horseshoe bat Rhinolophus capensis Near threatened Possible Temminck s hairy bat Myotis tricolor Near threatened Possible Lesser wooly bat Kerivoula lanosa Near threatened Possible White-tailed rat Mystromys albicaudatus Endangered Possible Honey badger Mellivora capensis Near threatened Likely African striped weasel Poecilogale albinucha Data deficient Likely TABLE 1: Red listed mammals that are predicted to occur in the study area. 6.

9 The first species is listed as near threatened due to the increasing loss of forest habitat. The next as data deficient, which means that very little or nothing is known about this species. The presence of the first two species is considered highly likely, because the forest habitat of the study site is very suitable for these indigenous forestloving species. They are known to occur in the general area but are only known from true forested or forest/fynbos transition areas. All of the forest/thicket areas will remain unaffected by the proposed road improvements. The third and fourth species, the fynbos golden mole and Cape golden mole, are also considered likely to occur in the study area. The golden moles are restricted to fynbos and forest habitat. Habitat for them is available in the undeveloped parts of the study area in the natural fynbos and thicket habitats and they are not likely to be impacted by the proposed road improvement. The golden moles should thus remain largely unaffected by the proposed road improvements if it is completely restricted to the sites indicated in the layout plans. The bats are also classed as near threatened. The residential structures alongside the road probably provide new feeding and roosting opportunities for a number of bat species while the forest areas will remain unaffected. The bats will otherwise be unaffected by the proposed road improvements as there are no roosting sites like caves or big trees within the affected areas. The white-tailed rat is considered to be endangered due to large-scale loss of habitat which includes fynbos, renosterveld and southern Savanna grassland. If this species does occur in the area, its continued existence will be ensured by the retention of most of the natural fynbos habitat of the area in an undisturbed condition. The proposed road improvements will have no negative impact on this species. The African wildcat is common and widespread, and used to be listed as a Red Data species, because they freely hybridize with domestic cats and no longer occur in genetically pure populations near to developed settlements. This species will thus in no way be specifically threatened, in number or habitat, by the proposed road improvements and if they do occur on the site, they can simply move to extensive, nearby undisturbed fynbos or thicket habitat. The honey badger is classed as near threatened, as it is widely persecuted for its depredations on small domestic stock and for robbing apiaries. Badgers will not be significantly impacted by the proposed road improvements, because the total area to be disturbed represents only a small portion of a typical foraging range for the species. Their preferred habitat is, in any case, undisturbed forest and shrubveld areas of which large tracts remain available in the area, unaffected by the road improvements. The striped weasel is also likely to occur in the study area and it is considered to be under threat due to habitat and prey reduction. In the study area, this species will have adequate habitat in the unaffected fynbos, thicket, wetland and forest areas. It will thus not be negatively impacted by the proposed road improvements. 7.

10 C. RARE BIRD SPECIES Only three of the bird species that are predicted to (possibly) occur in the general area are classed as Red Listed species. They are the Stanley s or Denham s bustard (Neotis denhami), the grass owl (Tyto capensis) and the Knysna warbler (Bradypterus sylvaticus), the first two of which are definitely not provided with suitable habitat in the study area, but may occur occasionally or temporarily in the general area (Taylor et al 2015). Their favoured habitat, open but tall, dense grassland or grass pastures is in any case artificial in the study area and too small to support sustainable natural populations of these birds. The proposed road improvements will certainly have no impact on either species. The Knysna warbler occurs in dense, tangled, understory vegetation along watercourses in the Fynbos Biome. Although such vegetation does occur in the general area, there are no such suitable habitats that will be impacted by the road improvements. It is thus unlikely that this species will be negatively impacted by the proposed road improvements. 2.4 LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY CONSIDERATIONS Ecological corridors are connections in fragmented landscapes between separate areas of similar habitats. With suitable corridors, animals may travel between habitat islands and thereby maintain gene flow between the various segments of habitat or refugia (Bolen & Robinson, 1995). The situation in the study area is somewhat different, there is no natural habitat that can be used to connect fragments and connecting the habitats on each side of the highway would thus have to be by means of artificially constructed underpasses. Unfortunately there are no existing culverts or pipes under the N2 which can be converted or modified for wildlife use. There is a large culvert under the road in Section B but it is only likely to be a used by the local forest fauna. Another large culvert occurs in section E but it is not accessible to wildlife as it is in the centre of Wilderness Village. Habitat fragmentation can also be brought about by commercial forestry or agricultural modification (eg, extensive plantations, cultivated lands or pastures in a formerly fynbos or forest habitat) can result in the disruption of the social organization of the indigenous wildlife or even the genetic isolation and eventual extinction of divided populations (Bennet et al 1994). The construction of underpasses would thus have to be seriously considered in terms of the ecological requirement in the area. It goes without saying that underpass connectivity should only be initiated where and when there is a firmly identified need for connectivity. Providing underpasses in the study area, in an effort to restore habitat connectivity, will, in most parts of the study area be completely futile because of the degree of habitat transformation that has already taken place and that is still to take place as the coastal area is further developed. Table 2 clearly shows that there are very few sites within the study area that are clearly in need of connectivity by means of underpasses. 8.

11 Underpasses would also need to be installed with the appropriate fencing at both ends, by means of which wildlife are funneled towards the underpass openings. It is also important to note that providing for the movement of animals with underpasses could actually have a negative impact on the fauna using the underpasses. This because of the potential for the persecution of bushbuck, bushpigs and porcupines by gardeners in the developed coastal area. Similarly, underpasses can also provide uncontrolled, marauding dogs with a means to hunt wildlife in the few natural areas alongside the roadway. Regarding underpasses (ecoducts) and wildlife overpasses, Spellerberg (2002) states that little research has been done to determine the effectiveness (in terms of use) and impacts (in terms of population size, fragmentation of population and gene flow) of these attempts to reduce barrier and habitat fragmentation effects. It is thus quite obvious that the consideration of underpass installation, as an afterthought remediation in the study area, would be inappropriate as there has been little or no supporting objective research in this regard, nor the forward planning required for such installations. There is also no identified need in terms of wildlife species that will definitely need the underpasses in order to prevent the demise of populations or even extinction. 3. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE FAUNA It can be predicted with some confidence, that the deaths that do occur due to the N2 road, will mostly be of terrestrial fauna and that avifaunal deaths due to the road are less likely to occur. It can also be postulated that the roadway has little impact on the fauna of the aquatic wetland habitats in the area, excepting perhaps the more mobile wetland mammals. ROAD DEATH IMPACT ON AMPHIBIANS: Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to road kills when roads obstruct their traditional migration routes (Spellerberg, 2002). In Gauteng bullfrogs (Pyxicephalus adspersus) cross roads en-masse at certain times of the year to breed (Collinson, 2017). Fortunately, no such traditional migration routes are known to occur in the study area. ROAD DEATH IMPACT ON REPTILES: There is practically no useful information available for the impact of roads on reptiles. Given the size of most of the reptiles predicted to occur, it is probable that their relatively small home ranges obviates the need for them to move across the road in either direction. ROAD DEATH IMPACT ON MAMMALS: Small mammals are vulnerable to road kills, but research in Texas has shown that less than 1% of rodents living on roadsides are killed every year (Schmidly & Wilkins, 1977 in Spellerberg, 2002). In Britain, road deaths of badgers have been cause for concern (Davies et al, 1987 in Spellerberg, 2002) and the incidence of koala killed by traffic in Victoria, Australia is also of great concern (Spellerberg, 2002). 9.

12 The deaths of endangered mammal species like some deer and black bears in Florida is considered to be an important contributing factor in the decline of these species. High incidences of road deaths are thus universally a cause for concern. No objective or recorded data is available regarding mammalian road deaths in the study area. The local running club, the members of which regularly jog along most of the study area distance have reported the deaths of two porcupines, a large grey mongoose and one bushbuck over a period of many years. This information is not complete but it does reflect what animal deaths the road users have observed along the road for a considerable period of time. It is important to recognize that the study area roadway in its current form has already been in existence for many decades, at least 30 years, and that the low rate of animal road deaths reported by residents and joggers is probably due to the fact that the wildlife has long since learned to avoid the noise, vibrations and foreign habitat of the roadway barrier. It may also be due to the fact that much of the roadside habitat of the study area has been transformed from the original forest, thicket, fynbos and strandveld into agricultural pastures and residentially developed areas. Other areas, although not actually transformed, are completely dominated by invasive alien trees (Acacia mearnsii, Acacia cyclops and Pinus pinaster), which significantly reduces the opportunity for locally indigenous wildlife populations to survive and proliferate in those areas. 3.1 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT The following Table 2A summarizes an on-site evaluation of the habitat on each side of the road and the need for connectivity in the twenty-three road sections of the study area (ie, road Sections A1 to F14 - see Appendix 1). ROAD SECTION A1 A2 A3 A4 B C PROPOSED ROAD-WORKS Additional roadway Additional roadway & circle Additional roadway Additional roadway Improvements to drainage - no change to road Road widening at river HABITAT NORTH OF THE ROAD Transformed grazing & pastures Transformed pastures Transformed, invaded thicket & pastures Transformed, developed & alien plant invaded Indigenous forest Indigenous forest HABITAT SOUTH OF THE ROAD Transformed & developed Transformed, developed & pastures Transformed pastures & development Transformed, alien plant invaded & pastures Indigenous forest & river URGENCY FOR ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY None None None None None SHOULD AN UNDERPASS BE CONSIDERED? No No No No No River None No 10.

13 ROAD SECTION D E F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 PROPOSED ROAD-WORKS Road widening & median island Addition of circle & wider turnoff into Wilderness Widening of road on bridge - no change to connectivity Addition of circle & widening of the road both sides & median island Circle, road widening both sides & additional roadway Road widening on north side Circle, road widening on both sides Road widening on north side, circle to be installed & median island Road widening both sides, circle & median island Road widening both sides Road widening both sides Road widening both sides Road widening both sides HABITAT NORTH OF THE ROAD Indigenous forest & development Transformed & developed HABITAT SOUTH OF THE ROAD Transformed & developed Transformed & developed URGENCY FOR ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY None None SHOULD AN UNDERPASS BE CONSIDERED? No Lagoon Seashore None No Transformed & developed Lake water & shore Lake, development & lake shore Lake, lake shore, development & alien plant invaded Dune thicket invaded by alien plants Transformed & developed Partially transformed & developed with thicket patch, invaded by alien plants Transformed & developed with thicket patch Transformed & developed with alien invasion Partially transformed & developed with extensive thicket, alien tree invaded Transformed & developed with minor dune thicket Transformed & developed with minor dune thicket Development, dune thicket & seashore Transformed & developed, dune thicket alien plant invaded & seashore Dune thicket invaded by alien plants & seashore Transformed & developed Transformed & developed Transformed & developed Transformed & developed with alien tree invasion Partially transformed & developed with extensive thicket, alien tree invaded None Low Low Low None None None None None Low No No Possibly Possibly Possibly No No No No No Possibly

14 ROAD SECTION F12 F11-A F13 & F14 PROPOSED ROAD-WORKS Road widening both sides Road widening on both sides & additional north/south roadway Road widening on both sides up to limit of contract HABITAT NORTH OF THE ROAD Good thicket, but alien tree invaded Transformed & developed Untransformed with alien invaded coastal fynbos HABITAT SOUTH OF THE ROAD Good thicket, but alien tree invaded Transformed & developed Partially transformed with alien invaded thicket URGENCY FOR ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY Low None None SHOULD AN UNDERPASS BE CONSIDERED? Possibly No No TABLE 2A: Analysis of the 23 sections of the N2 road that will be affected by the proposed road improvements in terms of the habitat affected and the need for ecological connectivity by means of underpasses. Urgency: High Medium Low None Should an underpass be considered: Definitely Possibly Unclear No. In Table 2B the potential for negative impact on the terrestrial fauna is assessed. In this assessment a significance rating for impact is given prior to mitigation as well as after mitigatory measures are applied. The mitigatory measures are also given but are more fully described in section 3.3 under Recommendations. 3.2 DISCUSSION The evaluation in Table 2 clearly shows that there are only two sites in the twentythree road sections that are considered to be possibilities in terms of the need for ecological connectivity. These are Sections F3 to F5 and Sections F11 and F12. Section F3 to F5: In this part of the study area, the inland lake shore lies relatively close to the seashore, separated only by the highway and narrow strips of land on both sides of it (see Appendix 1, F3 to F5 as well as plate 1). Providing an underpass in Section F3 will not be ecologically viable because the area to the south of the road is partly developed and will probably still become fully developed. 12.

15 AMPHIBIANS REPTILES MAMMALS BIRDS Extent of impact Immediate Immediate Immediate Immediate Duration of impact Long-term Long-term Long-term Long-term Intensity of impact Medium Medium Medium Low Probability of Probable Probable Probable Low probability occurrence Degree to which impact can be Fully reversible Fully reversible Fully reversible Fully reversible reversed Significance of impact prior to Medium Medium Medium Low mitigation Significance of impact after mitigation Low Low Low Low Existing and proposed mitigations - The highway has already been in place for decades - The highway has already been in place for decades - The highway has already been in place for decades -- The highway has already been in place for decades -Identical habitat available adjacent to affected area. -Identical habitat available adjacent to affected area. - Identical habitat available next to to affected area. -Identical habitat is available next to to affected area. -Rehabilitate affected areas after construction. -Rehabilitate affected areas after construction. -Rehabilitate affected areas after construction. - Rehabilitate affected areas after construction. - Amphibians can move back after rehabilitation. - Reptiles can move back after rehabilitation. - Mammals can move back after rehabilitation. - Birds can move back after rehabilitation. - No Red Listed species affected. - No Red Listed species affected. - No Red Listed species will be permanently affected. - No Red Listed Species positively affected. - Well constructed roadside fences will limit mammal deaths TABLE 2B: Assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed N2 upgrade on the terrestrial fauna that has been predicted to occur within the development area. 13.

16 PLATE 1: Study area Section F3 in which the distance between the freshwater lake and the seashore is relatively short. Providing an underpass in Sections F4 to F5 will be equally unjustified because it will only benefit a small area of lakeshore and connect it to the seashore which is in any case not suitable habitat for most the terrestrial vertebrates under consideration. Sections F11 & F12: In both of these sections there are relatively extensive areas of untransformed thicket habitat on both sides of the road (see Appendix 1, F11 and F12). These thickets are severely infested with alien Acacia cyclops but nevertheless do represent some of the best natural habitat in the area. Some of this untransformed area has already been laid out in plots for residential development and it can be predicted that all of the area will eventually also be used for residential development. There will thus be no need to install underpasses in this area as they would end up linking one residentially developed area with another. 3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impacts of the proposed road improvements on the natural environment alongside the roadway: a) During construction, prevent soil erosion on down-slopes by means of appropriate silt fences or stone gabions, constructed in series down the slope. b) Include in the road design adequate provision for the effective management of runoff water from the road in order to prevent storm water damage to natural habitats on slopes below the road. c) Remove all alien invasive plants from the road reserve area and maintain the road reserve free of alien plant infestation. 14.

17 d) After construction, treat all areas of exposed bare soil with a covering of either jute geotextile (Soilsaver) or a 10cm thick layer of wood chip-mulch. e) Sow the stabilized areas (mulched or geotextile covered) with locally indigenous ground covers, consisting primarily of fast growing indigenous grasses such as Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis curvula, Cynodon dactylon, Panicum maximum, Cenchrus ciliaris, Melinis repens and Chloris gayana. Once vegetated, these sites can be improved with other locally indigenous ground cover plants. f) The clearing away of natural vegetation to make way for the improvements should follow a minimum impact approach. No more than is absolutely necessary should be cleared and the clearing of all indigenous vegetation should be strictly monitored by an ECO. g) According to Collinson (2016) establishing and maintaining roadside fences in a condition that prevents wildlife from crossing roads is an important mitigatory measure that is relatively simple to implement. This is an affordable alternative that is strongly recommended for the N2 upgrade project. h) SANParks should be encouraged to put up signboards that advertise the Wilderness National Park as well as the danger of animal road deaths. Signboarding is not considered to be very effective (Spellerberg, 2002) but creating awareness is always a good approach to any environmental problem. i) Traffic speed reduction helps to minimize wildlife road deaths. Speed is already restricted for the study area but the limits could be reconsidered if considered necessary. 4. CONCLUSION It can thus be concluded that: i. Most of the affected area lies within an already transformed landscape for which ecological landscape connectivity is not necessary or required. ii. iii. iv. There has been little or no research, nationally or locally, that supports the need for wildlife underpasses. The provision of underpasses may have a negative impact on the wildlife that use them due to the developed nature of most of the study area. Underpasses may provide uncontrolled dogs with the easier means to get at vulnerable and Red Listed wildlife, like the blue duiker. v. Areas of natural habitat that are currently relatively untransformed are likely to be transformed in the future. Providing the means for connectivity would thus be futile. 15.

18 vi. vii. viii. There are only two sites within the study area where connectivity is a possibility but in both cases the long-term viability of the connectivity will probably be compromised due to rampant coastal development. There are no Red Listed wildlife species for which connectivity under the road is a critical necessity. Most of the Red Listed species are small animals that have limited area dispersal requirements obviating the need for under-road connectivity. The road has already been in position for more than 30 years. It is likely that most wildlife in the area have learned to avoid it, which is likely to reduce the incidence of road deaths. ix.there are no known traditional animal migratory routes that indicate the need for underpass connectivity in the study area (for example, according to Spellerberg (2002) underpasses have been provided in the UK due to mass migrations and deaths of toads across certain roads during their breeding season). x. The effective management of post construction habitat impacts alongside the road improvements is considered to be a more important mitigation than the provision of underpasses, the effectivity of which are uncertain in this situation. xi. There are a number of mitigatory measures that could alternatively be used to reduce wildlife road deaths. It can be generally concluded that the proposed road improvements will have little impact on the terrestrial wildlife of the area and the habitats that they occupy. The road already represents a long-standing and significant barrier to animal movement and the proposed improvements are not likely to result in any additional negative impact. The total area of affected habitat is not significant in terms of vertebrate fauna persistence in the study area. 5. REFERENCES Bates, M F; Branch, W R; Bauer, A M; Burger, M; Marais, J; Alexander, G J & De Villiers, M S (eds) (Reprint 2014). Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Bennet, A F; Henein, K & Merriam, G Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: Chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic. Biological Conservation 68: Bolen, E G & Robinson, W L Wildlife ecology and Management. In: Conservation biology and wildlife management. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. pp

19 Branch, W R Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town. 399 pp. Carruthers, V Frogs and frogging in Southern Africa. Creda Press (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town. 99 pp. Collinson, W & Patterson-Abrolat, C The Road Ahead: Guidelines to Mitigation Methods to address Wildlife Road conflict in South Africa. The Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg, South Africa. Collinson, W Why did the bullfrogs cross the road? Unpublished Endangered Wildlife Trust Newsletter, 11 January Davies, J M; Roper, T J & Shepherdson, D J In: Spellerberg, I F (ed) Ecological Effects of Roads. Science Publishers Inc. New Hampshire, United States of America. FitzSimons, V F M Snakes of Southern Africa. Purnell & Sons (SA) (PTY) Ltd, Cape Town / Johannesburg. Friedman Y & Daly B Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment: CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa. Harrison, J A; Allan, L G; Underhill, L G; Herremans, M; Tree, A J; Parker, V & Brown, C J. (Eds) The atlas of Southern African Birds. Vol 1: Non-Passerines and Vol 2: Passerines. Avian Demography Unit, University of Cape Town. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg. Maclean, G L Robert s Birds of Southern Africa. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town. 848 pp. Mills, G & Hess, L The complete book of Southern African Mammals. Struik, Cape Town. 356 pp. Minter, L R; Burger, M; Harrison, J A; Braack, H H; Bishop, P J & Kloepfer, D., eds Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC. Mucina, L & Rutherford, M C (Eds): The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Passmore, N I & Carruthers, V C South African Frogs A complete guide (Revised Edition). Southern Book Publishers, Halfway House and Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg. 322 pp. Roberts, A The mammals of South Africa. Cape Times Ltd, Parow. 701 pp. Sinclair, I; Hockey, P & Tarboton, W Sasol Birds of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town. 445 pp. 17.

20 Skinner, J D & Chimimba, C T The mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press. Smithers, R H N The mammals of the Southern African Subregion. University of Pretoria, Pretoria. 736 pp. Spellerberg, I F Ecological Effects of Roads. Science Publishers Inc. New Hampshire, United States of America. Schmidly, D J & Wilkins, K T In: Spellerberg, I F (ed) Ecological Effects of Roads. Science Publishers Inc. New Hampshire, United States of America. Stuart, C & Stuart, T Field Guide Mammals of Southern Africa. Struik, Cape Town. 272 pp. Taylor, P J Bats of Southern Africa. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. 206 pp. Taylor, M R; Peacock, F, Wanless, R M (eds) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa. 18.

21 Appendix A1 to F14 (the study area).

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 SPECIES COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE HABITAT REQUIREMENTS * Semnodactylus wealii Rattling frog Unlikely Vleis, streams with grass in fynbos and forest. Afrixalus knysnae Knysna leaf-folding frog Unlikely Pans and shallow water, with grass in fynbos/forest mosaic. Bufo angusticeps Sand toad Unlikely Temporary depressions, sandy soils, open soils in fynbos. Bufo pardalus Eastern leopard toad Possible Permanent pools in grassland & thicket. Bufo rangeri Raucus toad Likely Vleis, pans, rivers, open areas of fynbos. Hyperolius horstockii Arum lily reed frog Possible Vegetated shores, reeds, bushes, arums. Hyperolius marmoratus Painted reed frog Likely Pans, vleis, streams with backwater. Breviceps fuscus Plain rain frog Confirmed Live underground in burrows in forest and fynbos. Xenopus laevis laevis Common platana Likely Permanent water. Cacosternum boettgeri Boettgers caco Likely Permanent and/or temporary ponds and puddles. Cacosternum nanum Bronze caco Likely Marshes, vleis, small streams. Rana angolensis Common river frog Unlikely Permanent water with aquatic vegetation / human habitation. Afrana fuscigula Cape river frog Likely Permanent water, still water. Strongylopus fasciatus Striped stream frog Likely Streams, ponds, dams, seepages with grassy margins. Strongylopus grayii Clicking stream frog Likely Shallow water with well vegetated borders. Tomopternia delalandii Cape sand frog Likely Edges of pans, dams, vleis, sandy areas. Heleophryne regis Southern ghost frog Possible Perennial streams in forest areas. APPENDIX 2: Amphibians Probability of each species occurring on the study site. (See column 3). * Occurrence according to Carruthers (2001) and Minter et al (2004). Confirmed: Species presence actually confirmed by means of sighting, spoor, droppings. Likely : Species presence recorded in similar habitats in neighbouring areas and within known distribution. Possible : Species presence possible on site due to overlap of habitat requirements and nearby known distribution. Unlikely : Species not likely to occur on the study area due to habitat constraints.

29 SPECIES COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande s beaked blind snake. Possible Varied; fossorial. (Endemic). Leptotyphlops nigricans Black thread snake. Possible Varied; fossorial. (Endemic). Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common brown water snake. Likely Small streams, pans, vleis. (Endemic). Lamphrophis aurora Aurora house snake. Likely Varied. Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive ground snake. Likely Moist coastal areas. (Endemic). Lycophidion capense Cape wolf snake. Possible Coastal fynbos and forest margins. Duberria lutrix lutrix Common slug eater. Likely Coastal forest and fynbos moist areas. Pseudaspis cana Mole snake. Likely Varied. Prosymna sundevallei Sundevall s shovel-snout. Possible Dry areas. (Endemic). Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted grass snake. Likely Forest fynbos moist areas. Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked grass snake. Likely Coastal areas, mountains. Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted harlequin snake. Likely Coastal bush. (Endemic). Boaedon capensis Common house snake Likely Varied, coastal. Philothamnus natalensis occidentalis Eastern green snake. Possible Varied. Daspeltis scabra Common or rhombic egg eater. Likely Varied. Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped snake. Likely Open moist areas. Dispholidus typus Boomslang. Likely Forest, fynbos. Naja nivea Cape cobra. Likely Varied. Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals. Likely Varied open areas. (Endemic). Causus rhombeatus Common or rhombic night adder. Likely Forest, fynbos moist areas. Bitis arietans Puff adder. Likely Varied, coastal scrub, fynbos. Bitis atropos Berg adder. Likely Coastal fynbos (endemic). Dachydactylus maculans Spotted thick-toed gecko. Likely Coastal. (Endemic). Pachydactylus geitjie Ocellated, thick-toed gecko. Likely Fynbos. (Endemic). Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted thick-toed gecko Likely Fynbos, coastal bush. APPENDIX 3: Reptiles. (Continued overleaf).

30 SPECIES COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled leaf-toed gecko. Likely. Coastal. (Endemic). Acontias meleagris meleagris Cape legless skink. Likely. Leaf litter in forest & forest edge. (Endemic). Trachylepis capensis Cape skink. Likely. Forest, forest edge & fynbos. Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided skink. Likely. Forest, forest edge & seepages. (Endemic). Nucras lalandii Delalande s sandveld lizard. Likely. Open fynbos. (Endemic). Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Common sand lizard. Likely. Varied. Tetradactylus seps seps Short-legged seps. Likely. Fynbos, varied. Cordylus cordylus Cape girdled lizard. Likely. Coastal cliffs, cliffs in thicket. Chamaesaura anguina Cape grass lizard Likely. Grassy/fynbos slopes. Agama atra Southern rock agama. Likely. Fynbos rocky areas. Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated plated lizard. Likely. Open coastal forest. Geochelone pardalis Leopard tortoise. Likely. Varied, fynbos and thicket. Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked tortoise. Possible. Varied must have cover. Chersina angulata Angulate tortoise. Likely. Forest, coastal fynbos, sandy areas. Pelomedusa subrufa Cape terrapin. Likely. Permanent water, burrows in drought. Bradypodion damaranum Knysna dwarf chameleon Likely Coastal forest, bush, gardens. APPENDIX 3: Reptiles Probability of each species occurring on the study site. (See column 3). *Occurrence according to Branch (1998), snakes according to Fitzsimons (1962). Confirmed: Species presence actually confirmed by means of sighting, spoor, droppings. Likely : Species presence recorded in similar habitats in neighbouring areas and within known distribution. Possible : Species presence possible on site due to overlap of habitat requirements and nearby known distribution. Unlikely : Species not likely to occur on the study area due to habitat constraints.

31 SPECIES COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE ENDEMIC * STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Myosorex longicaudatus Long-tailed forest shrew Likely SP (Knysna) Forest ecotone fern clumps, insectivorous. Myosorex varius Forest shrew Likely Moist, dense habitat, insectivorous. Crocidura flavescens Greater musk shrew Likely Moist, dense habitat, insectivorous. Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey musk shrew Likely Moist dry habitats. Suncus infinitesimus Least dwarf shrew Possible Forest habitat, insectivorous. Chrysochloris asiatica Cape golden mole Likely SP (W Cape) Fynbos, sandy soils. Amblysomus corriae Fynbos golden mole Likely SP (W Cape) Sandy soils, gardens, insectivorous. Chlorotalpa duthieae Duthie s golden mole Likely SP (S Cape) Coastal forests. Edomophorous wahlbergi Wahlberg s epaulleted fruit Possible Afromontane forest. bat Tadirda aegyptiaca Egyptian free-tailed bat Possible Caves, crevices in dense habitats, insectivorous. Taphozous mauritianus Tomb bat Possible Open woodland areas, insectivorous. Myotis tricolor Temminck s hairy bat Possible Caves, crevices in open woodland areas, insectivorous. Miniopterus fraterculus Lesser long-fingered bat Possible Forest & shrubland. Nycteris thebiaca Egyptian slit-faced bat Possible Fynbos & riverine forest. Rousettus aegyptiacus Eygptian fruit bat Possible Forests. Miniopterus schreibersii Schreiber s long-fingered bat Possible Caves, crevices in varied habitats, insectivorous. Eptesicus hottentotus Long-tailed serotine bat Possible Unknown habitat, insectivorous. Neuromicia capensis Cape serotine bat Possible Forest areas, insectivorous. Kerivoula lanosa Lesser woolly bat Possible Caves, birds nests in riverine areas, insectivorous. Rhinolopus clivosus Geoffroy s horseshoe bat Possible Forest fringes, woodland areas, insectivorous. Rhinolopus capensis Cape horseshoe bat Possible SP (SW Cape). Caves in varied habitats, insectivorous. Papio hamadryas Chacma baboon Likely Wide range including fynbos. Cercopithecus Vervet monkey Likely Woodland, riverine areas, vegetarian. pygerythrus Lepus saxatilus Scrub hare Possible Scrub areas, grass cover, vegetarian. Cryptomus hottentotus Common mole-rat Likely Moist soils, vegetarian. Georychus capensis Cape mole-rat Likely SP (S Cape). Sandy soils, vegetarian. Ottomys laminatus Laminate vlei rat Likely Wetlands, marshes Myomyscus verreauxi Verreaux s mouse Likely SP (W Cape). Forest edge, riverine forest. Bathyergus suillus Cape dune molerat Likely SP (W Cape). Fynbos sandy soils. APPENDIX 4: Mammals. (Continued overleaf).

32 SPECIES COMMON NAME OCCURRENCE* ENDEMIC STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Dasymys incomtus Water rat Likely Marshes, wetlands. Hystrix africaeutralis Porcupine Confirmed Varied habitat, vegetarian. Otomys irroratus Vlei rat Confirmed Wetland & swampy areas, eats grass/sedges. Mus musculus House mouse Likely Varied habitat, eats grass seeds, insects & vegetable matter. Acomys subspinosus Cape spiny mouse Likely Grassy fynbos. Rhabdomys pumilio Striped mouse Likely Fynbos, shrubveld, wetland. Mus minutoides Pygmy mouse Likely Fynbos, wetland, disturbed areas. Aethomy namaquensis Namaqua rock mouse Likely Wide range, uses crevasses. Mastomys coucha Multimammate mouse Likely Varied habitat, omnivorous. Dendromus melanotis Grey climbing mouse Likely Tall grass in riverine or scrub habitats, largely insectivorous. Dendromus mesomelas Brant s climbing mouse Likely Tall grass scrub habitats, largely insectivorous. Saccostomys campestris Pouched mouse Likely Varied habitat. Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed rat Possible Macchia, grassland, sandy soil with cover. Graphiurus murinus Woodland dormouse Likely Dense vegetation/trees. Mellivora capensis Honey badger Likely Varied habitat, all types of bush. Aonyx capensis Cape clawless otter Likely Any permanent water body, freshwater and seashore. Poecilogale albinucha Striped weasel Likely Grassland habitats, carnivorous. Ictonyx striatus Striped polecat Likely Varied habitat, insectivorous & carnivorous. Genetta tigrina Large-spotted genet Likely Varied habitat, insectivorous & carnivorous. Atilax paludinosus Water mongoose Likely Well-watered areas, insectivorous & carnivorous. Felis caracal Caracal Likely Riparian bush & open grassland. Panthera pardus Leopard Possible Bush, forest. Felis lybica African wild cat Likely All habitats. Herpestes ichneumon Large grey mongoose Confirmed Moist habitats & grassland. Galerella pulverulenta Small grey mongoose Likely Forest, scrub & grassland. Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck Confirmed Thicket, riverine scrub. Philantomba monticola Blue duiker Likely Afromontane forest. Raphiceros melanotis Grysbok Likely SP(SW & East Cape) Thick bush, hilly areas, fynbos. Potamochoerus porcus Bushpig Confirmed Dense bush, forest. Sylvicapra grimmia Common duiker Possible Bush, thicket, fynbos. APPENDIX 4: Mammals Probability of each species occurring on the study site. (See column 3). *Occurrence according to Smithers (1983), Stuart & Stuart (1996), Mills & Hess (1997) & Roberts (1951), Taylor (2000) and Friedman & Daly (2004). Confirmed: Species presence actually confirmed by means of sighting, spoor, droppings. Likely : Species presence recorded in similar habitats in neighbouring areas and within known distribution. Possible : Species presence possible on site due to overlap of habitat requirements and nearby known distribution. Unlikely : Species not likely to occur on the study area due to habitat constraints.