HERMANUS BYPASS: TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A BARRIE LOW FINAL REPORT

AUGUST 2016

coastal and environmental consultants P O Box 370 Rondebosch 7701 Tel/Fax: 021-685 5445 Cell: 082 579 7040 email: [email protected] VAT reg no: 4580173914

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An assessment of the terrestrial ecology of the proposed Hermanus Bypass road is presented.

The study found the local flora of the area to be quite distinctive, although the vegetation is well-represented elsewhere.

Regarding fauna, general lack of seasonally wet fynbos habitat along the route indicates that amphibians are not likely impacted to a significant degree along the route. The Golf Course wetland is the only habitat of concern for this group, but is regarded as of low to medium importance.

The Overberg Sandstone Fynbos (OSF) vegetation of the area is ranked as Critically Endangered by virtue of the high number of Red List plant species present. Correspondingly, Hangklip Sand Fynbos (HSF) receives a ranking of Endangered. However, species rarity along the alignment (14 Red List species were identified) is relatively low and does not justify such a high ranking, with OSF mostly intact as a vegetation type. There is, however concern for HSF, owing to its high level of transformation. On the whole, site sensitivity was not of concern, although special habitats such as the Sand Fynbos and Golf Course wetland would require particular attention.

The impact assessment indicated that potential impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated, with road realignment the main mitigation measure. These realignments would have the greatest significance for the special habitats (HSF and the Golf Course wetland).

Construction phase impacts:

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Impact 1: Loss of terrestrial habitat Both Alternatives Medium Definite MEDIUM –ve High With Mitigation Low Probable LOW –ve Medium Impact 2: Fragmentation of terrestrial habitat Northern Medium Definite MEDIUM –ve High Alternative With Mitigation: Low Probable LOW –ve Medium Southern Low Definite LOW –ve High Alternative With Mitigation: - - INSIGNIFICANT i

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Impact 3: Loss of Red List plant species or endemics Both Alternatives Medium Possible LOW –ve High With Mitigation Low Possible VERY LOW –ve Medium Impact 4: Loss of wetland habitat Both Alternatives High Definite HIGH –ve High With Mitigation Medium Probable MEDIUM –ve Medium Impact 5: Loss of fauna Both Alternatives Medium Possible LOW –ve High With Mitigation Low Possible VERY LOW –ve Medium

Operational phase impacts:

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Impact 1: Degradation of road-side vegetation Both Alternatives Medium Probable MEDIUM –ve High With Mitigation Low Probable LOW –ve Medium Impact 2: Loss and disturbance of fauna Both Alternatives Medium Probable MEDIUM –ve High With Mitigation Low Probable LOW –ve Medium

Recommendations

Measures should be taken to ensure that:

(i) The alignment is amended to remove direct impacts on good condition fynbos, in particular along the central / eastern section of the northern alignment, thereby reducing loss of habitat and fragmentation;

(ii) Impact on the Hangklip Sand Fynbos in the west of the alignment is minimised by realignment of the road;

(iii) The alignment of the section of the road through the Golf Course wetland is amended to minimise impact on the wetland;

(iv) The rehabilitation and monitoring guidelines are closely followed;

(v) By way of compensation for loss of fynbos in the FNR, rehabilitation of areas outside the alignment is strongly supported. This would include degraded areas along the

ii

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

interface between the proposed road and the FNR, as well as the stream which exits the Golf Course wetland and enters the sea to the south via an artificial channel.

Conclusions

Road construction should be allowed to proceed, provided the proposed mitigation measures - particularly through road realignment - are followed. The loss of fynbos habitat is acceptable, given the ratio of loss to the current size of the FNR. However, impacts on the wetland habitat should be minimised through realignment of the road, as well as through effective search & rescue operations. Net plant species loss from the alignment is unlikely; however important species should be the subject of a thorough search & rescue plan, with key species forming part of the rehabilitation plan.

iii

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I CONTENTS ...... IV 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 General description of site ...... 1 1.2 Project description (from Scoping Report, SRK, 2015) ...... 1 1.3 Alternatives ...... 2 1.4 Environmental triggers ...... 2 1.5 Terms of reference ...... 3 1.5.1 Objectives and Purpose of the ToR ...... 3 1.5.2 Impact Identification and Assessment ...... 5 1.5.3 Environmental Acceptability and Comparison of Alternatives ...... 6 1.5.4. Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment ToR ...... 6 2. APPROACH & METHODS ...... 8 2.1 Literature review ...... 8 2.2 Field assessment ...... 8 2.3 Mapping ...... 8 2.4 Sensitivity and rarity ...... 8 2.5 Conservation value ...... 9 2.6 Plant species ...... 9 2.6 Legislation ...... 9 2.7 Potential impacts and mitigation ...... 10 2.8 Monitoring ...... 10 3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 11 3.1 Background ...... 11 3.2 Mapping ...... 14 3.3 Vegetation of the study area ...... 14 3.4 Flora ...... 21 3.4.1 Species occurrence and endemism ...... 21 3.4.2 Subregional analysis ...... 22 3.4.3 Analysis along route ...... 22 3.4.4 Analysis of species from the Golf Course wetland ...... 25 3.4.5 Analysis of flora plots ...... 35 3.5 Sensitivity ...... 35 3.6 Rarity ...... 37 3.7 Conservation importance ...... 37 iv

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.8 Fauna ...... 41 3.8.1 Conservation status ...... 47 3.8.2 Taxonomic changes ...... 47 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION ...... 48 4.1 Construction phase ...... 48 4.1.1 Loss of terrestrial habitat (Table 8) ...... 48 4.1.2 Fragmentation of terrestrial habitat (Tables 10 and 11)...... 52 4.1.3 Loss of Red List plant species or endemics (Table 12) ...... 53 4.1.4 Loss of wetland habitat (Table 13) ...... 54 4.1.5 Loss of fauna (Table 14) ...... 56 4.1.6 Search & rescue ...... 61 4.2 Operational phase ...... 61 4.2.1 Degradation of road-side vegetation (Table 15) ...... 61 4.2.2 Loss and disturbance of fauna (Table 16) ...... 62 4. 3 Comparison of proposed alignments ...... 63 4.4 No-go option ...... 63 4.5 Cumulative Impact ...... 63 4.6 Compensation ...... 63 5. REHABILITATION & MONITORING GUIDELINES ...... 64 5.1 Personnel ...... 64 5.1.1 Appointment of environmental site officer ...... 64 5.1.2 Guidelines for contractors and construction personnel ...... 64 5.2 Bush-clearing and earthworks ...... 64 5.2.1 “No go” or restricted areas ...... 64 Fynbos ...... 64 Wetland ...... 64 Demarcation of “no go” areas ...... 65 Permission to enter “no go” areas ...... 65 5.2.2 Construction camp(s) and workshop ...... 65 Location ...... 65 5.2.3 Construction and related materials ...... 65 Fuel and oil ...... 65 Cement and concrete ...... 65 Construction materials ...... 65 5.2.4 Construction and related activities ...... 66 Waste ...... 66

v

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Dust ...... 66 Ablution facilities ...... 66 Fire-making ...... 66 Treatment of plant- and animal life ...... 67 5.2.5 Education and awareness programme ...... 67 5.3 Rehabilitation ...... 67 5.3.1 Topsoil ...... 67 5.3.2 Search & rescue ...... 67 Translocation/removal of plant material ...... 67 5.3.3 Propagation of desirable plants ...... 68 5.3.4 Mulching ...... 68 5.3.5 Rehabilitation plan ...... 69 5.4 Fencing ...... 71 5.5 Monitoring programme ...... 71 5.5.1 Guidelines ...... 71 5.5.2 Communication with ESO ...... 71 5.5.3 Penalties for non-compliance ...... 71 5.5.4 Activities of workers ...... 72 5.5.5 Relocation and/or growing on of Red List species ...... 72 5.5.6 Rehabilitation ...... 72 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 76 7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 76 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 76 9. REFERENCES ...... 77

vi

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

FIGURES Figure 1. Proposed road alignments Figure 2. Vegetation types of the general area Figure 3. Vegetation and landuse in the study area Figure 4. Cluster analysis of subregional floras Figure 5. Location of flora sampling sites Figure 6. Cluster analysis of plant species from Sections along the Bypass route Figure 7. Cluster analysis of subregional wetland and riverine floras Figure 8. MDS analysis of species from flora plots Figure 9. Overall sensitivity for the study area Figure 10. Overall rarity for the study area Figure 11. Critical biodiversity layer for the study area Figure 12. Vegetation and landuse at Section 1: proposed and amended alignments Figure 13. Vegetation and landuse along eastern section of northern alignment: proposed and amended alignments Figure 14. Proposed location of box culverts for fauna along the route Figure 15. Vegetation and landuse in Golf Course wetland: proposed and amended alignments Figure 16. Bypass alternatives and wetland habitats within Hermanus Golf Club.

PLATES Plate 1. Mixed Overberg Sandstone Fynbos on shallow soils along first Section of western alternative Plate 2. Leucadendron xanthoconus (bright green leaves) and Protea repens dominate the OSF in Section 1 in the west of the proposed route Plate 3. Key species encountered in the study: clockwise from top left: Protea compacta Bot River protea (a local endemic); Lobelia pinifolia wild lobelia; Leucospermum truncatulum patrysbos; Erica plukenetii hangertjie Plate 4. Plant species occurring along the western part of the proposed route. Clockwise, from top left: Leucadendron xanthoconus sickle-leaf conebush; Protea repens sugarbush; Serruria elongata long-stalked spiderhead (Near Threatened); Ficinia ecklonea, a common sedge in the fynbos understory (lower layer) Plate 5. Hangklip Sand Fynbos on deep sand at the start of the proposed route (in the west). This vegetation type is here characterised by the dominance of Metalasia densa blombos (white flowers) with the tall restio, Thamnochortus erectus dekriet, also prominent (top). The lower image, also of HSF, shows disturbed HSF in the vicinity of the start of the route, with dominance by Searsia lucida blinktaaibos, a likely indicator of sand mining (note heap in distance) and possible clearing of vegetation.

vii

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 6. Degraded sites on the proposed route. Borrow pits along Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed route show localised mining of iron-rich material, presumably for road base; lack of rehabilitation is clearly evident. The lower image shows the shrub, Passerina corymbosa sandgonnabas, on the footslopes of Hoy’s Koppie. Where dominant, this species tends to indicate disturbance, here possibly due to past vegetation clearing and activity from nearby roadworks. Plate 7. Golf Course wetland at the ovation where it would be bisected by the proposed route. The top image shows a relatively degraded system which is somewhat species poor. The lower image indicates localised dominance of the rush, Juncus kraussii steekbiesie, which tends to typify wetlands and seeps, usually with slightly brackish to brackish conditions. The stand of Typha capensis bulrush in the far distance indicates permanent wetting, possibly ponding, but with fresh water. Plate 8. Golf Course wetland at end of proposed route (Section 6). Pennisetum macrourum beddinggras (top) and Psoralea pinnata fonteintjiesbos indicate freshwater conditions, the former common along seeps and the upper wet banks of slow moving rivers and streams. Plate 9. Top: drainage channel off Golf Course wetland will need to be redesigned so as to maintain water levels in the wetland, linked with rehabilitation measures to the south where the water exits to the coast along a narrow conduit. Bottom: seepage along Flat Street to the south of the Golf Course wetland. Here soil and other wetland conditions are quite different from the former, supporting Berzelia lanuginosa knoppiesbos wetland vegetation Plate 10. Arum Lily Frog from Hermanus Golf Club Plate 11. Common Platanna from Hermanus Golf Club Plate 12. Cape River Frog from Hermanus Golf Club Plate 13. A pair of Clicking Stream Frogs from Hermanus Golf Club. Plate 14. Site 2 from Burger (2016), showing seasonally flooded wetland on Hermanus Golf Course Plate 15. Site 2 from Burger (2016), showing seasonally flooded wetland on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 12) Plate 16. Site 1 from Burger (2016, showing a small artificial pool on Hermanus Golf Course Plate 17. Rocky habitat for rupicolous reptiles in Fernkloof Nature Reserve

viii

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

TABLES Table 1. Comparison of species numbers from conservation areas in mountain fynbos Table 2. Vegetation and landuse in the study area Table 3. Dominant species occurring in flora plots Table 4. Occurrence of Red List species along the proposed alignment Table 5. Plant species endemic to the Fernkloof Nature Reserve and environs Table 6. Statistical comparison of species numbers between flora plots Table 7. Summary of fana species data Table 8. Amphibian species recorded from the Hermanus Golf ClubTable 9. Impact assessment and mitigation: loss of habitat: both alternatives Table 10. Impact assessment and mitigation: fragmentation - northern alternative Table 11. Impact assessment and mitigation: fragmentation - southern alternative Table 12. Impact assessment and mitigation: loss of Red List species - both alternatives Table 13. Impact assessment and mitigation: loss of aquatic habitat - both alternatives Table 14. Impact assessment and mitigation: loss of fauna – both alternatives Table 15. Impact assessment and mitigation: operational phase: degradation of roadside vegetation – both alternatives Table 16. Impact assessment and mitigation: operational phase: loss of fauna - both alternatives Table 17. Selected plants useful for rehabilitation

APPENDICES Appendix 1. Methodology for determining overall site sensitivity and rarity Appendix 2. Plant species lists along the proposed alignment Appendix 3. Explanation of ecosystem status for the Overstrand Municipality Appendix 4. Fauna report (James Harrison) Appendix 5. Herpetofauna report (Marius Burger) Appendix 6. Impact assessment methodology (SRK)

ix

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 General description of site

Hermanus is situated along a narrow stretch of the coast between the Kleinrivier Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean. It is the largest town in the Overstrand Municipal area and the business, cultural and administrative centre of the region.

The proposed Hermanus CBD bypass is located north of the Hermanus CBD. The western section of the bypass is located north of the existing urban area and Mountain Drive, which effectively forms the urban edge in this area, and in the southern portion of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve (FNR). This section is largely located on the southern edge of an area densely vegetated with mountain fynbos.

The eastern section of the bypass is located within the existing urban area immediately to the west of the Hermanus Golf Course. The proposed bypass largely follows and/or will be aligned parallel to existing roads.

The sandstone mountains and rocky coastline of the Overstrand municipal area provide habitat for near-pristine mountain fynbos and are considered of high importance for biodiversity conservation. Key local conservation areas include the Fernkloof (Municipal) and Vogelgat (Private) Nature Reserves. The proposed bypass is located in Overberg Sandstone Fynbos, with adjacent patches of Hangklip Sand Fynbos and Agulhas Limestone Fynbos. The FNR also provides pristine and varied habitat for many animal species.

The area north of Mountain Drive is deemed a Critical Biodiversity Area, together with Hoy’s Koppie, while the strip of fynbos between Mountain View Drive and Dolphin St as well as a wetland adjacent to the Hermanus Golf Course is designated an Ecological Support Area (ESA).

1.2 Project description (from Scoping Report, SRK, 2015)

The Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works proposes to construct the Hermanus CBD bypass to accommodate anticipated future traffic flows in and through the town. The proposed bypass is approximately 3 km long and:

 Starts in the vicinity of the intersection of Main Road, Mountain Drive and Mimosa Street in the west;

 Runs in a north-easterly direction along and to the north of Mountain Drive and the existing edge of the built environment; 1

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

 Passes either:

. To the north of the cemetery and the proposed new Hermanus Sports Complex before turning southwards along the eastern edge of the sports fields (northern alternative); or

. To the south of the cemetery and intersects with Lord Roberts Drive before continuing in a north-easterly direction along Jose Burman Drive between the Hermanus High School and the proposed new Hermanus Sport Complex (southern alternative);

 Continues southwards across the eastern portion of the Hermanus High School sports fields and along a section of Fairways Avenue between the residential suburb of Eastcliff and Hermanus Golf Course; and

 Joins Main Road at a new traffic circle approximately 110 m to the north-east of the existing intersection of Fairways Avenue with Main Road (R43).

The two alignments are shown in Figure 1.

The road will function as a regional route and consist of a single carriageway with one 3.7 m wide vehicle lane and a 1.8 m wide shoulder in each direction within a road reserve of approximately 25 m, with two-way traffic. A combined 3 m wide pedestrian walkway and cycle path is proposed on the southern side of the road.

1.3 Alternatives

(i) Northern alignment (as above)

(ii) Southern alignment (as above)

(iii) No Go alternative (the road will not be constructed).

1.4 Environmental triggers

SRK has determined that the proposed Hermanus CBD Bypass project triggers activities listed in terms of Listing Notices 1 – 3 (GN R544, GN R545 and GN R546) of the EIA Regulations, 2010. For the terrestrial ecological assessment this would entail the clearance of 1 ha or more of vegetation where 75% or more constitutes indigenous vegetation outside of urban areas in a protected area and within 10 km from national parks and in urban areas in areas zoned for use as public open space and areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 m from the edge of a watercourse, where no such setback line has been determined. 2

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Where the Hermanus CBD Bypass impacts on areas within the FNR, an application to exclude affected areas must be submitted to the Minister for Environmental Affairs of the Western Cape Province.

Amongst others, the terrestrial ecology of the area (botany and fauna) was identified as a key issue.

Coastec was appointed to undertake a Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment with the terms of reference as provided in Section 1.5.

1.5 Terms of reference 1.5.1 Objectives and Purpose of the ToR

The purposes of these ToR are to:

(i) To maintain consistency between the various specialist studies with regard to quality and value to the EIA, and the presentation and content of reports; and

(ii) To ensure that the studies are comprehensive and provide relevant information for the EIA.

The site should be understood in the context of the surrounding region, at a local, regional and, if necessary, national scale. This will largely be based on comparison with existing data sources, where available.

The specialist must provide an indication of the sensitivity of the affected environment. Sensitivity, in this instance, refers to the capacity of an environment to tolerate disturbance (taking the environment’s natural capacity to recover from disturbance as well as existing cumulative impacts into account). While the sensitivity of individual species/aspects is a valid and important part of the study, the specialist should not focus only on these aspects but on the habitat as well.

The specialist must provide a sufficiently comprehensive description of the existing environment in the study area to ensure that an adequate assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed study can be made. The baseline should include data collected through a thorough literature review as well as field surveys, if required. This data should not, however, simply comprise lengthy species inventories. The specialist must obtain an understanding of the overall system of which their specialist discipline is a part, in order to understand how changes to that system will affect their subject.

3

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

1.5.2 Impact Identification and Assessment

Clear statements identifying the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project must be presented. This includes potential impacts for the construction and operation phases of the project. The specialist shall clearly identify the suite of potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts. Direct impacts require a quantitative assessment which must follow the prescribed impact assessment methodology. Indirect and cumulative impacts should be described qualitatively.

An indirect impact is an effect that is related to but removed from a proposed action by an intermediate step or process. An example would be increased hunting and illegal logging in the concession area (following mining) as a result of improved access.

Cumulative impacts occur when:

 Different impacts of one activity or impacts of different activities on the natural and social environment take place so frequently in time or so densely in space that they cannot be assimilated; or

 Impacts of one activity combine with the impacts of the same or other activities in a synergistic manner.

The specialist shall assess environmental impacts and also indicate any fatal flaws, i.e. very significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and which will jeopardise the project and/or activities in a particular area (if appropriate). Note that all conclusions will need to be thoroughly backed up by scientific evidence.

Specialists must clearly state the impact to be assessed, followed by a brief description of the impact and must then present the assessment of the impact, using the prescribed impact rating system, in the format provided.

Specialists must recommend practicable mitigation and optimisation measures or management actions that effectively minimise or eliminate negative impacts, enhance beneficial impacts, and assist project design. The significance of impacts must be assessed both without and with assumed effective mitigation. If appropriate, specialists must differentiate between essential mitigation measures which must be implemented (i.e. implicit in the “assuming mitigation” rating) and best practice mitigation measures which are recommended to comply with best practice, but which do not affect the impact rating. Unsubstantiated recommendations for further studies should be avoided.

5

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Specialists are also required to recommend appropriate monitoring and review programmes to track the efficacy of mitigation measures (if appropriate). This should include where to monitor (locations), what (parameters/determinands), when (frequency and duration), how (methods) and who.

1.5.3 Environmental Acceptability and Comparison of Alternatives

The specialist is required to indicate the environmental acceptability of the site alternatives (if any). Thereafter, the specialist must also indicate the environmentally preferred alternative and provide a brief synopsis – in the form of bullet points – motivating the choice of preferred alternative. A comparison between the “no development” alternative and the proposed development alternatives must also be included.

1.5.4. Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment ToR

 Describe and map existing vegetation in the area potentially affected by the proposed project and the likely faunal species found in the area. The description of the affected environment must be both at a site-specific level (the alignment) and for the wider region, the latter to provide an appropriate context. The faunal study will only comprise a review of the literature with no field work and assessment being undertaken;

 Undertake a field assessment of the entire area that may be affected by the bypass, as well as the surrounding zone of influence to identify habitat types, conservation importance and ecological state. Provide an indication of the sensitivity of the affected environment where sensitivity, in this instance, refers to the ‘ability’ of an affected environment to tolerate disturbance (given existing cumulative impacts);

 Evaluate the rarity and conservation value of the alignment relative to the surrounding natural areas and current and potential conservation areas and targets for the vegetation type occurring on alignment;

 List any potentially threatened, endangered and endemic flora and fauna species in the area and indicate the importance of the identified species in a local, regional and national context;

 Map areas of higher and lower sensitivity along the route;

 Define applicable legislative requirements regarding any permit applications required;

 Identify potential impacts of the proposed project on terrestrial ecology;

 Assess the impacts of the proposed project on terrestrial ecology in the area using the prescribed impact assessment methodology;

6

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

 Identify and assess potential cumulative ecological impacts resulting from the proposed development in relation to other proposed and existing developments in the surrounding area;

 Recommend practicable mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimise/reduce impacts and enhance benefits. Assess the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures using the prescribed impact assessment methodology; and

 Recommend and draft a monitoring approach to ensure the correct implementation and adequacy of recommenced mitigation and management measures, if applicable.

The specialist should also refer to and, where appropriate, comply with, the DEA&DP Guidelines for Involving Biodiversity Specialists in EIA Processes (2006).

7

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

2. APPROACH & METHODS 2.1 Literature review

Available literature on the ecology of the area was studied and a synopsis of findings included in this report. This included a review of terrestrial and wetland plant ecology as well as a separate review of the fauna in the area by James Harrison.

2.2 Field assessment

The plant life on and just above the route was sampled from 18 flora plots measuring 20 m x 10 m each and located at random along the alignment (see Figure 5 in Section 3.4.3 for the location of the plots). For the edge of FNR, triplicate plots were placed along three sections of the alignment, each representing slightly different habitats identified in the field. Paired duplicate plots were placed about 50 m upslope of those on the alignment.

Plots were sampled for all species present within each 200 m2 area. Plants were identified either in the field by members of the Hermanus Botanical Society, who assisted with the fieldwork, or later in the FNR Herbarium. Field data were incorporated into the SaSFlora database of Low & Roberts (1998 – 2016).

Based on the recommendations for the fauna desktop study (Harrison, 2016, see 2.1 above), an additional amphibian study was commissioned to examine more closely the claim that six rare amphibian species occurred in the area. The study, by Burger (2016), focused on the herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) of the area. The area was visited on 25 March 2016, with the specific aim of assessing the habitats and their associated herpetofaunal assemblages. Although sampling was undertaken during the dry season (sub-optimal for amphibians), (a) use was made of earlier information collected previously during optimal conditions by Burger (unpub.), and (b) typical amphibian habitats were able to be identified.

2.3 Mapping

Mapping of recent (2014) aerial photographs was undertaken in ArcMap 10.1. Mountain fynbos was mapped into three units: rocky, shallow sand and deep sand, with the Golf Course wetland and coastal vegetation also included. Developed and degraded/ mined areas were also included. Sensitivity and rarity were built into the attribute table for assessing land use and vegetation.

2.4 Sensitivity and rarity

Overall sensitivity and rarity were calculated for the natural vegetation in the study area based upon the method of Low (2011). This approach uses four weighted categories for

8

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

both sensitivity (susceptibility to erosion, droughting and fire; resilience) and rarity (vegetation type, habitat, Red List species – weighted and unweighted). This approach avoids the over- emphasis of species and vegetation type (a general rule of thumb in some assessments is that vegetation types with low rarity and few Red List species are not important). The latter approach discounts issues such as localised species turnover and habitat factors which might be rare in themselves.

The methodology is shown in Appendix 1.

2.5 Conservation value

Conservation value was determined by assessing the Critical Biodiversity and Ecosystem Status Layers for the area (National Environmental Management, 2011; SANBI, 2005; 2015) and relating this to the rarity findings of the study.

2.6 Plant species

Plant species lists from individual flora plots were input into the SaSFlora database (Low & Roberts, 1998 – 2016). SaSFlora generated lists of species occurring in all plots, as well as a composite for the route.

Subregional analysis of major species lists from relatively large areas (FNR, Kogelberg, Cape Peninsula, etc.) were analysed for similarity using the method of Clarke & Warwick, 1994. These lists are all contained within the SaSFlora database. Site and species table matrices were generated using an export function of SaSFlora and then analysed for similarity.

At the local level, flora plots were analysed in much the same way and this was used to establish whether there was (i) any variation in flora (and therefore habitat) along the alignment and (ii) whether there were any differences between the lower and upper sampling plots.

Finally flora plot species numbers for Sections 1, 2 and 3 were compared to determine whether species numbers were higher further into the nature reserve.

2.6 Legislation

Appropriate environmental legislation was reviewed and incorporated into the impact assessment and monitoring sections.

9

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

2.7 Potential impacts and mitigation

Potential impacts – both direct and cumulative - on the terrestrial ecology of the area were evaluated on the basis of likely approaches in road construction.

Where possible, mitigation was recommended for impacts.

2.8 Monitoring

A programme was recommended for monitoring impacts and establishing the efficacy of mitigation.

10

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Background

The richness and uniqueness of the flora of the Kleinrivier Mountains and environs has been discussed in Mucina & Rutherford (2006) and other publications, although very little specific detail is available. Important species include: Leucospermum conocarpodendron subsp. viridum, Protea compacta, Phaenocoma prolifera, Aulax umbellata, Erica plukenetii subsp. plukenetii, Leucadendron xanthoconus, Berzelia lanuginosa, Brunia noduliflora, Erica sessiliflora, Leucadendron laureolum, Leucospermum truncatulum, Mimetes cucullatus, Protea longifolia, Retzia capensis, Serruria heterophylla, S.rubricaulis, Edmondia sesamoides, Lanaria lanata, Mastersiella digitata and Tetraria bromoides. Over 100 taxa are endemic to the subregion (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006). The area is dominated by dense restioid stands, and ericoid-leaved and proteoid shrublands. The climate is moderate Mediterranean, with modest rainfall of mean 585 mm per annum falling mainly in winter.

The main vegetation type in the area is Overberg Sandstone Fynbos (OSF) (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006), which stretches some 70 km x 85 km (approximately 1169 km2) from Bot River and Hawston in the in the west to the Soetanysberg and Bredasdorp in the east, and including the Kleinrivier and Bredasdorp Mountains and the Caledon Swartberg.

The vegetation types of the general region are shown in Figure 2.

OSF is Critically Threatened (SANBI, 2015), although only 6% is found in formal conservation areas such as the Agulhas National Park, FNR, Vogelgat Nature Reserve and the Caledon Nature Reserve (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

FNR covers 1 800 ha in the Kleinrivier Mountains above Hermanus and ranges in altitude from sea level to 842 m. It protects both coastal and montane fynbos, as well as a small patch of Afromontane Forest. The coastal and montane sections of the Reserve have now been linked east of the Golf Course (outside of the project area, Figure 2), providing a corridor between the sea and higher relief in the north.

FNR’s species list sits at nearly 1 500, one of the highest concentrations of indigenous species in the Cape fynbos (see Table 1 for comparisons).

11

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

12

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 1. Comparison of species numbers for selected conservation areas in mountain fynbos (from Low & Roberts, 1998 – 2016) Species Species/ Locality Area (ha) number area

Overberg

Fernkloof Nature Reserve 1 474 1 800 0.82

Vogelgat Nature Reserve 606 670 0.90 Kogelberg

Kogelberg Nature Reserve 1 626 19 408 0.08

Hottentots Holland Mountains

Swartboschkloof (Jonkershoek) 633 373 1.70

Cape Peninsula

Kirstenbosch Estate 839 492 1.71

Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve (southern 1 037 7750 0.13 part of Peninsula National Park)

Table Mountain National Park (incl. above) 1 561 15 167 0.10

Cederberg

Cederberg Wilderness 1 684 65 630 0.03

Grey rhebok, Cape grysbok, klipspringer, baboon, mongoose and dassie are present in small numbers. Others such as porcupine, genet and hare are nocturnal, and these mammals are seldom seen. Although not as rich in bird-life as other areas in South Africa, 92 bird species have been recorded. Species most likely to be seen include the Cape Sugar Bird, Sunbirds, Rock Thrush and Rock Jumper. Raptors include the Jackal Buzzard and Black Eagle. Limited areas of forest alongside streams support numbers of seed and insect-eating species such as Rameron Pigeon, Canaries, Flycatchers and White-eyes.

13

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.2 Mapping

A landuse and vegetation map covering the larger study area is shown in Figure 3. An area measuring 352.66 ha was chosen as a rectangular polygon covering the proposed alignments. Table 2 shows the extent of the different landuses and broad plant communities within larger study area.

Certain of the plant communities occurring in this larger study area are likely to have similarities with those described by Boucher (1978) for the Kogelberg. Key species include: Tetraria bromoides bergpalmiet, Protea longifolia long-leaf sugarbush, Cliffortia atrata, Leucadendron salignum sunshine bush (only occasional at the Hermanus site), Protea repens sugar bush and Erica plukenetii hangertjie, as well as the bulb Lanaria lanata kapokblom. On the more xeric slopes, Leucadendron xanthoconus sickle-leaf conebush becomes more prominent, as do Erica imbricata kêr-kêr, Phaenocoma prolifera rooisewejaartjie and various restios (Boucher, 1978).

3.3 Vegetation of the study area

The vegetation of the larger study area (Figure 3) is largely mixed mesic fynbos, with a lower stratum of restioids (including Mastersiella digitata), herbs (such as Lobelia pinifolia wild lobelia), geophytes (bulbs) (including Lanaria lanata kapokblom) and small ericoid-leaved shrubs (including Erica imbricata kêr-kêr, E.serrata and E.plukenetii hangertjie). Emergents into a second stratum are dominated by a proteoid layer of Aulax umbellata sekelbos, the tallest shrub to 2 m+, Protea repens sugar bush, Leucadendron xanthoconus sickle-leaf conebush and Leucospermum truncatulum patrysbos, whilst the non-proteoid shrubs Adenandra uniflora China flower, Colpoon compressum Cape sumach, Metalasia densa blombos, Osteospermum moniliferum bietou and Struthiola ciliata roemenaggie are also prominent. Species dominants (recorded in 10 or more of the flora plots) are shown in Table 3.

Examples of the vegetation, flora, landuse and disturbance in the study area are shown in Plates 1 to 9 below.

14

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

15

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 2. Vegetation and landuse in the larger study area shown in Figure 3 (derived from ArcMap) Category Area (ha)

Vegetation

Mountain fynbos – rocky 42.72

Mountain fynbos – shallow sand 85.01

Mountain fynbos/ sand fynbos – deep sand 2.93

Golf Course wetland 7.76

Coastal 5.26

Developed/ degraded

Golf Course 21.53

Borrow pit or degraded parts 17.66

Developed 169.79

Total area 352.66

The study area refers to the clipped portion of the map shown in Figure 3.

16

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 1. Mixed Overberg Sandstone Fynbos on shallow soils along first Section of the western alternative

Plate 2. Leucadendron xanthoconus (bright green leaves) and Protea repens dominate the OSF in Section 1 in the west of the proposed route 17

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 3. Key species encountered in the study: clockwise from top left: Protea compacta Bot River protea (a local endemic); Lobelia pinifolia wild lobelia; Leucospermum truncatulum patrysbos; Erica plukenetii hangertjie

18

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 4. Plant species occurring along the western part of the proposed route. Clockwise, from top left: Leucadendron xanthoconus sickle-leaf conebush; Protea repens sugarbush; Serruria elongata long-stalked spiderhead (Near Threatened); Ficinia ecklonea, a common sedge in the fynbos understory (lower layer)

19

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 3. Dominant plant species occurring in 10 or more of the 18 flora plots along the proposed Hermanus Bypass route No. Family Species Common name occurrences

ASTERACEAE Metalasia densa blombos 15

ASTERACEAE Osteospermum bietou 12 moniliferum

BRUNIACEAE Berzelia lanuginosa vleiknopbos 10

ERICACEAE Erica imbricata kêr-kêr 18

ERICACEAE Erica plukenetii hangertjie 18 subsp. plukenetii

ERICACEAE Erica serrata 10

LANARIACEAE Lanaria lanata kapokblom 11

LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pinifolia wild lobelia 15

PROTEACEAE Aulax umbellata sekelbos 14

PROTEACEAE Leucadendron sickle-leaf conebush 13 xanthoconus

PROTEACEAE Protea repens sugar bush 17

RESTIONACEAE Mastersiella digitata 10

RUTACEAE Adenandra uniflora China flower 13

SANTALACEAE Colpoon Cape sumach 10 compressum

THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola ciliata roemenaggie 13

The only detailed account of mountain fynbos vegetation in the general region is that of Boucher (1978) for the Kogelberg. He describes fynbos communities on southern aspects as Inland Mountain Fynbos, possibly the Mixed Lower Slope Fynbos, which includes several of the dominant species recorded in the present study. Another Kogelberg community is found on yellow plinthic soils and termed Protea-Tetraria Dry Short Fynbos.

The latter soils represent an accumulation of iron and manganese oxides under a fluctuating water table to give distinct reddish brown and yellowish brown colouring, with black mottles (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991). It would appear that the soils of the borrow pits along the southern edge of the study area (see Plate 6) were mined for iron-rich material, 20

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

suggesting the presence of plinthic substrates. However, the plinthite appears to be localised, with much of the soil throughout the lower parts of the larger study area being of the Mispah Form (skeletal soil over bedrock) grading to deeper sands in the south-west. Here leached soils of the Fernwood or Constantia Forms are likely to be present, and these might well underlie a form of Hangklip Sand Fynbos (see below).

The influence of soil depth on fynbos vegetation is shown in Plate 5, where a community on deep sand (HSF) is found, contrasting with the shallow soil communities shown in Plates 1 and 2.

From Figure 3 it is clear that parts of the route just within the FNR boundary are degraded, with impacts from borrow pits and other activities evident (Plate 6).

3.4 Flora 3.4.1 Species occurrence and endemism

Plant species lists for the six areas along the proposed route are shown in Appendix 2. Sections 1 to 3 are composites of the six flora plots sampled in each of these locations, together with incidental observation within the general area; plant communities in Section 4 (strip of fynbos between Mountain Drive and Dolphin Street), Section 5 (Hoy’s Koppie) and Section 6 (the Golf Course wetland) were sampled separately (there were no plots in these last three Sections).

Section 1 (the western extreme of the proposed alignment) has the highest number of species recorded in the six associated sampling plots (124), with 11 species on the Red List (RL) (see Appendix 2 and Table 4). All recorded species are either NT (Near Threatened) or VU (Vulnerable).

Section 2 has 87 species recorded in the six associated sampling plots, with eight species on the Red List (Appendix 2 and Table 4). A similar number of species (94) was found in the six sampling plots associated with Section 3, with 10 RL taxa.

Species numbers in Sections 4 and 5 decline to 29 (1 RL) and 40 (1 RL) respectively (Appendix 2 and Table 4).

Of the Red List species found on the alignment, only one (Serruria heterophylla spindly spiderhead) is Endangered. The rest are mostly NT or VU (Table 4).

According to Mucina & Rutherford (2006), only three of the species encountered on the alignment are endemic to the area. These are Aspalathus excelsa, Erica longiaristata and 21

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

E.tenella. E.longiaristata has now been sunk into the widely occurring E.pulchella. But the FNR website lays claim to 23 endemic species – 20 more than in Table 4 and three of which are confined to FNR (Table 5). None of the species recorded in the current study appears on the list of endemics in Table 5.

3.4.2 Subregional analysis

Using cluster analysis, comparisons were made with sandstone floras from the Cape Peninsula, the Hottentots Holland Mountains, the Kogelberg Nature Reserve, the Steenbras Mountains (Gordons Bay), and Fernkloof and Vogelgat Nature Reserves (Figure 4). The distinctiveness of the local floras is clear, with a local cluster apparent for the Kleinrivier Mountains, confirming the uniqueness of this local flora. This evidence for localised speciation in the Cape (Ellis et al, 2014) further corroborates the unique floras found along these coastal mountain chains, emphasising their need for strong conservation measures to protect plant species diversity and endemism in this region.

3.4.3 Analysis along route

The location of sampling Sections is shown in Figure 5. Sections 1 to 3 of the proposed bypass (along the FNR boundary, and each comprising six sampling plots) clearly have a flora different from that of the fynbos islands at Sections 4 and 5 to the south (Mountain Drive / Dolphin St and Hoy’s Koppie) (Figure 6), suggesting there is local variation in habitat and therefore species composition. Certainly, the habitat of the alignment portion that runs along the FNR boundary is largely shallow sands over sandstone bedrock (Figure 3), with deeper sands in the extreme west, whereas Sections 4 and 5 of the alignment are far more rocky, and this will impact dramatically on species presence and absence.

The rapid turnover in species composition across small areas is a phenomenon of mountain fynbos (Cowling et al., 1992). Locally, this is reflected at Bantamsklip, some 40 km to the south-east, where there is much variation within fynbos on different soil types, particularly where soil depth is concerned (Low, 2011).

22

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 5. Top: Hangklip Sand Fynbos on deep sand at the start of the proposed route (in the west). This vegetation type is here characterised by the dominance of Metalasia densa blombos (white flowers) with the tall restio, Thamnochortus erectus dekriet, also prominent (top). The lower image, also of HSF, shows disturbed HSF in the vicinity of the start of the route, with dominance by Searsia lucida blinktaaibos, a likely indicator of sand mining (note heap in distance) and possible clearing of vegetation. 23

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 6. Top: degraded sites on the proposed route. Borrow pits along Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed route show localised mining of iron-rich material, presumably for road base; lack of rehabilitation is clearly evident. The lower image shows the shrub, Passerina corymbosa sandgonnabas, on the footslopes of Hoy’s Koppie. Where dominant, this species tends to indicate disturbance, here possibly due to past vegetation clearing and activity from nearby roadworks. 24

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.4.4 Analysis of species from the Golf Course wetland

For Section 6, the Golf Course wetland, none of the species is of any concern with respect to rarity or endemism. All observed species are fairly widespread and indicate a seep habitat in fresh to slightly brackish water. The cluster analysis of selected subregional floras between Hermanus and Bantamsklip (Pearly Beach) (Figure 7) suggests a distinctive species complement at <20% similarity; this imparts on the wetland a high degree of localised habitat rarity.

The wetland habitat is characterised by both freshwater (Juncus capensis Cape rush, Pennisetum macrourum beddinggras, Psoralea pinnata fonteintjiesbos, and Senecio rigidus rough ragwort) and slightly brackish (Juncus kraussii steekbiesie, Plecostachys serpyllifolia vaaltee, and Senecio halimifolius tabakbos) conditions1. Certainly the floristic complement is quite different from the damp fynbos and wetland at Flat Street, just to the south of Section 6, where freshwater is found over an acidic sandstone substrate (Low, unpub.) (Figure 7).

Images of the flora and vegetation of the Golf Course wetland are shown in Plates 7, 8 & 9b. By way of comparison, views of the Flat Street wetland to the south of the Golf Course are also included (Plate 9a). The latter community is quite distinct from that of the Golf Course with Berzelia lanuginosa knoppiesbos dominating an acidic seep (Low, unpub.).

1 Species habitats drawn from records in the SaSFlora database (Low & Roberts, 2016) 25

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

26

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

27

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

28

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 7. Golf Course wetland above the Section where it would be bisected by the proposed route. The top image shows a relatively degraded system which is somewhat species poor. The lower image indicates localised dominance of the rush, Juncus kraussii steekbiesie, which tends to typify wetlands and seeps, usually with slightly brackish to brackish conditions. The stand of Typha capensis bulrush in the far distance indicates permanent wetting, possibly ponding, but with fresh water. 29

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 8. Golf Course wetland at end of proposed route (Section 6). Pennisetum macrourum beddinggras (top) and Psoralea pinnata fonteintjiesbos (below) indicate freshwater conditions, the former common along seeps and the upper wet banks of slow moving rivers and streams. 30

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 9. Top: drainage channel off Golf Course wetland will need to be redesigned so as to maintain water levels in the wetland, linked with rehabilitation measures to the south where the water exits to the coast along a narrow conduit. Bottom: seepage along Flat Street to the south of the Golf Course wetland. Here soil and other wetland conditions are quite different from the former, supporting Berzelia lanuginosa knoppiesbos wetland vegetation.

31

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

32

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 4. Hermanus Bypass: occurrence of Red List plant species along the proposed alignment (from Raimondo et al., 2009, with regular updates) Family Species Common name Status Section

AMARYLLIDACEAE Cyrtanthus carneus fire lily VU 1 CAMPANULACEAE Merciera leptoloba NT 5 FABACEAE Aspalathus excelsa VU 4 FABACEAE Podalyria sericea NT 1, 3 HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia peersii bekkies NT 1 IRIDACEAE Ixia dubia oranjekalossie Decl. 2, 3 PROTEACEAE Aulax umbellata sekelbos NT 1, 2, 3 Leucospermum PROTEACEAE conocarpodendron subsp. kreupelhout NT 2, 3 viridum yellow trailing PROTEACEAE Leucospermum prostratum VU 2 pincushion PROTEACEAE Leucospermum truncatulum patrysbos NT 1, 2, 3 PROTEACEAE Protea compacta Bot River protea NT 1, 2, 3 long-leaf PROTEACEAE Protea longifolia VU 1, 2, 3 sugarbush long-stalked PROTEACEAE Serruria elongata NT 1, 3 spiderhead spindly PROTEACEAE Serruria heterophylla EN 3 spiderhead red-stem PROTEACEAE Serruria rubricaulis NT 1, 3 spiderhead lax-stalked PROTEACEAE Spatalla racemosa NT 1 spoon SANTALACEAE Colpoon speciosum Cape sumach VU 1, 2

33

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 5. Plants endemic to Fernkloof Nature Reserve and environs (species in bold and italics are found only in FNR) (information from FNR website) Family Species Common name Status

ASTERACEAE Thaminophyllum latifolium Rare

DROSERACEAE Drosera slackii

ERICACEAE Erica aristata var. aristata tygerhoekheide

ERICACEAE Erica ecklonii EN

ERICACEAE Erica galpinii EN

ERICACEAE Erica globiceps subsp. consors

ERICACEAE Erica hermani CR

ERICACEAE Erica inoniana

ERICACEAE Erica viscaria subsp. VU pustulata

ERICACEAE Erica williamsiorum VU

FABACEAE Aspalathus excelsa VU

FABACEAE Indigofera superba Rare

FABACEAE Otholobium dreweae VU

ICACINACEAE Apodytes geldenhuysii Rare

IRIDACEAE Gladiolus carmineus cliff gladiolus VU

IRIDACEAE Moraea deltoidea

IRIDACEAE Moraea vallisavium Rare

MALVACEAE Hermannia sp. nov. FNR

PENAEACEAE Brachysiphon rupestris Rare

PENAEACEAE Sonderothamnus Rare speciosus

PROTEACEAE Mimetes palustris geelstompie CR

RESTIONACEAE Elegia decipiens

RESTIONACEAE Resto festuciformis groengrasriet

34

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.4.5 Analysis of flora plots

Analysis of the flora plots had two objectives: (i) to determine if there was a gradient in species occurrence along the approximately 2 km section of the alignment which might fall within the FNR, and (ii) to establish whether there was a significant difference between species numbers at the lower and upper levels of sampling.

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis of plots (Clarke & Warwick, 1994) (Figure 8) indicates that there is no gradual change in species occurrences along the northern alignment, but that distinct habitats are present along the route.

A t-test for significant difference between plots along the alignment and 50 m into the Reserve was inconclusive (Table 6). There was no significant difference between the plot means on and above the alignment for Sections 1, 2 and 3. Along with the cluster analysis (Figure 6), this suggests variation across the landscape is inconsistent, echoing a typical mixed fynbos habitat likely to be present in mountainous terrain with subtle, yet irregular, changes in soils (sensu Boucher, 1978; and also see Cowling et al., 1992).

Table 6. Statistical comparison (“t-test”) of flora plots along proposed route. None of these is significantly different (i.e. p = <0.01) Section T value

Section 1: A1 vs A2 t = 0.53; two-tailed probability = 0.62

Section 2: B1 vs B2 t = 0.71; two tailed probability = 0.51

Section 3: C1 vs C2 t = 0.05; two-tailed probability = 0.96

3.5 Sensitivity

Overall sensitivity is shown in Figure 9. The area has a Moderate sensitivity, driven mainly by a high proneness to fire, a factor typical of fynbos (Le Maitre & Midgley, 1992). Correspondingly, this vegetation type shows a fairly strong resilience in the face of erosion and droughting.

The Golf Course wetland displays the highest sensitivity in the area, due mainly to its high susceptibility to both fire and droughting.

35

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Fernkloof

36

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.6 Rarity

Figure 10 shows the overall rarity rating for the area. Although the revised rarity rating for OSF is Critically Endangered (it was rated as Least Threatened by Rouget et al., 2004), based upon the presence of >80 RL species throughout its extent (SANBI, 2015), comparatively few RL species (14) were encountered along and above the proposed alignment. The rating process is seen as problematic in that the vegetation type is treated as uniform throughout its extent2. The high rating of OSF for local areas is therefore not supported, particularly given its relatively low habitat differentiation and low species rarity along the proposed alignment3. Based on the model used for this study (from Low, 2011), the vegetation type rating for OSF is considered Low, despite some 14 Red List species having been found in the general area (Table 4).

3.7 Conservation importance The critical biodiversity layer for the area is shown in Figure 11, with explanations defining the layer provided in Appendix 3. The mountain fynbos vegetation is all indicated as a Critical Biodiversity Area (SANBI/ BGIS website - 2010 mapping), which is presumably based upon the rating of Critically Endangered for OSF. The analysis of rarity above represents an approach which provides greater objectivity about this factor, suggesting that the conservation importance of the site is not as high as is listed. One would need in-depth assessment of localised flora lists throughout the FNR to establish species turnovers and where indeed local patterns of distinctiveness can be found (a high degree of distinctiveness relates to high rarity and therefore increased conservation importance). In the absence of such an assessment, the existing data satisfactorily corroborate the findings of this study that the conservation importance of the vegetation on the alignment is not as high as gazetted.

2 E.g., the adjacent Overberg Dune Strandveld receives a rarity rating of Least Threatened, as it is poor in RL species and still remains relatively intact. And yet it includes six headland bypass dune systems which are unique in their own right but not considered worthy of elevating the rarity status of this vegetation type. 3 Rating of vegetation types based on species rarity is based on the following protocol: >80 = Critically Endangered; >60 = Endangered; >20 = Vulnerable. The vegetaion along the alignment has 14 RL species, which is below the Vulnebale rating. 37

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

38

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

39

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

40

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.8 Fauna

A good overview of the faunal species likely to occur in the region is derived from a desktop assessment by Harrison (2015) (Appendix 4), augmented by the findings of Burger (2016) (see Appendix 5).co

Numbers of species which could possibly occur in the area are provided in Table 7, together with those which are endemic or near-endemic, or which have Threatened or Near Threatened status.

Table 7. Summary of fauna species data from Harrison (2015, Appendix 4): endemism Number of Number of Number of possible possible Number of species Western Threatened Group species probable Cape and Near possible (RR>5% for endemics & Threatened birds) near- species endemics

Amphibians 22 9 15 6

Reptiles 43 35 2 3

Birds 222 137 6 14

Mammals 68 47 8 9

Total 355 228 31 32

RR = reporting rate

Harrison (2015) noted the following for the four Groups of fauna assessed: “There are no major issues relating to mammals, birds and reptiles. The general mitigations recommended (below) will be sufficient to address the needs of these groups. This also applies to relevant Red Listed species assuming that there are no caves or major rocky outcrops that may house significant roosts of bats. This latter point needs to be confirmed”.

Amphibians, on the other hand, might present some important constraints. This is because there are six Red Listed species that might occur in the affected area4 (Table 1, Appendix 4). These are the Western Leopard Toad (EN), Rose’s Mountain Toad (VU), Cape Platanna (EN), Micro Frog (CR), Montane Marsh Frog (NT) and Drewes’ Moss Frog (NT). In addition,

4 Although a possibly larger number of Red Listed species of birds and mammals was identified, these are fairly mobile and have broader habitats, while amphibian habitats are more restricted. 41

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

there are 15 species which are endemic or near endemic to the Western Cape. Although most of these species are only of possible and not probable occurrence, the concern lies in the fact that, should they occur, they probably also breed on site. Breeding sites of threatened species of frog must be viewed as highly sensitive and of high conservation importance. This especially includes seasonal wetlands which may dry out completely in summer and may be very small in extent and depth. Drewes’ Moss Frog, a local endemic with an extremely restricted distribution range, and the Montane Marsh Frog occur and breed in seeps, without the need for actual wetlands in the usual sense of the term. Rose’s Mountain Toad breeds in relatively tiny rock pools in rocky areas”.

Burger (2016) recorded nine amphibian species from the Hermanus Golf Course Club (Table 8), and several of these are shown in the Plates 10 to 13. He notes that no threatened amphibian species are likely to be associated with the proposed alignment. Impact on the presence of the Cape Dwarf Chameleon is unlikely to be of concern. The Golf Course wetland, whilst likely to be important as a wetland per se, is unlikely to be an important habitat for amphibians.

A selection of potential amphibian wetland and reptile dryland habitats is shown in Plates 14 to 17, with a map of the aquatic areas appearing in Figure 16.

Table 8. Amphibian species recorded from the Hermanus Golf Club (from Burger, 2016)

Species Common name

Hyperolius horstockii Arum Lily Frog

Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog

Xenopus laevis Common Platanna

Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog

Athroleptella villiersii De Villier’s Moss Frog

Cacosternum australis Southern Caco

Strongylopus bonaspei Banded Stream Frog

Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog

Tomoptera delalandii Cape Sand Frog

42

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 10. Arum Lily Frog from Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013)

Plate 11. Common Platanna from Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013).

43

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 12. Cape River Frog from Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013)

Plate 13. A pair of Clicking Stream Frogs from Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013).

44

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 14. Site 2 from Burger (2016), showing seasonally flooded wetland on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 16)

Plate 15. Site 2 from Burger (2016), showing seasonally flooded wetland on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 16)

45

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plate 16. Site 1 from Burger (2016, showing a small artificial pool on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 16)

Plate 17. Rocky habitat for rupicolous (rock-dwelling) reptiles in Fernkloof Nature Reserve

46

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

3.8.1 Conservation status

The faunal report of (Harrison 2016) concluded that there were no major issues relating to mammals, birds and reptiles, but that amphibians may present some important constraints. Burger’s (2016) assessment of the area had the following findings: ten confirmed / probable frog species are listed as being of Least Concern (Appendix 5), whereas the Southern Caco is currently Not Evaluated. Its pending conservation status is likely to also be of Least Concern. As for the six threatened amphibians that occur in the general region, it is predicted (with a high degree of certainty) that none of these is in fact present in the vicinity of the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass. The specific tentative concerns raised by Harrison (2016) in respect of threatened amphibians are thus invalid. These species frequent specific habitat types which are not present within the proposed development zone.

However, there are two Red Listed reptile species, the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Vulnerable) and Cape Grass Lizard (Near Threatened), which are found in mountain fynbos. Both species may be negatively affected by the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass (during construction and operational phases), but this impact is likely to be of low significance even at a local scale.

3.8.2 Taxonomic changes

Herewith a summary of herpetological taxonomic changes that were not reflected in the Harrison (2016) faunal report:

Two species of Cacosternum (i.e. C. boettgeri and C. platys) were listed as possible / probable occurrence (Harrison 2016), but only one actually occurs here. The taxonomy of this group was recently revised (Channing et al. 2013), and the appropriate name for the taxon in this region is likely to be Cacosternum australis.

The genus Amietophrynus underwent a recent taxonomic adjustment (see Ohler & Dubois, 2016), affecting two of the species listed by Harrison (2016). The corrected names are Sclerophus pantherina (not Amietophrynus pantherinus) and S. capensis (not A. rangeri).

Until recently, the genus Pelomedusa was considered to be monotypic with a single species (Pelomedusa subrufa) distributed throughout most of Africa. However, the latest revision (Petzold et al., 2014) revealed a substantial cryptic diversity. Currently the genus comprises ten species, with P. galeata (not P. subrufa) occurring in the Western Cape.

47

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION

A description of the impact assessment methodology as supplied by SRK is shown in Appendix 6.

4.1 Construction phase

4.1.1 Loss of terrestrial habitat (Table 8)

The road impact is identical for the northern and southern alternative in the section along Mountain Drive. Both alternatives would result in the loss of 5 340 m2 (0.5 ha) of deep sand HSF (Figure 12). The loss of this area is considered important, as 30% of this vegetation type has been lost to development (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006) and that its revised Threatened status is Endangered (SANBI, 2015).

The northern alternative affects a greater portion of shallow sand OSF5 (approximately 31 635 m2, or 3.2 ha) than the southern alternative, as it continues in the FNR above the Hermanus Sports Complex (rather than running within the urban area along Jose Burman Drive, as does the southern alternative). For the OSF, these losses are, however, not seen as significant, despite the Critically Endangered status of this vegetation type. The overall model (see Section 3.6) reduces the rarity of this vegetation to Low, mainly due to a low incidence of RL species along the alignment.

For the northern alternative, and with regard to the continued functioning of the vegetation in the area and the FNR, the impact of these terrestrial habitat losses is considered to be local, of medium intensity and extending over the long-term, with a Medium consequence. Mitigation, chiefly through realignment of the road, would reduce the significance from Medium to Low by minimising the impact on fynbos in two areas deemed sensitive:

- At the western end, where the original road alignment would result in the loss of 5 360 m2 (0.5 ha) of HSF (see red alignment in Figure 12), the realignment of the road closer to Mountain Drive would reduce the impact on HSF to 1 450 m2 (0.1 ha) (see yellow alignment in Figure 12) (areas calculated by EFG based on GIS data).

- At the central section, where the original northern road alignment results in the loss of good condition OSF (see red alignment in Figure 13), the realignment of the road closer to the

5 These calculations are based upon mapping conducted for this report and the layers for the alignment and width of the proposed road provided by EFG Engineers. 48

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Hermanus Sports Complex now entirely locates the road within the degraded vegetation north of the sports complex (see yellow alignment in Figure 13).

For the southern alternative, the loss of habitat chiefly in the HSF at the western end of the road is also considered to be of local extent, medium intensity and long-term duration, with a Medium consequence. Mitigation which minimises the impact on HSF as listed above will reduce the impact to Low significance.

Although both alternatives have the same overall impact rating, owing to the potential impact on the sensitive HSF, the southern alternative is marginally preferred as it affects less (albeit degraded) OSF vegetation.

Table 9. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: loss of terrestrial habitat – both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Definite MEDIUM – ve High 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures:  Realign the western-most section of the road to avoid HSF, as shown in Figure 12;  Realign the road to avoid good quality OSF in the central / eastern part of the route above the Hermanus Sports Complex to pass through degraded areas, as shown in Figure 13;  Avoid trampling and degradation of adjacent vegetation by ensuring the construction site is fenced off and there is strict control over the activities of the workers;  Ensure all construction activities are undertaken from the south (i.e. from existing roads, e.g. Mountain Drive).

With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Probable LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

49

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

50

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

51

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4.1.2 Fragmentation of terrestrial habitat (Tables 10 and 11)

Habitat fragmentation should be avoided as much as possible as it makes resulting remnants less viable and has negative implications for management. The northern alternative would result in some fragmentation of fynbos vegetation and the FNR (excising of natural habitat from the main body of natural vegetation) at three points along the road: o A small remnant of ~0.4 ha would be created in HSF at the western start of the alignment (see Point A in Figure 11 and red alignment in Figure 12); o A small remnant in degraded OSF would be created south of the substation (see point B Figure 11 and red alignment in Figure 13); and o A larger remnant would be created in degraded OSF north of the Hermanus Sports Complex (see point C in Figure 11 and red alignment in Figure 13).

The southern alternative only creates the remnant in HSF at the western end of the road, as the southern alternative is then located within the urban fabric south of the Hermanus Sports Complex.

For the northern alternative, the impact would be local, of medium intensity and long term, with medium consequence. Mitigation (realignment) would reduce the Significance from Medium to Low by minimising the size of remnants created: o At the western end (Point A in Figure 11), where the realignment of the road closer to Mountain Drive avoids any fragmentation (see yellow alignment in Figure 13); and o At the central section (Point C in Figure 11), where the realignment of the road closer to the Hermanus Sports Complex reduces the size of the remnant created (see yellow alignment in Figure 13).

For the southern alternative, the impact resulting from the HSF fragmentation would be local, of low intensity and long term, with low consequence. Mitigation (realignment) that avoids any fragmentation in the HSF effectively avoids the impact (renders it insignificant) for the southern alternative.

Table 10. Assessment of impact and mitigation: fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – northern alternative Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Definite MEDIUM – ve High 1 2 3 6 52

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Essential mitigation measures:  Realign the western-most section of the road to avoid creating a remnant, as implied in Figure 12.  Realign the road closer to the Hermanus Sports Complex to minimise the creation of remnants, as shown in Figure 13. With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Probable LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

Table 11. Assessment of impact and mitigation: fragmentation of terrestrial habitat – southern alternative Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Definite LOW – ve High 1 1 3 5 Essential mitigation measures:  Realign the western-most section of the road to avoid creating a remnant, as shown in Figure 12. With INSIGNIFICANT mitigation

4.1.3 Loss of Red List plant species or endemics (Table 12)

None of the Red List species recorded in Table 5 is a localised endemic (FNR), with most of these species having a fairly wide distribution within the region. Net loss of RL species along the route is therefore considered unlikely.

The impact of any loss of RL species is therefore rated as Local, of Medium Intensity and Long-term, with Medium Consequence. As the Probability of such loss is deemed Possible (i.e. not likely), the impact significance is rated as Low.

Mitigation (realignment as per above) coupled with search & rescue efforts, would reduce the impact significance from Low to Very Low.

Although both alternatives have the same overall impact rating, owing to the potential impact along Mountain Drive, the southern alternative is marginally preferred as it affects less (albeit degraded) OSF vegetation.

53

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 12. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: loss of Red List plant species – both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Possible LOW – ve High 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures:  Undertake a detailed search and rescue prior to construction, during the spring season, and collect key species for growing in a nursey and reintroduction to the area / use during rehabilitation

With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Possible VERY LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

4.1.4 Loss of wetland habitat (Table 13)

Both road alignment alternatives will equally impact on the southern-most portion of the Golf Course wetland at the eastern end of the proposed route. Impacts on the wetland ecosystem would be caused by loss of wetland habitat in the road footprint (and therefore local loss of species in the footprint) and likely impairment of wetland functioning in the immediate surrounding of the road alignment (thus compromising species survival in this particular section).

The construction of the road would result in the loss of some 0.3 ha of wetland habitat, and create a remnant piece of 0.1 ha. The impact on the wetland would be Locally Significant, given the relatively narrow shape of the wetland at this southern-most point and the fact that much of this system has already been developed by the Golf Course itself. Construction of the road would result in a further narrowing of the wetland at this point from ~120 m to ~60 m), with a possible compromise in (localised) functioning (Figure 14).

Width of wetland is important in maintaining the presence and overall health of the resident plant and animal species. Any narrowing of habitat thus reduces wetland functioning either through net loss of available area for wetland species and/or potentially producing a faster flow of water (effectively the same volume of water would now move through half the width if the road is constructed).

However, the road affects the southern-most portion of the wetland only and the road construction does not therefore result in significant fragmentation of the wetland or downstream impacts, and the impact is largely restricted to the directly affected area.

54

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

55

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

None of the plant species in the wetland is of major concern, although the species composition indicates a habitat quite different from the Flat Street wetland to the south (Figure 7).

The impact for both alternatives would be Local, of High Intensity and Long-term, with a High Consequence (Table 12). Mitigation in the form of realigning the road (yellow alignment in Figure 14) would reduce the loss of wetland habitat and the size of any remainder piece, and reduce the significance from High to Medium.

Table 13. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: loss of aquatic habitat – both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local High Long- High mitigation term Definite HIGH – ve High 1 3 3 7 Essential mitigation measures:  Realign road as shown in Figure 14 to avoid wetland habitat loss and fragmentation as much as possible;  Conduct a Search & rescue of key wetland plant and fauna species and relocate species to other parts of the wetland. With Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Probable MEDIUM – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

4.1.5 Loss of fauna (Table 14)

The fauna impact assessment is based on observations by Harrison (2015) and Burger (2016). Roads have a number of potential impacts on fauna. The relevance and severity of impacts are dependent on the characteristics and alignment of the road, the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and other variables of traffic flow, such as speed.

Habitat destruction: The road will involve habitat destruction, but the road has marginal to natural habitats, hence the quality and value of the affected habitats is not likely to be of high importance. Apart from the HSF, the habitat of most of the route is well represented in the slopes above the alignment, and road construction is therefore unlikely to result in a significant loss of habitat for faunal species, including amphibians of concern as identified in Harrison (2015). Amphibian habitat seems to be predominantly in seasonally wet sites; analysis of species composition indicates that none of these habitats was present along the route, with the only wet site being that of the Golf Course. Burger (2016) considers the affected portion of the Golf Course wetland of Low to Medium importance as a breeding habitat for several amphibian species of Least Concern. No threatened amphibians which could be affected by the proposed bypass were identified during the field assessment.

56

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

The northern alignment alternative has a slightly greater impact on natural habitats, as it runs in naturally vegetated areas above the Hermanus Sports Complex, although (with mitigation) it is predominantly aligned in disturbed areas.

Habitat fragmentation: Fragmentation is not likely to be significant given that the road is largely aligned along the boundary of existing development and natural habitats. The northern alternative would have a somewhat greater negative impact as it creates an additional remnant north of the Hermanus Sports Complex (in degraded habitat). There are several points at which fauna is likely move between habitats located on either side of the road (see Figure 15).

Noise, light and chemical pollution: These have the potential to negatively impact on fauna, but only light pollution can be mitigated relatively easily.

Road mortality: Direct mortality of animals being struck by vehicles is inevitable, but can be mitigated in a number of ways.

The impact of the road on fauna would be Local, of Medium Intensity, Long-term, and with Medium Consequence. However, it is deemed unlikely that such would occur, since the road is located on the edge of the natural habitat and creates few and small remnants in degraded areas. As such, the probability of the impact occurring is rated Possible and the impact significance is rated as Low. Mitigation would reduce the significance from Low to Very Low.

Although both alternatives have the same overall impact rating, the southern alternative is preferred because it affects less sensitive habitat and would lead to lower fragmentation; animals are therefore less likely to regularly cross between habitat patches on the southern alternative.

Burger (2016) adds that “from an ecological integrity perspective, the choice of preferred route alternative would be to swing southwards (Southern Alignment Alternative) through the urban setting, rather than running within the Fernkloof Nature Reserve boundary belt (Northern Alignment Alternative). This is purely because of weighing up the conservation value of transformed terrain versus relatively natural terrain. From a herpetofaunal perspective, these two alternatives are both of low to low / medium significance or concern. As such no specific insistence will be made in this regard.

However, the only section that poses a degree of concern are the wetland habitats along the south-western limits of the Hermanus Golf Club, especially in the furthest corner where the

57

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

58

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

road is projected to cut through a section of vegetated seepage area which becomes inundated during the wet season. This particular wetland is probably rated fairly high as being important from a wetland conservation perspective. But purely from an amphibian perspective, it is of low/medium importance. It currently serves as breeding habitat for a number of Least Concerned frog species. Ideally (as a mitigation measure), it would be preferable not to direct the bypass through this section. Nonetheless, if such a mitigation option should be wholly constrictive to the development, then from an amphibian perspective the degree of degradation of this small section of wetland would be considered acceptable at a national scale and even at a local (Hermanus) scale”.

Note that Burger (2016) is of the opinion that search & rescue of fauna species has limited value and should not be seen as a mitigation measure per se. However, every effort should be made to relocate affected species to safer locations such as the FNR.

Table 14. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: Loss of fauna – both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Possible LOW – ve High 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures:  Attempt to chase animals out of the construction footprint immediately prior to the commencement of construction activities;  Undertake a search and rescue operation to remove any fauna that are directly threatened by the construction activities and unlikely to move out by themselves (e.g. tortoises) to other areas of the FNR immediately prior to the commencement of construction activities;  Strictly prohibit the hunting, killing, collection or trapping of any fauna on site;  Do not allow any food to be left out in the open (to avoid attraction of / conflict with animals);  Install box culverts of at least 1.5 m wide and 1 m high at the points indicated in Figure 14 to facilitate animal movements across the road. Areas at both ends of the culvert must not be obstructed (e.g. by fences) and must have suitable natural habitat linking the culvert to the habitats on either side of the road. The central site adjacent to the small koppie should receive particular attention with regard to facilitation of faunal movements. The effectiveness of the culverts can be enhanced by constructing low walls (e.g. pre-caste concrete) alongside the road which guide small animals toward the culverts;  Avoid street lighting where the road is adjacent to natural habitats. If street lights are required, they should be of a long-wavelength type (e.g. orange), and should be kept to a minimum in terms of number of lights, and the distance over which they cast light;  Erect signage to warn motorists of crossing fauna;  Ensure that structures at the edge of the road are designed to be fauna-friendly, that is, do not include steep or vertical structures (e.g. gutters) or holes (e.g. sumps) that obstruct the movements of small animals, or cause them to be trapped;  Maintain low vegetation on the edges of the road, by use of a fire-break; width to be decided in association with FNR manager;  Ensure good drainage alongside the road so that wetland conditions that may be attractive to fauna do not develop adjacent to the road.

With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Possible VERY LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

59

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

60

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4.1.6 Search & rescue

Where fynbos is removed in the construction of the road, rare plant species and / or those useful for rehabilitation (see below) should either be removed and stored in pots in a nursey, or seed / cuttings taken so that these plants can be grown on in a nursery. The latter can then be translocated into populations supporting such RL plants or used in the rehabilitation process.

Correspondingly, search and rescue of both amphibian and reptile species is advised prior to commencement of any road construction.

4.2 Operational phase 4.2.1 Degradation of road-side vegetation (Table 15)

Road-side vegetation can be impacted during the operations phase due to pollution and runoff of contaminated stormwater from the road and maintenance activities, e.g. mowing of road-side vegetation and cleaning of drainage structures alongside the road.

The impact is local, of medium intensity, long-term, and of medium consequence (Table 15). Mitigation measures (aimed at road maintenance activities and driver behaviour) would reduce the Significance from Medium to Low.

Although both alternatives have the same overall impact rating, the southern alternative is marginally preferred because the route located adjacent to the FNR, where road-side vegetation could be impacted, is shorter.

Table 15. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: operational phase: degradation of roadside vegetation - both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Probable MEDIUM – ve High 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures:  Only mow vegetation in the road reserve where sight distances are impeded by vegetation, and leave the remainder of vegetation untouched.  Control road maintenance teams operating along the route to ensure environmental damage is limited.  Appoint a specialist to implement an annual alien plant clearing programme for at least 5 years after the end of construction.  Appoint a specialist to monitor the success of plant relocations and landscaping for at least 3 years after the end of construction.  Include sign posts that discourage drivers from alighting and disturbing vegetation. With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Probable LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

61

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4.2.2 Loss and disturbance of fauna (Table 16)

The road may impact on fauna during during the operational phase due to road kills, and disturbance from noise, light and/or chemical pollution (also see Section 4.1.5). Ongoing road kills of animals can cause a localised decline in some species, especially where the road separates two different habitats that are both essential to the species, e.g. dryland habitat and wetland habitat. Intersections between roads and ecological corridors are points at which road mortality is likely to be concentrated. However, the bypass is largely aligned along the urban edge and causes limited fragmentation of habitats; culverts will be installed where natural corridors are likely to exist at present, e.g. at ephemeral drainage lines.

The impact is Local, of Medium Intensity, Long-term, and of Medium Consequence. Mitigation measures, and assuming that the revised alignments shown in Figures 12, 13 and 15 are implemented to minimise fragmentation, would reduce the Significance from Medium to Low.

Although both alternatives have the same overall impact rating, the southern alternative is marginally preferred because the route located adjacent to the FNR, where animals are more likely to try and cross the road, is shorter.

Table 16. Assessment of impacts and mitigation: operational phase: loss of fauna - both alternatives Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long- Medium mitigation term Probable MEDIUM – ve High 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures:  Monitor road kill frequencies. Where necessary, apply warning signage;  Limit street lighting to the minimum requirement. To limit disturbance to fauna, aim to implement the following measures; - Use only long-wavelength lights (red or orange) for exterior lighting or the “warm light” models of energy-saving lights; - Use light sources of the lowest intensity (wattage) adequate for road safety; - Use directional fittings for exterior lights. Fit lights with shades to direct light only to where it is needed, and to prevent it from spreading over a wide area; - Position lights as low down as possible to reduce their visibility from a distance. - Use only sealed light fittings;  Install sign posts to discourage drivers from alighting and disturbing vegetation.

With Local Low Long- Low mitigation term Probable LOW – ve Medium 1 1 3 5

62

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

4. 3 Comparison of proposed alignments Although the impact ratings for the two alternatives do not vary for most impacts, the southern route is (marginally) preferred, as the road section located within the FNR is restricted to the section adjacent to Mountain Drive, whereafter the road is located within the urban fabric. As such, impacts related to the loss and fragmentation of fynbos vegetation are lower for the southern alternative.

However, since much of the additional road length in the FNR for the northern alternative is located within degraded vegetation, the additional impact of the northern alternative is limited and also acceptable from a terrestrial ecology perspective.

4.4 No-go option

The “No-go” option (no road construction) would result in the status quo being maintained, i.e. there would be no impact on the local fynbos vegetation in this area or the FNR.

4.5 Cumulative Impact

The construction of the road would add little in the way of cumulative impacts in the area. The loss or fragmentation of natural fynbos vegetation would be minimised through realignment of the route.

4.6 Compensation Although the Provincial biodiversity offset guidelines (Brownlie et al., 2007) possibly do not apply here due to low residual impacts, loss of natural vegetation, regardless of conservation importance, could be compensated for through rehabilitation of presently degraded areas, both within the FNR as well as to the south, where the Golf Course wetland exits to the coast in the south.

Nearly 18 ha of degraded land are located along the proposed alignment (calculated from Table 2; Figure 3). These include the borrow pits along the southern edge of the FNR and above Mountain Drive, the bulk water storage area at the western end of the road (in HSF) and parts which have been degraded possibly by clearing and borrowing activities in the eastern part of the northern alignment. In addition, the channel exiting the Golf Course wetland to the south towards the coast requires rehabilitation.

As the Overstrand Municipality budget for management does not include rehabilitation costs (Neville Green, pers.comm.), compensation by way of providing funding for rehabilitation of (some of) the above degraded areas would contribute (a) to the amount of good quality vegetation within the FNR and (b) improve habitats within the FNR which currently contribute little to conservation per se.

63

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

5. REHABILITATION & MONITORING GUIDELINES

These guidelines should be incorporated into an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the construction of the road. The prime goal of the EMP is to ensure that development proceeds in an environmentally sensitive manner, that impacts on the environment are minimised and that appropriate mitigatory measures are introduced.

Two phases are recognised in the EMP: the construction phase, which essentially comprises removal of natural vegetation, road construction and stormwater drainage, and the operational or post-construction phase.

5.1 Personnel 5.1.1 Appointment of environmental site officer

An independent ESO should be appointed for the duration of the project and who would facilitate/ monitor the implementation of the EMP during construction activities.

5.1.2 Guidelines for contractors and construction personnel

The contractor and workers need to accept a code of conduct which, if adhered to, would ensure impacts during development are minimised and appropriate mitigatory measures are introduced.

5.2 Bush-clearing and earthworks

Contractors should ensure that every reasonable precaution is taken to prevent damage or negative impacts on the fynbos along the proposed alignment

5.2.1 “No go” or restricted areas

Fynbos

No access by personnel, vehicles or equipment is permitted in any of the fynbos areas along the proposed alignment.

Wetland

Likewise, no access is permitted in the Golf Course wetland at the end of the route.

64

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Demarcation of “no go” areas

Construction manager to demarcate such areas with red and white danger tape, in liaison with the environmental site officer (ESO), and to ensure these areas are kept off limits to all construction staff.

Permission to enter “no go” areas

Contractors to ensure the above “no go” areas are strictly enforced. Permission to enter such areas to be obtained from ESO.

5.2.2 Construction camp(s) and workshop Location

Construction camp and workshop to be located in a previously degraded area OFF the main alignment and below the proposed route (i.e. away from the FNR). ESO to be consulted on exact location.

5.2.3 Construction and related materials Fuel and oil

All fuel and oil to be stored safely with the above area and every effort made to ensure there will be no spillage. All fuel- and oil-based waste, rags, etc. to be removed from the site. Drums and bins for temporary storage of waste to be provided and to be kept within the workshop enclosure.

Cement and concrete

On-site mixing of cement, concrete and related construction materials to be conducted away from fynbos or wetland areas and every effort to make sure this does not occur upslope of natural areas. Waste water from such mixing to be disposed of as outlined above.

Construction materials

Construction materials to be stockpiled within the camp or at intervals along the proposed alignment but in degraded areas as designated by the ESO.

65

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

5.2.4 Construction and related activities

Waste

Water

Any polluted water (contaminated with cement, soap, detergent, oil, etc.) to be directed away from any fynbos or wetland area and to be removed from site.

Solid

All solid waste, both domestic as well as construction-related, to be removed from site. Contractor to provide adequate litter and waste bins at intervals along the route, and to ensure they are cleared regularly. Bins to have lids which prevent contents from blowing out and which are baboon-proof!

Oil, grease and petrol

Such waste products to be stored in sealable containers and removed from the site once full.

Dust

Dust to be kept to a minimum through wetting of affected areas.

Ablution facilities

Portable toilets to be provided at regular intervals along the route and to be of the chemical type. Toilets to be well-secured to ensure they do not blow over. No “squatting” to be permitted anywhere along the route, particularly in fynbos or the wetland.

Fire-making

In view of the fire risk posed by the fynbos along the route, particularly over the dry summer period, no fires are to be made. Cooking should be undertaken within the work camp and nowhere else. The Contractor shall ensure that adequate fire-fighting equipment is present on site and, via the ESO, there is liaison with local FNR management and the local fire- fighting department.

66

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Treatment of plant- and animal life

All plant- and animal life along the route is to be treated as protected. The ESO and the Contactor to ensure that plants are not removed, picked, broken or interfered with in any way, unless permission has been obtained from the ESO, or where approved clearing operations are concerned. Likewise animals are not to be removed, hunted, injured or interfered with in any way, unless permission has been granted by the ESO.

5.2.5 Education and awareness programme

The contractor and workers should attend initial and on-going education/awareness briefing sessions provided by the ESO; here environmental guidelines for road construction should be spelled out and opportunity afforded for reaching more practical solutions to management of the construction phase.

5.3 Rehabilitation

5.3.1 Topsoil

Where natural areas are to be developed topsoil to a depth of about 300 mm should be removed and stockpiled. To avoid unacceptable decreases in aeration and too rapid decomposition of soil-borne organic matter, piles should be no more than 1.5 m to 2 m in height, no wider than 3 m and no longer than 10 m. Stockpiling sites should be identified on previously degraded areas and demarcated prior to the commencement of roadworks. Where possible, stock piles should be located in areas which have already been severely degraded (such as old borrow pits) and as close to areas requiring rehabilitation as possible.

5.3.2 Search & rescue

Translocation/removal of plant material

Where possible all suitable plant material should be transplanted or removed, prior to commencement of construction phase. In addition seed should be collected from plants prior to construction’s commencing. These activities should be supervised in consultation with the ESO who, together with a specialist botanist, would indicate location of such plants and how they should be translocated and seed collected. A caveat to this approach is that most species DO NOT readily translocate. A general rule of thumb is that resprouters will stand a

67

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

far greater chance of translocation than reseeders. Translocation in sods is encouraged and requires that the soil be wetted beforehand. Runners of, for example, certain succulents are excellent for rehabilitation as they require little effort other than pushing into the soil. Bulbs tend to be the most successful, particularly when they are dormant. Many of the graminoids (grasses, restios, sedges), especially those with dense roots, can also be moved. Where possible, a working knowledge of transplanting local species should be sought, for example from the FNR staff.

Potential plants need to be identified beforehand and tagged for removal. If replanting cannot take place immediately, plants need to be bagged and placed in a holding area (for example the nursery identified for the rehab process – see below - until such time that rehabilitation can take place.

Prior to any S & R approach, seed should be stored and cuttings removed from species which will not translocate easily and grown on in the on-site nursery – see below.

5.3.3 Propagation of desirable plants

Planting of nursery-grown and -translocated species should be undertaken at a density set by the rehabilitation specialist, but generally at no less than 0.5 m to 1 m apart. Time of planting should ideally be just prior to the onset of the rainy season in the Western Cape (April/May) so that plants are provided with good moisture conditions prior to the onset of the summer season some six months later. Only locally occurring indigenous plant species should be used

If possible, a suitable nursery needs to be identified for the storage and growing on of suitable species. . An annotated list of suitable plant species should be drawn up by a competent botanist/ restoration specialist with a good working knowledge of local indigenous plant, and both seed and cuttings collected, planted out and suitably hardened off. This would provide material ready for planting as areas are required to be rehabilitated. In addition certain species could also be translocated into the nursery. The amount of plant material required would be guided by the extent of impact along the road alignment and the areas to be disturbed.

5.3.4 Mulching

Mulch should be strewn over the planted areas and this should shade the soil, and provide a source of organic matter and some nutrients, as well as retaining moisture for new plants. The best source for mulch is locally occurring plants removed in the construction process 68

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

and these can be mulched on site after removal. If acacias can be cleared in the general area, these also make suitable mulch.

Mulch has the following useful properties:

(a) Protects plants from damage and predation

(b) Keeps the soil cool (shading effect)

(c) Retains moisture

(d) Adds organic material and nutrients to the soil – decomposition is slow so it acts as a slow release agent for both nutrients and organic matter

(e) Inhibits the growth of some weeds, especially herbaceous species.

5.3.5 Rehabilitation plan

A rehabilitation plan should be drawn up for the area and which encompasses the following general principles:

 spreading of locally collected seed either manually or through hydroseeding; where possible gently raking into the soil

 planting out of indigenous pioneer species at 0.5 m to 1m intervals, preferably during autumn

 providing a chip mulch to protect seeds or planted species; use of alien acacia mulch is to be encouraged, particularly in conjunction with alien clearing (see above)

 irrigating during the following summer, until the next autumn rains (these should arrive during April or May, but allow for a maximum period until end May).

 removal of woody alien species (mainly Acacia cyclops rooikrans and A.saligna Port Jackson willow) should be implemented and continued until these species are absent on the site

 Weeding: all rehab sites should be regularly weeded, particularly as annual grasses become dominant in spring

 Success of rehab should be monitored through methods such as permanent plots where species presence and cover is recorded over time.

A comprehensive rehabilitation plan would require the services of a rehabilitation specialist together with a specialist botanist who would identify and locate suitable species; measures should be in place to ensure removal of said plants prior to construction’s commencing.

69

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Plants with a bulb or rootstock have the greatest chance of surviving translocation, whereas most shrubs and many of the graminoids (grasses, sedges, restios), particularly the obligate reseeders, would not translocate successfully.

Seed and/or cuttings should be removed from species which would not translocate easily and grown on in the on-site nursery.

The plan should include the following key elements:

Preparation phase

At least two years before commencement of construction, a nearby nursery with the capacity to grow the required number of plants from the project, needs to be identified. The list of appropriate species (Table 16) will inform the growing programme and both seed and cuttings collected, planted out and suitably hardened off. This would provide material ready for planting as areas require to be rehabilitated. In addition certain species could also be translocated into the nursery. The amount of plant material required would be guided by the extent of construction and areas to be disturbed. Both terrestrial and wetland habitats need to be considered.

Topsoil

This is perhaps the most critical phase and will determine to a great extent the ultimate success of any rehabilitation work.

 Topsoil (0 – 300 mm depth) should be removed from any area being disturbed temporarily or permanently, and stockpiled. Piles should be no more than 1.5 to 2 m high to avoid loss of aeration, but also too rapid decomposition of organic matter, the latter essential for providing a good start for new plants

 Stockpiles should be placed in previously disturbed areas and should definitely not be located on natural vegetation. This would lead to the death of the latter

Planting

Planting of nursery-grown and -translocated species should be undertaken at a density set by the rehabilitation specialist, but generally at no less than 1 m apart. Time of planting should be just prior to the rainy season in the Western Cape (April/May) so that plants are provided with good moisture conditions prior to the onset of the summer season some six months later.

Mulching

70

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Mulch should be strewn over the planted areas and this should shade the soil, and provide a source of organic matter and some nutrients, as well as retention of moisture for new plants. The best source for mulch is locally occurring introduced acacias (Acacia cyclops rooikrans; A.saligna Port Jackson willow) and these can be mulched on site after cutting. Care should be taken not to clear these woody aliens when they are setting seed (October-November).

Maintenance

Newly planted areas should be regularly weeded. Where plant death occurs, new material should be planted out. Plants should also be irrigated during the first summer season, using a tractor-drawn water tank.

Dead material should be replaced with those plants from the nursery.

All woody aliens should be removed once they reach knee height (for ease of pulling).

5.4 Fencing

A decision needs to be taken on whether the FNR/ road boundary should be fenced; a low palisade type design is favoured.

5.5 Monitoring programme

The effectiveness of rehabilitation should be monitored regularly by the ESO over the first two years, and adaptive management implemented to ensure success.

5.5.1 Guidelines

The ESO should ensure that all guidelines are complied with, through regular visits to the site.

5.5.2 Communication with ESO

The ESO should be kept abreast of all construction activities developments, particularly where modifications are made to the clearing and earthworks schedules.

5.5.3 Penalties for non-compliance

Failure to comply with the regulations might result in certain penalties being imposed and should be borne by the Contractor.

Likewise, the Contractor might wish to introduce a bonus scheme whereby those conforming to the environmental regulations are suitably rewarded. 71

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

5.5.4 Activities of workers

ESO would ensure that impacts during construction are reduced/ avoided, and this would form part of the Environmental Management Plan. Included in the EMP must be a section on monitoring of people movements around the alignment. Damage to vegetation should be monitored and appropriate checks put in place, such as signboards and fencing.

5.5.5 Relocation and/or growing on of Red List species

Key performance criteria include the reintroduction of RD species into protected areas, either along the alignment or into the FNR, or the growing on of such species for introduction into protected natural habitats elsewhere. The bottom line would be to ensure there would not be a reduction in the natural densities and populations in each RL species.

5.5.6 Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation success should be monitored on a three monthly basis for the first year, and then six monthly until acceptable species densities and cover are achieved. This should be undertaken through the means of 3m x 3m fixed plots in which species presence and cover is assessed, as well as by means of fixed point photography.

72

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 17. Selected plant species useful for rehabilitation along the Hermanus Bypass alignment Family Species Common name Broad habitat Form

Dicotyledones

ANACARDIACEAE Rhus lucida blinktaaibos Fynbos Shrub ASTERACEAE Athanasia dentata Klaaslouwbossie Fynbos Shrub ASTERACEAE Disparago ericoides basterslangbos Fynbos Shrub ASTERACEAE Helichrysum cymosum yellow-tipped straw flower Wetland Shrub ASTERACEAE Hippia frutescens Rankals Wetland Shrub ASTERACEAE Metalasia densa blombos Pioneer in degraded fynbos Shrub ASTERACEAE Nidorella ivifolia bak(oond)bossie Wetland Shrub ASTERACEAE Osteospermum moniliferum bietou Pioneer in degraded fynbos Shrub

ASTERACEAE Phaenocoma prolifera Rooisewejaartjie Fynbos Shrub ASTERACEAE Plecostachys serpyllifolia Vaaltee Wetland Shrub BRUNIACEAE Berzelia lanuginosa knoppiesbos Fynbos/ Wetland Shrub BRUNIACEAE Staavia radiata altydbossie Fynbos Shrub EBENACEAE Euclea polyandra baviaanskers Fynbos Shrub ERICACEAE Erica ericoides Fynbos Shrub ERICACEAE Erica imbricata kêr-kêr Fynbos Shrub ERICACEAE Erica plukenetii hangertjie Fynbos Shrub FABACEAE Aspalathus hispida Witertjiebos Fynbos Shrub FABACEAE Psoralea pinnata fonteintjiesbos Wetland Shrub GERANIACEAE Pelargonium capitatum Rose-scented pelargonium Fynbos Shrub GERANIACEAE Pelargonium cucullatum Wildemalva Pioneer in degraded fynbos Shrub LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pinifolia wild lobelia Fynbos Shrub

73

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 17 (contd.)

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus acinaciformis Sour fig Pioneer in degraded fynbos Sprawling groundcover

MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus edulis Sour fig Pioneer in degraded fynbos Sprawling groundcover

MYRSINACEAE Rapanea melanophloeos boekenhout Wetland Tree OLEACEAE Olea capensis subsp. capensis Ysterhout Fynbos Shrub PENAEACEAE Penaea mucronata Yellow brickleaf Fynbos Shrub POLYGALACEAE Muraltia heisteria Kastybos Fynbos Shrub POLYGALACEAE Polygala bracteolata Spear-leaved milkwort Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Aulax umbellata Sekelbos Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Leucadendron salignum Sunshine bush Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Leucadendron xanthoconus sickle-leaf conebush Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Leucospermum truncatulum Patrysbos Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Protea compacta Bot River protea Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Protea longifolia long-leaf sugarbush Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Protea repens sugarbush Fynbos Shrub PROTEACEAE Serruria heterophylla Spindly spiderhead Fynbos Shrub RHAMNACEAE Phylica lasiocarpa Fynbos Shrub ROSACEAE Cliffortia atrata Fynbos Shrub RUBIACEAE Anthospermum aethiopicum jakkalstert Fynbos Shrub RUTACEAE Adenandra unifolia China flower Fynbos Shrub RUTACEAE Agathosma capensis Cape buchu Fynbos Shrub THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia juniperifolia saffron bush Fynbos Shrub THYMELAEACEAE Passerina corymbosa Sandgonnabas Pioneer in fynbos Shrub THYMELAEACEAE Struthiola ciliata roemenaggie Fynbos Shrub

74

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 17 (contd.)

Monocotyledones

ARACEAE Zantedeschia aethiopica arum lily Wetland Bulb CYPERACEAE Ficinia ecklonea Fynbos Sedge CYPERACEAE Pycreus polystachyus waterbiesie Wetland Sedge CYPERACEAE Tetraria bromoides bergpalmiet Fynbos Sedge IRIDACEAE Aristea capitata blouvuurpyl Fynbos Bulb IRIDACEAE Watsonia borbonica suurkanol Fynbos Bulb JUNCACEAE Juncus capensis Cape rush Wetland Rush LANARIACEAE Lanaria lanata kapokblom Fynbos Bulb POACEAE Pennisetum macrourum beddinggras Wetland Grass RESTIONACEAE Mastersiella digitata Fynbos Restio RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus fruticosus besemriet Fynbos Restio RESTIONACEAE Thamnochortus erectus wyfieriet Fynbos Restio

75

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Measures should be taken to ensure that:

(i) The alignment is amended to remove direct impacts on good condition fynbos, in particular along the central / eastern section of the northern alignment, thereby reducing loss of habitat and fragmentation;

(ii) Impact on the Hangklip Sand Fynbos in the west of the alignment is minimised by realignment of the road;

(iii) The alignment of the section of the road through the Golf Course wetland is amended to minimise impact on the wetland;

(iv) The rehabilitation and monitoring guidelines are closely followed;

(v) By way of compensation for loss of fynbos in the FNR, rehabilitation of areas outside the alignment is strongly supported. This would include degraded areas along the interface between the proposed road and the FNR, as well as the stream which exits the Golf Course wetland and enters the sea to the south via an artificial channel.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Road construction should be allowed to proceed, provided the proposed mitigation measures - particularly through road realignment - are followed. The loss of fynbos habitat is acceptable, given the ratio of loss to the current size of the FNR. However, impacts on the wetland habitat should be minimised through realignment of the road, as well as through effective search & rescue operations. Net plant species loss from the alignment is unlikely; however important species should be the subject of a thorough search & rescue plan, with key species forming part of the rehabilitation plan.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Reuben Roberts for performing the statistical analysis

To the Hermanus Botanical Society, particularly Di Marais and Lee Burman, for assistance in the field, and identification of plants.

76

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

9. REFERENCES Boucher C (1978). Cape Hangklip area. II. The vegetation. Bothalia 12(3): 455 – 497 Brownlie, S, Botha, M, Helme, N & Van Zyl, H (2007). Provincial guidelines on biodiversity offsets. Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Cape Town Burger, M (2016. Herpetofaunal assessment of proposed Hermanus CBD bypass. Sungazer, Lakeside Clarke, K R and Warwick, R M (1994). Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. National Environment Research Council, United Kingdom. 144 pp. Cowling, R M, Holmes, P M & Rebelo, A G (1992). Plant diversity and endemism. In ”The ecology of fynbos: nutrients, fire and diversity. Ed. R Cowling”. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Pp 62 - 110 Ellis, A G, Verboom, G A, Van der Riet, T, Johnson, S & Linder, P H (2014). Speciation and extinction in the Greater Cape Floristic Region. In: “Fynbos: ecology, evolution and conservation of a megadiverse region. Eds. Allsopp, N, Colville, J & Verboom, A”. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. pp. 119 - 141 Le Maitre, D C & Midgley, J J (1992). Plant reproductive ecology. In: “The ecology of fynbos. Ed R Cowling”. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Pp 135 – 174 Low, A B (2011). Environmental impact assessment for the proposed Nuclear Power Station (“Nuclear 1”) and associated infrastructure: Botany and Dune Ecology Impact Assessment. Coastec, Rondebosch Low, A B & Roberts, R (1998 – 2016). SaSFlora: site and species database for the cape & Karoo floras. Coastec, Rondebosch Mucina, L & Rutherford, M C (2006) (eds.). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19: 1 - 807 National Environmental Management (2011). Biodiversity Act: national list of ecosystems that are threatened and in need of protection (G 34809, GoN 1002), Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria Raimondo, D, Van Staden, L, Foden, W, Victor. J E, Helme, N A, Turner, R C, Kamundi, D A & Manyama, P A (eds.) (2009). Red List of South African South African plants. 2009. Strelitzia 25. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria Rouget, M, Reyers, B, Jonas, Z, Desmet, P, Driver, A, Maze, K, Egoh, B & Cowling, R M (2004). South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 1: Terrestrial Component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute Soil Classification Working Group (1991). Soil classification: a taxonomic system for South Africa. Memoirs on the Agricultural Resources of South Africa No.15, Pretoria South African National Biodiversity Institute (2005; 2015). Fine scale plan for the Overberg and Overstrand areas. SANBI, Pretoria SRK (2015). Scoping report for Hermanus Bypass Road. SRK, Newlands.

77

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING SITE SENSITIVITY AND RARITY (FROM LOW, 2011)

78

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Rarity Degree of rarity was defined as degree of irreplaceability (sensu Cowing et al., 1999), where high irreplaceability (e.g. where very little remains of an original natural system) gives a high rarity ranking. Rarity classes were calculated for each site, using the following parameters (see box):  Vegetation Type (after Rouget et al., 2004, updated by the National Biodiversity Act, 2011); Habitat: a semi-objective assessment was made of habitat rarity by evaluating previous assessments in the literature and rating contextual analyses where possible (greater site distinctiveness = greater habitat rarity). Highly threatened habitats such as wetlands, always received a high score due to their exploitation and general losses to development and drainage.  Species (% of total, unweighted) (as per the latest Red Data assessment (Raimondo et al, 2009).  Species (weighted ranking for degree of rarity) weighted number according to rarity classification. An overall rarity model for each community was then developed by weighting and adding each of the above categories to provide a rarity total (see box).

Sensitivity Sensitivity is the vulnerability of a habitat to any impact. E.g. a dune system would be much more vulnerable to development than would a fynbos system on sandstone. Several sensitivity categories were assessed: erosion potential, proneness to fire, susceptibility to drought and resilience (this is a measure of a particular plant community to recover after an impact) (values here are a reverse of the first three: i.e. high resilience infers low sensitivity).

An overall sensitivity model was then developed for each community in which each criterion was weighted and then added, to provide a total for sensitivity (see box for values.

RARITY Weighting >0 – 10 = very low (1) Vegetation type rarity 11 – 20 = low (2) LT = low (1) 21 – 30 = moderate (3) VU = moderate (2) 31 – 40 = high (4) EN = Endangered (3) >40 = very high (5) CR = Critically Rare (4) Overall rarity model (weighting) Habitat rarity Vegetation type = 2 Very low = 1 Habitat = 3 Low = 2 % rare species = 1 Moderate = 3 Weighted rare species total (1) High = 4 Very high = 5 Overall rarity total 1 – 10 = very low (1) Species rarity (% of total species in a community) 11 – 20 = low (2) >0 – 5% = very low (1) 6 – 10% = low (2) 21 – 30 = moderate (3) 11 – 15% = moderate (3) 31 – 40 = high (4) 16 – 20% = High (4) >20% = Vey high (5) >40 = very high (5)

Weighted species rarity Individual species NT (Near Threatened) = 1 R (Rare) = 2 VU (Vulnerable) = 3 EN (Endangered) = 4 CR = Critically threatened) = 5

79

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 2: HERMANUS BYPASS: PLANT SPECIES LISTS FOR SECTIONS ALONG THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS

80

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 1 (COMPOSITE OF FLORA PLOTS) Division: Pteridophyta Stoebe SCHIZAEACEAE capitata LC Schizaea Syncarpha pectinata LC gnaphaloides LC Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones Ursinia ANACARDIACEAE chrysanthemoides LC Searsia BRUNIACEAE cf. cuneifolia Berzelia cf. laevigata lanuginosa LC lucida Staavia rosmarinifolia radiata LC APIACEAE CRASSULACEAE Annesorhiza Crassula nuda LC fascicularis LC triternata EBENACEAE Glia Euclea prolifera LC polyandra LC APOCYNACEAE ERICACEAE Eustegia Erica minuta LC axillaris LC ASTERACEAE imbricata LC Arctotis plukenetii subsp. plukenetii LC acaulis LC serrata LC Athanasia tenella trifurcata LC viscaria subsp. macrosepala Berkheya EUPHORBIACEAE barbata LC Euphorbia Corymbium silenifolia LC glabrum FABACEAE Cotula Aspalathus turbinata LC hispida Disparago retroflexa ericoides serpens LC Elytropappus Indigofera rhinocerotis NE alopecuroides Helichrysum angustifolia cymosum Podalyria Metalasia sericea NT densa LC Rafnia inversa LC elliptica LC Oedera GENTIANACEAE capensis LC Chironia Osteospermum tetragona LC moniliferum GERANIACEAE Othonna Pelargonium quinquedentata LC capitatum LC Phaenocoma cucullatum subsp. cucullatum LC prolifera LC elongatum LC Senecio longicaule burchellii LC triste LC

81

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

LOBELIACEAE Leucospermum Cyphia truncatulum NT volubilis Protea Lobelia compacta NT erinus LC longifolia VU pinifolia LC repens LC MALVACEAE Serruria Hermannia elongata NT rudis LC rubricaulis NT MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Spatalla Carpobrotus racemosa NT acinaciformis LC RANUNCULACEAE edulis Anemone Erepsia vesicatoria anceps LC RHAMNACEAE Lampranthus Phylica bicolor LC ericoides Ruschia imberbis var. imberbis LC schollii LC lasiocarpa LC MONTINIACEAE ROSACEAE Montinia Cliffortia caryophyllacea LC atrata LC MYRICACEAE falcata Morella stricta LC quercifolia LC RUBIACEAE OLEACEAE Anthospermum Olea aethiopicum LC capensis subsp. capensis LC RUTACEAE OROBANCHACEAE Adenandra Hyobanche brachyphylla LC glabrata LC uniflora LC OXALIDACEAE Agathosma Oxalis capensis LC eckloniana var. sonderi LC SANTALACEAE luteola LC Colpoon polyphylla var. pentaphylla LC compressum LC polyphylla var. polyphylla LC speciosum VU cf. purpurea LC Thesium truncatula LC spicatum LC POLYGALACEAE SCROPHULARIACEAE Polygala Nemesia garcinii LC diffusa POLYGONACEAE THYMELAEACEAE Rumex Gnidia cordatus LC squarrosa LC PROTEACEAE Passerina Aulax corymbosa LC umbellata NT Struthiola Leucadendron ciliata LC salignum LC striata LC xanthoconus LC

82

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Thamnochortus Roepera fruticosus LC sessilifolia LC RUSCACEAE Eriospermum Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones cernuum LC AMARYLLIDACEAE Cyrtanthus Total named species: 124 carneus VU Total genera: 85 Haemanthus Total families: 45 sanguineus LC Total red data species: 11 ASPARAGACEAE Asparagus capensis lignosus LC rubicundus LC ASPHODELACEAE Trachyandra revoluta LC COLCHICACEAE Colchicum eucomoides LC CYPERACEAE Ficinia ecklonea LC nigrescens LC Tetraria bromoides LC HAEMODORACEAE Dilatris pillansii LC Wachendorfia paniculata LC HYACINTHACEAE Lachenalia peersii VU HYPOXIDACEAE Pauridia capensis LC IRIDACEAE Gladiolus debilis LC Romulea rosea Tritoniopsis lata var. lata LC LANARIACEAE Lanaria lanata LC RESTIONACEAE Mastersiella digitata LC 83

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 2 (COMPOSITE) Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones ANACARDIACEAE FABACEAE Searsia Indigofera cuneifolia alopecuroides lucida angustifolia rosmarinifolia Rafnia APOCYNACEAE acuminata LC Eustegia GERANIACEAE minuta LC Pelargonium ASTERACEAE cucullatum subsp. cucullatum LC Berkheya LOBELIACEAE barbata LC Cyphia Cotula volubilis turbinata LC Lobelia Edmondia chamaepitys var. chamaepitys LC sesamoides LC pinifolia LC Felicia MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE amoena Carpobrotus Metalasia acinaciformis LC densa LC MOLLUGINACEAE Oedera Pharnaceum capensis LC elongatum LC Osteospermum MYRICACEAE moniliferum Morella Othonna quercifolia LC quinquedentata LC OLEACEAE Phaenocoma Olea prolifera LC capensis subsp. capensis LC Stoebe OXALIDACEAE capitata LC Oxalis spiralis eckloniana var. sonderi LC BRUNIACEAE cf. luteola LC Berzelia purpurea LC lanuginosa LC truncatula LC CRASSULACEAE PENAEACEAE Crassula Penaea capensis mucronata LC fascicularis LC POLYGALACEAE EBENACEAE Muraltia Euclea heisteria LC polyandra LC Polygala ERICACEAE bracteolata LC Erica garcinii LC ericoides LC POLYGONACEAE imbricata LC Rumex plukenetii subsp. plukenetii LC cordatus LC pulchella PROTEACEAE serrata LC Aulax tenella umbellata NT viscaria subsp. macrosepala

84

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Leucadendron Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones xanthoconus LC ASPARAGACEAE Leucospermum Asparagus conocarpodendron subsp. viridum NT lignosus LC prostratum VU rubicundus LC truncatulum NT CYPERACEAE Mimetes Ficinia cucullatus LC ecklonea LC Protea Tetraria compacta NT bromoides LC longifolia VU HAEMODORACEAE repens LC Dilatris RHAMNACEAE pillansii LC Phylica Wachendorfia lasiocarpa LC paniculata LC Trichocephalus IRIDACEAE stipularis LC Aristea ROSACEAE africana LC Cliffortia Bobartia falcata longicyma stricta LC Gladiolus RUBIACEAE debilis LC Anthospermum Ixia aethiopicum LC dubia Declining RUTACEAE Watsonia Adenandra borbonica brachyphylla LC LANARIACEAE uniflora LC Lanaria Diosma lanata LC oppositifolia LC RESTIONACEAE SANTALACEAE Mastersiella Colpoon digitata LC compressum LC Thamnochortus speciosum VU fruticosus LC Thesium RUSCACEAE spicatum LC Eriospermum THYMELAEACEAE cf. cernuum LC Gnidia juniperifolia LC Total named species: 87 Passerina Total genera: 61 corymbosa LC Total families: 33 Struthiola Total red data species: 8 ciliata LC striata LC ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Roepera sessilifolia LC spinosa LC

85

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 3 (COMPOSITE OF FLORA PLOTS) Division: Pteridophyta SCHIZAEACEAE DIPSACACEAE Schizaea Scabiosa pectinata LC columbaria LC EBENACEAE Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones Euclea ANACARDIACEAE polyandra LC Searsia ERICACEAE cuneifolia Erica laevigata corifolia lucida ericoides LC rosmarinifolia imbricata LC APIACEAE plukenetii subsp. plukenetii LC Nanobubon serrata LC capillaceum sessiliflora LC APOCYNACEAE tenella Eustegia viscaria subsp. macrosepala minuta LC FABACEAE ASTERACEAE Argyrolobium Athanasia cf. lunare dentata LC Aspalathus trifurcata LC aspalathoides LC Berkheya sericea LC barbata LC Indigofera Dimorphotheca alopecuroides nudicaulis var. graminifolia LC angustifolia Edmondia brachystachya LC sesamoides LC Podalyria Metalasia sericea NT densa LC GENTIANACEAE Oedera Chironia capensis LC tetragona LC Osteospermum Sebaea moniliferum exacoides LC Phaenocoma GERANIACEAE prolifera LC Pelargonium Stoebe cucullatum subsp. cucullatum LC aethiopica LC LAURACEAE capitata LC Cassytha BRUNIACEAE ciliolata LC Berzelia LOBELIACEAE lanuginosa LC Cyphia Brunia volubilis noduliflora LC Lobelia CRASSULACEAE chamaepitys var. chamaepitys LC Crassula pinifolia LC capensis MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE fascicularis LC Carpobrotus acinaciformis LC

86

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

MYRICACEAE Morella Thesium quercifolia LC carinatum OLEACEAE SCROPHULARIACEAE Olea Nemesia capensis subsp. capensis LC diffusa OXALIDACEAE THYMELAEACEAE Oxalis Gnidia cf. luteola LC juniperifolia LC cf. obtusa LC Passerina polyphylla var. pentaphylla LC corymbosa LC polyphylla var. polyphylla LC Struthiola purpurea LC ciliata LC PENAEACEAE ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Penaea Roepera mucronata LC sessilifolia LC PROTEACEAE Aulax Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones umbellata NT CYPERACEAE Leucadendron Ficinia salignum LC ecklonea LC xanthoconus LC Tetraria Leucospermum bromoides LC conocarpodendron subsp. viridum NT HAEMODORACEAE truncatulum NT Dilatris Protea pillansii LC compacta NT Wachendorfia longifolia VU paniculata LC repens LC IRIDACEAE Serruria Aristea elongata NT capitata LC heterophylla EN Bobartia rubricaulis NT longicyma RHAMNACEAE Gladiolus Phylica debilis LC lasiocarpa LC Ixia ROSACEAE dubia Declining Cliffortia micrandra atrata LC Watsonia falcata borbonica stricta LC cf. stenosiphon LC RUBIACEAE LANARIACEAE Anthospermum Lanaria aethiopicum LC lanata LC RUTACEAE RESTIONACEAE Adenandra Mastersiella brachyphylla LC digitata LC uniflora LC RUSCACEAE SANTALACEAE Eriospermum Colpoon cf. cernuum LC compressum LC 87

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Total named species: 94 Total genera: 62 Total families: 35 Total red data species: 10

88

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 4 (BETWEEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE AND DOLPHIN STREET) Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones RHAMNACEAE ANACARDIACEAE Phylica Searsia lasiocarpa LC lucida Trichocephalus ASTERACEAE stipularis LC Athanasia ROSACEAE dentata LC Cliffortia Metalasia atrata LC densa LC stricta LC Oedera RUTACEAE capensis LC Adenandra Osteospermum brachyphylla LC moniliferum SCROPHULARIACEAE Stoebe Phyllopodium capitata LC heterophyllum LC BRUNIACEAE ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Berzelia Roepera lanuginosa LC sessilifolia LC ERICACEAE Erica Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones imbricata LC ASPHODELACEAE plukenetii subsp. plukenetii LC Trachyandra FABACEAE divaricata LC Aspalathus HAEMODORACEAE excelsa VU Wachendorfia juniperina paniculata LC GERANIACEAE LANARIACEAE Pelargonium Lanaria cucullatum subsp. cucullatum LC lanata LC LAURACEAE ORCHIDACEAE Cassytha Pterygodium ciliolata LC catholicum LC LOBELIACEAE Lobelia pinifolia LC Total named species: 29 MALVACEAE Total genera: 26 Hermannia Total families: 21 rudis LC Total red data species: 1 MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE Carpobrotus acinaciformis LC MONTINIACEAE Montinia caryophyllacea LC PROTEACEAE Leucadendron xanthoconus LC

89

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 5 (HOY’S KOPPIE) Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones AIZOACEAE MOLLUGINACEAE Aizoon Adenogramma sarmentosum LC lichtensteiniana LC ANACARDIACEAE OXALIDACEAE Searsia Oxalis lucida obtusa LC ASTERACEAE pes-caprae Cotula POLYGONACEAE turbinata LC Rumex Metalasia cordatus LC densa LC PROTEACEAE Oedera Protea capensis LC repens LC Osteospermum RHAMNACEAE moniliferum Trichocephalus Stoebe stipularis LC capitata LC ROSACEAE Ursinia Cliffortia anthemoides atrata LC CAMPANULACEAE RUTACEAE Merciera Adenandra leptoloba NT uniflora LC CARYOPHYLLACEAE Agathosma Silene ciliaris LC burchellii var. burchellii NE SANTALACEAE EBENACEAE Colpoon Euclea compressum LC cf. polyandra LC Viscum ERICACEAE capense LC Erica THYMELAEACEAE imbricata LC Gnidia serrata LC juniperifolia LC GERANIACEAE ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Pelargonium Roepera capitatum LC spinosa LC triste LC LAURACEAE Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones Cassytha ASPARAGACEAE ciliolata LC Asparagus LOBELIACEAE rubicundus LC Lobelia ASPHODELACEAE pinifolia LC Trachyandra MALVACEAE hirsutiflora LC Hermannia COLCHICACEAE rudis LC Baeometra MESEMBRYANTHEMACEAE uniflora LC Carpobrotus HAEMODORACEAE acinaciformis LC Wachendorfia paniculata LC 90

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

IRIDACEAE Moraea tripetala LC Watsonia borbonica LANARIACEAE Lanaria lanata LC RUSCACEAE Eriospermum cf. cernuum LC

Total named species: 40 Total genera: 37 Total families: 29 Total red data species: 1

91

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SECTION 6 (GOLF COURSE WETLAND) Division: Pteridophyta DENNSTAEDTIACEAE JUNCACEAE Pteridium Juncus aquilinum subsp. aquilinum LC capensis LC kraussii subsp. kraussii LC Division: Anthophyta Class: Dicotyledones POACEAE ANACARDIACEAE Hyparrhenia Searsia hirta LC lucida Pennisetum ASTERACEAE macrourum LC Athanasia Stenotaphrum cf. dentata LC secundatum LC Hippia TYPHACEAE cf. frutescens LC Typha Nidorella capensis LC ivifolia LC Osteospermum Total named species: 23 moniliferum Total genera: 20 Plecostachys Total families: 13 serpyllifolia LC Total red data species: 1 Senecio halimifolius LC cf. rigidus LC FABACEAE Psoralea pinnata LC GERANIACEAE Pelargonium capitatum LC cucullatum MYRICACEAE Morella quercifolia LC MYRSINACEAE Rapanea melanophloeos Declining SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum

Division: Anthophyta Class: Monocotyledones ARACEAE Zantedeschia aethiopica LC CYPERACEAE Pycreus polystachyos

92

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 3: INFOSHEET 2: ECOSYSTEM STATUS - OVERSTRAND MUNICIPALITY (from the BGIS website)

93

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

1. Background This infosheet describes the ecosystem status GIS layer for the Overstrand municipality and provides land-use decision-making recommendations for different status levels. The GIS layer shows the location of the most threatened terrestrial ecosystems within the municipality, based upon the underlying vegetation types (as detailed in Infosheet 1).

Note: This layer only shows where natural vegetation remains within the municipality.

The single biggest threat to biodiversity in South Africa is loss of natural habitat, chiefly from activities such as crop agriculture, forestry and mining, as well as uncontrolled urban sprawl. Infestation by alien invasive species is a second major cause of biodiversity loss.

The ecosystem status layer includes:

 Critically endangered ecosystems (red)  Endangered ecosystems (orange)  Vulnerable ecosystems (yellow)  Least threatened ecosystems (green)  Areas from which the natural habitat has been lost are mapped in white. Note that more natural habitat may have been lost since this mapping was completed.

2. Land-use decision-making recommendations To ensure maximum accuracy, check the GIS information against actual conditions on the ground when undertaking decision-making. This layer was mapped at a scale of 1: 250 000. In all natural habitats:  Wherever possible, avoid dividing a continuous area of natural habitat into smaller fragments.  Notify CapeNature’s Land Use Advisory Unit (021 886 8017) or [email protected] when applications for non-conservation land use are submitted for authorisation or approval.  Decisions that may cause negative impacts on pristine and threatened (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable) ecosystems should be informed by specialist biodiversity assessments. In critically endangered ecosystems:  Prevent further loss of natural habitat.  Appropriate land uses include activities that do not result in further loss of habitat or disturbance to ecosystem functioning in these systems.  Appropriate land uses may include, for example, passive recreation and tourism (hiking trails, bird watching), research and environmental education.

In endangered ecosystems:  Avoid further loss of natural habitat. 94

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

 Appropriate land uses are the same as for critically endangered ecosystems.  The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning should identify appropriate biodiversity offsets together with CapeNature to ensure that the endangered ecosystem doesn’t become critically endangered. Offsets could be implemented through stewardship agreements.

In vulnerable ecosystems:  Some further loss of habitat may be acceptable. Consult with CapeNature before authorising further transformation of habitat. Unchecked habitat loss can move a vulnerable ecosystem into the endangered category.

In least threatened ecosystems:  Adopt a precautionary approach to environmental impacts in these ecosystems.  Least threatened ecosystems provide opportunities to keep large-scale processes intact. Wherever possible, avoid fragmentation of habitat and encroachment into areas important for ecological processes.  Least threatened ecosystems may include areas that are currently under pressure to uncontrolled development, such as coastal habitats, or that have been identified as locally important, such as limestone habitats in the Agulhas Plain.  Note that least threatened status does not automatically equate to low biodiversity value, it rather implies that sufficient natural habitat still exists to meet the biodiversity target for the ecosystem concerned. Least threatened areas may support red data book species or contribute significantly to the regional landscape. Large, pristine tracts should, in particular, be protected from fragmentation and degradation.

3. Biodiversity management recommendations

 Promote connectivity of natural habitat within threatened ecosystems such as renosterveld, and between threatened ecosystems, for example between renosterveld and fynbos.  Prioritise alien vegetation clearance and habitat rehabilitation in threatened ecosystems and in areas important for maintaining ecological processes.  Ensure that ecological processes such as periodic fires or pollination are maintained (consult with CapeNature).  Adopt nature-friendly farming practices such as biological pest control, maintaining strips of indigenous vegetation between fields, and reducing the use of fertilisers and pesticides near indigenous vegetation or wetlands.  Promote sustainable land uses that are compatible with maintaining ecosystem functioning.

Further information

95

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

This GIS layer is based on the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (SANBI, 2004), which describes how intact and well-functioning terrestrial ecosystems currently are in South Africa, based on four categories: 1. Least Threatened (still largely intact). 2. Vulnerable (reasonably intact, but nearing the threshold beyond which they will start to lose ecosystem functioning). 3. endangered (have lost significant amounts of their original natural habitat, impairing their functioning) and 4. critically endangered (have so little of the original natural habitat left that not only has their functioning been severely impaired, but species associated with the ecosystem are being lost).

The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment used the Vegetation map for South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland to define ecosystems (published in 2004, scale 1:250 000; see Vegetation Map layer). For each vegetation type, a biodiversity target was set using scientific best practice. The target describes the threshold for conserving the majority of species associated with the ecosystem. It is higher for species-rich ecosystems. The threshold for conserving ecosystem functioning is 60 percent of the original area of the vegetation type. For each ecosystem, the amount of natural habitat that remains is compared with two thresholds: one for maintaining healthy ecosystem functioning, and one for conserving the majority of species associated with the ecosystem.

An accompanying metadata document providing technical information on how the GIS layers were derived is available in the biodiversity package.

96

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 4: FAUNA REPORT (Harrison, 2016)

97

C O A S T E C coastal and environmental consultants botanical specialists ecological analysis environmental management impact assessment

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

JAH Environmental Consultancy PO Box 15 Riebeek East 5805 [email protected]

072 070 3812 ______

SCOPING REPORT ON VERTEBRATE FAUNA FOR PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT IN HERMANUS, WESTERN CAPE

FINAL DRAFT

Prepared by J.A. Harrison

for COASTEC

18 February 2016

98

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

SUMMARY Overall, it appears that the more southerly of the two route alignments would have less negative impact on fauna because it affects less sensitive habitat and does not create a bisection of natural habitats, and is therefore less likely to have animals regularly crossing between habitat patches. There are no major issues relating to mammals, birds and reptiles. The general mitigations recommended will be sufficient to address the needs of these groups. This also applies to relevant Red Listed species, assuming that there are no caves or major rocky outcrops that may house significant roosts of bats. This needs to be confirmed. Amphibians, on the other hand, may present some important constraints. It is essential that a suitably experienced field herpetologist check the area during the breeding season of the listed threatened species which is August to October. If breeding sites of threatened species are found, it will probably be necessary to realign the road to avoid disturbance to such sites.

BACKGROUND I was approached by Barrie Low of COASTEC to provide a desktop study of the fauna likely to be affected by a proposed new road in Hermanus. The study was to provide input into an ecological study being carried out by COASTEC.

METHODS & MATERIALS This is a desktop study only. Google Earth was used to examine the site as closely as possible.

THE FAUNA Table: Summary of vertebrate fauna relevant to the site.

Group Number of Number of Number of Number of species species possible possible possible probable Western Threatened (RR>5% for Cape and Near birds) endemics & Threatened near- species endemics

Amphibians 22 9 15 6

Reptiles 43 35 2 3

Mammals 68 47 8 9

Birds 222 137 6 14

Totals 355 228 31 32

99

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Lists of relevant fauna are provided in the Appendix, Tables 1-4. There are no major issues relating to mammals, birds and reptiles. The general mitigations recommended (below) will be sufficient to address the needs of these groups. This also applies to relevant Red Listed species (Tables 2, 3, 4), assuming that there are no caves or major rocky outcrops that may house significant roosts of bats. This latter point needs to be confirmed. Amphibians, on the other hand, may present some important constraints. This is because there are six Red Listed species that may occur in the affected area (Table 1). These are the Western Leopard Toad (EN), Rose’s Mountain Toad (VU), Cape Platanna (EN), Micro Frog (CR), Montane Marsh Frog (NT) and Drewes’ Moss Frog (NT). In addition, there are a further nine species that are endemic or near endemic to the Western Cape. Although most of these species are only of possible and not probable occurrence (Table 1), the concern lies in the fact that, should they occur, they probably also breed on site. Breeding sites of threatened species of frog must be viewed as highly sensitive and of high conservation importance. This especially includes seasonal wetlands which may dry out completely in summer and may be very small in extent and depth. Drewes’ Moss Frog, a local endemic with an extremely restricted distribution range, and the Montane Marsh Frog, occur and breed in seeps, without the need for actual wetlands in the usual sense of the term. Rose’s Mountain Toad breeds in relatively tiny rock pools in rocky areas. It is essential that a suitably experienced field herpetologist check the area during the breeding season of these species which is August to October. If breeding sites of threatened species are found, it will probably be necessary to realign the road to avoid disturbance to such sites.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Roads have a number of potential impacts on wild fauna. The relevance and severity of impacts are dependent on the characteristics and alignment of the road construction, and on the volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and other variables of traffic flow, such as speed. Because of this complexity in describing and quantifying the impacts of roads, the comments which follow, with regard to the road in question, are general and broad and will apply to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the nature of the variables. Habitat destruction: The road will involve habitat destruction, but the road is marginal to (on the edge of) the natural habitats, hence the quality and value of the affected habitats is not likely to be of particular importance. The botanical assessment will be of greater relevance in this regard, but it is reasonably clear that the more northerly route-alignment alternative would have a much greater impact on natural habitats.

100

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Figure 1: Sites on the proposed road where box culverts are likely to be needed to facilitate faunal movements. Habitat fragmentation: Fragmentation is not likely to be significant given that the road is aligned between existing development and natural habitats. It will certainly be much less if the road does not bisect natural habitats; in this regard the more northerly alternative route would have a much greater negative impact. A relevant question is whether there are any points at which fauna are likely to regularly commute between habitats on either side of the road. There are several points at which this is more likely to occur. (See Fig. 1. Note that without on-site inspection, it is not possible to assess how important these crossing points may be, and their identification is based only on the position of what appear to be natural or semi-natural habitats and watercourses on both sides of the proposed road.) At these points, it is recommended that box culverts of at least 1.5 m wide and 1 m high be installed to facilitate animal movements across the road. Also of importance are the areas at both ends of the culvert: these must not be obstructed (e.g. fences) and must have suitable natural habitat linking the culvert to the habitats on either side of the road. Of all the suggested sites for culverts (Fig. 1), the one in the far east is likely to be the most important because it coincides with a relatively large watercourse and it connects relatively large areas of natural and semi-natural habitat. Also relatively important is the central site adjacent to the small koppie. These sites should receive particular attention with regard to facilitation of faunal movements.

Habitat degradation: Habitat degradation will be caused by three types of pollution: noise, light and chemical pollution. All three have the potential to negatively impact on fauna, but the only

101

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

one that can be mitigated relatively easily is light pollution. Given that the road is adjacent to a nature reserve, there should be no street lighting where the road is adjacent to natural habitats. If street lights are imperative, they should be of a long-wavelength type (e.g. orange), and should be kept to a minimum in terms of number of lights, and the distance over which they caste light.

Road mortality: Direct mortality of animals being struck by vehicles is inevitable, but can be mitigated in a number of ways:  Provide alternative routes for animals to cross the road, namely box culverts (see above). The effectiveness of the culverts can be enhanced by constructing low walls (e.g. pre- caste concrete) alongside the road which guide small animals toward the culverts.  Restrict speed in places where animals frequently cross the road: use speed humps.  Erect signage to ward motorists of relevant fauna.  Ensure that structures at the edge of the road are designed to be fauna-friendly, that is, do not include steep or vertical structures (e.g. gutters) or holes (e.g. sumps) that obstruct the movements of small animals, or cause them to be trapped.  Maintain a mown margin/verge so that animals can be seen by motorists and so that animals are less tempted to dash out into the road from cover close to the road.  Ensure good drainage alongside the road so that wetland conditions that may be attractive to fauna do not develop adjacent to the road.

Overall, it appears that the more southerly of the two route alignments would have less negative impact on fauna because it affects less sensitive habitat and does not create a bisection of natural habitats, and is therefore less likely to have animals regularly crossing between habitat patches.

102

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX: Tables of vertebrate fauna relevant to the study site. Key to tables:  Red List status: NE = Not Evaluated; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered.  Endemism: 0 = not endemic, 1 = near endemic, 2 = endemic, m = marginal.  Occurrence: * = possible; ** = probable; *** = confirmed.

Table 1: Amphibians relevant to the site.

WC SA Occurrenc Scientific name Common name RD end end e Family Bufonidae Toads Amietophrynus pantherinus Western Leopard Toad EN 2 2 * Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad LC 0 2 * Capensibufo rosei Rose's Mountain Toad VU 2 2 ** Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape Sand Toad LC 1 2 * Family Heleophrynidae ghost frogs Heleophryne purcelli Cape Ghost Frog LC 2 2 * Family Hyperoliidae leaf-folding and reed frogs Hyperolius horstockii Arum Lily Frog LC 1 2 * Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog LC 0 0 * Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog LC 0 1 * Family Microhylidae rain frogs Breviceps acutirostris Strawberry Rain Frog LC 2 2 ** Breviceps montanus Cape Mountain Rain Frog LC 2 2 ** Family Pipidae Platannas Xenopus gilli Cape Platanna EN 2 2 * Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC 0 0 ** Family Pyxicephalidae bullfrogs, river frogs and allies Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC 0 1 ** Arthroleptella drewesii Drewes' Moss Frog NT 2 2 * Arthroleptella villiersi De Villiers' Moss Frog LC 2 2 ** Cacosternum boettgeri Boettger's Caco LC 0 0 ** Cacosternum platys Flat Caco NE 2 2 * Microbatrachella capensis Micro Frog CR 2 2 * Poyntonia paludicola Montane Marsh Frog NT 2 2 * Strongylopus bonaespei Banded Stream Frog LC 1 2 ** Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog LC 0 1 ** Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog LC 1 2 *

103

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 2: Reptiles relevant to the site.

WC SA Scientific name Common name RD Occurrence end end Family Testudinidae Tortoises Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise LC 0 1 ** Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Tortoise LC 0 2 ** Family Pelomedusidae side-necked terrapins Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin LC 0 0 ** Family Typhlopidae blind snakes Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake LC 0 0 ** Family Leptotyphlopidae thread snakes Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake LC 0 2 ** Family Lamprophiidae lamprophid snakes Amplorhinus multimaculatus Many-spotted Snake LC 0 1 ** Boaedon capensis Common House Snake LC 0 0 ** Duberria lutrix Southern African Slug-eater LC 0 2 ** Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake LC 0 2 ** Lamprophis aurora Aurora Snake LC 0 2 ** Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied Snake LC 0 2 ** Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive Ground Snake LC 0 2 ** Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Brown Water Snake LC 0 0 ** Lycophidion c. capense Cape Wolf Snake LC 0 0 * Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout LC 0 1 * Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake LC 0 1 ** Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake LC 0 0 ** Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake LC 0 1 ** Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake LC 0 0 ** Family Colubridae colubrid snakes Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake LC 0 0 ** Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater LC 0 0 ** Dispholidus typus Boomslang LC 0 0 ** Family Elapidae elapid snakes Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals LC 0 1 ** Naja nivea Cape Cobra LC 0 0 ** Family Viperidae Vipers Bitis a. arietans Puff Adder LC 0 0 ** Bitis armata Southern Adder VU 2 2 * Bitis atropos Berg Adder LC 0 0 * Family Scincidae Skinks Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink LC 0 2 ** Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink LC 0 0 **

104

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink LC 0 2 ** Family Lacertidae lacertid lizards Nucras lalandii Delalande's Sandveld Lizard LC 0 2 * Pedioplanis lineoocellata pulchella Common Sand Lizard LC 0 1 ** Tropidosaura montana montana Common Mountain Lizard LC 0 2 * Family Gerrhosauridae plated lizards Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard LC 0 0 * Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps LC 0 2 ** Family Cordylidae girdled lizards Chamaesaura a. anguina Cape Grass Lizard NT 0 2 ** Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard LC 0 2 ** Pseudocordylus m. microlepidotus Cape Crag Lizard LC 0 2 ** Family Agamidae Agamas Agama atra Southern Rock Agama LC 0 1 ** Family Chamaeleonidae Chameleons Bradypodion pumilum Cape Dwarf Chameleon VU 2 2 ** Family Gekkonidae Geckos Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko LC 0 2 ** Lygodactylus c. capensis Common Dwarf Gecko LC 0 0 * Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko LC 0 2 **

105

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 3: Mammals relevant to the site.

WC SA Scientific name Common name RD Occurrence end end Family Chrysochloridae golden moles Chrysochloris asiatica Cape Golden Mole DD 1 2 ** Amblysomus corriae Fynbos Golden Mole NT 1 2 ** Family Macroscelididae elephant shrews Elephantulus edwardii Cape Rock Elephant-Shrew LC 1 2 * Family Orycteropodidae Aardvark Orycteropus afer Aardvark LC 0 0 * Family Procaviidae hyraxes

Procavia capensis Rock Hyrax LC 0 0 ** Family Leporidae hares, rabbits & rock rabbits Lepus capensis Cape Hare LC 0 0 * Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC 0 0 ** Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Rabbit LC 0 0 * Family Bathyergidae mole-rats Bathyergus suillus Cape Dune Mole-Rat LC 2 2 * Cryptomys hottentotus African Mole-Rat LC 0 0 ** Georychus capensis Cape Mole-Rat LC 0 2 ** Family Hystricidae Porcupines Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC 0 0 ** Family Myoxidae Dormice Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse LC 0 0 * Family Muridae rats & mice Acomys subspinosus Cape Spiny Mouse LC 2 2 ** Rhabdomys pumilio Four-Striped Grass Mouse LC 0 0 ** Dasymys capensis Cape Marsh Rat (NT) 2 2 * Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC 0 0 ** Myomyscus verreauxi Verreaux's Mouse LC 1 2 ** Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Mouse LC 0 0 ** Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat LC 0 0 ** Tatera afra Cape Gerbil LC 1 2 * Mystromys albicaudatus White-Tailed Mouse EN 0 1 * Saccostomus campestris Pouched Mouse LC 0 0 * Dendromus melanotis Grey Climbing Mouse LC 0 0 ** Dendromus mesomelas Brant's Climbing Mouse LC 0 0 ** Steatomys krebsii Kreb's Fat Mouse LC 0 0 ** Mus musculus House Mouse (alien) 0 0 ** Rattus rattus House Rat (alien) 0 0 ** Rattus norvegicus Brown House Rat (alien) 0 0 **

106

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Family Cercopithecidae baboons & monkeys Papio hamadryas Chacma Baboon LC 0 0 ** Family Soricidae Shrews Myosorex varius Forest Shrew DD 0 1 ** Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew DD 0 0 * Crocidura cyanea Reddish-Grey Musk Shrew DD 0 0 ** Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew DD 0 0 ** Family Pteropodidae fruit bats Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Rousette LC 0 0 ** Family Emballonuridae sheath-tailed bats Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian Tomb Bat LC 0 0 * Family Molossidae free-tailed bats Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-Tailed Bat LC 0 0 ** Family Miniopteridae long-fingered bats Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-Fingered Bat NT 0 0 ** Family Vespertilionidae plain-faced bats Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat LC 0 0 ** Cistugo lesueuri Lesueur's Wing-gland Bat NT 0 2 * Myotis tricolor Temminck's Hairy Bat NT 0 0 * Eptesicus hottentotus Long-Tailed Serotine Bat LC 0 0 ** Family Nycteridae slit-faced bats Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-Faced Bat LC 0 0 ** Family Rhinolophidae horseshoe bats Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat NT 0 0 ** Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat NT 0 2 ** Family Hyaenidae Hyaenas Proteles cristatus Aardwolf LC 0 0 * Family Felidae Cats Panthera pardus Leopard LC 0 0 * Caracal caracal Caracal LC 0 0 ** Felis silvestris African Wild Cat LC 0 0 ** Felis cattus Domestic Cat (alien) 0 0 ** Family Viverridae Genets Genetta genetta Small-Spotted Genet LC 0 0 ** Genetta tigrina South African Large-Spotted Genet LC 0 0 ** Family Herpestidae suricates & mongooses Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC 0 0 * Herpestes ichneumon Large Grey Mongoose LC m 0 ** Galerella pulverulenta Small Grey Mongoose LC 0 0 ** Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose LC 0 0 **

107

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Family Canidae foxes & jackals

Otocyon megalotis Bat-Eared Fox LC 0 0 ** Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC 0 0 ** Canis mesomelas Black-Backed Jackal LC 0 0 * Canis vulgaris Domestic Dog (alien) 0 0 ** Family Mustelidae otters, badgers, weasels & polecats Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC 0 0 ** Mellivora capensis Honey Badger NT 0 0 ** Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat LC 0 0 ** Family Bovidae Antelope Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker LC 0 0 ** Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok LC 0 0 * Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC 0 0 * Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok LC 0 2 ** Oreotragus oreotragus Klipspringer LC 0 0 *

108

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 4: Birds relevant to the site. The reporting rates (percentages) give an indication of likelihood of occurrence, which is primarily dependent on availability of suitable habitat, e.g. bodies of water. Red List status in brackets indicates probable revision to be published soon. W. Cape Rep Scientific name Common name RD Endem- Rate ism Struthio camelus Ostrich, Common LC 0.5 Podiceps cristatus Grebe, Great Crested LC 5.9 Podiceps nigricollis Grebe, Black-necked LC 0.5 Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little LC 41.9 Pelecanus onocrotalus Pelican, Great White VU 1.4 Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant, White-breasted LC 65.3 Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed LC 64.9 Anhinga rufa Darter, African LC 19.8 Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey LC 55.0 Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed LC 35.6 Ardea goliath Heron, Goliath LC 0.9 Ardea purpurea Heron, Purple LC 13.5 Egretta garzetta Egret, Little LC 30.2 Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed LC 1.4 Bubulcus ibis Egret, Cattle LC 22.5 Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco LC 0.5 Ixobrychus minutus Bittern, Little LC 0.9 Nycticorax nycticorax Night-Heron, Black-crowned LC 0.9 Scopus umbretta Hamerkop LC 5.4 Ciconia ciconia Stork, White LC 1.4 Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred LC 29.7 Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy LC 2.3 Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda LC 86.5 Platalea alba Spoonbill, African LC 20.3 Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater NT 26.6 Phoenicopterus minor Flamingo, Lesser NT 0.5 Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged LC 19.8 Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian LC 80.6 Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African LC 2.7 Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape LC 40.5 Anas sparsa Duck, African Black LC 4.1 Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed LC 73.9 Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed LC 11.7 Anas capensis Teal, Cape LC 27.5 Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced LC 0.5

109

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern LC 1.4 Oxyura maccoa Duck, Maccoa LC 0.5 Thalassornis leuconotus Duck, White-backed LC 5.4 Anas platyrhynchos Duck, Mallard alien 8.1 Sagittarius serpentarius Secretarybird NT 2.7 Falco peregrinus Falcon, Peregrine NT 2.7 Falco biarmicus Falcon, Lanner NT 1.4 Falco rupicolus Kestrel, Rock LC 13.1 Falco naumanni Kestrel, Lesser VU 0.5 Milvus aegyptius Kite, Yellow-billed LC 9.5 Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered LC 7.2 Aquila verreauxii Eagle, Verreaux's (VU) 5.0 Aquila pennatus Eagle, Booted LC 1.4 Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial VU 0.5 Haliaeetus vocifer Fish-eagle, African LC 14.4 Buteo rufofuscus Buzzard, Jackal LC 55.0 Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Steppe LC 18.5 Buteo trizonatus Buzzard, Forest LC 0.5 Accipiter rufiventris Sparrowhawk, Rufous-chested LC 1.4 Accipiter melanoleucus Sparrowhawk, Black LC 3.6 Accipiter tachiro Goshawk, African LC 8.1 Circus ranivorus Marsh-harrier, African VU 8.6 Circus maurus Harrier, Black NT 2.7 Polyboroides typus Harrier-Hawk, African LC 5.0 Pandion haliaetus Osprey, Osprey LC 1.8 Scleroptila africanus Francolin, Grey-winged LC 1.8 Pternistis capensis Spurfowl, Cape LC 73.9 Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common LC 5.0 Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted LC 79.7 Pavo cristatus Peacock, Common alien 0.5 Rallus caerulescens Rail, African LC 1.8 Amaurornis flavirostris Crake, Black LC 10.4 Sarothrura elegans Flufftail, Buff-spotted LC 0.5 Porphyrio madagascariensis Swamphen, African Purple LC 7.7 Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common LC 35.1 Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed LC 53.6 Anthropoides paradiseus Crane, Blue VU 33.3 Neotis denhami Bustard, Denham's VU 4.1 Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African LC 0.5 Charadrius hiaticula Plover, Common Ringed LC 0.5

110

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz's LC 18.5 Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded LC 28.4 Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned LC 10.8 Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith LC 67.1 Gallinago nigripennis Snipe, African LC 2.7 Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew LC 1.4 Calidris minuta Stint, Little LC 0.9 Calidris canutus Knot, Red LC 0.9 Philomachus pugnax Ruff, Ruff LC 0.9 Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common LC 13.5 Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common LC 8.1 Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood LC 0.5 Numenius arquata Curlew, Eurasian LC 0.5 Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel, Common LC 26.1 Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet, Pied LC 4.1 Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged LC 36.5 Burhinus vermiculatus Thick-knee, Water LC 2.7 Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted LC 22.1 Larus dominicanus Gull, Kelp LC 63.1 Larus cirrocephalus Gull, Grey-headed LC 2.7 Larus hartlaubii Gull, Hartlaub's LC 53.6 Sterna caspia Tern, Caspian LC 14.0 Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged LC 0.5 Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered LC 0.5 Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled LC 74.8 Columba arquatrix Olive-pigeon, African LC 5.0 Columba livia Dove, Rock alien 8.1 Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed LC 73.9 Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape LC 75.7 Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing LC 61.7 Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua LC 4.5 Turtur tympanistria Dove, Tambourine LC 0.5 Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested LC 3.6 Clamator jacobinus Cuckoo, Jacobin LC 0.5 Chrysococcyx klaas Cuckoo, Klaas's LC 23.4 Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diderick LC 8.1 Tyto alba Owl, Barn LC 2.3 Bubo africanus Eagle-owl, Spotted LC 8.6 Caprimulgus pectoralis Nightjar, Fiery-necked LC 5.9 Apus barbatus Swift, African Black LC 5.4

111

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped LC 32.9 Apus affinis Swift, Little LC 11.3 Tachymarptis melba Swift, Alpine LC 12.2 Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled LC 59.5 Colius colius Mousebird, White-backed LC 0.5 Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced LC 17.6 Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied LC 28.4 Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant LC 5.4 Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite LC 6.3 Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded LC 5.4 Coracias garrulus Roller, European LC 0.5 Upupa africana Hoopoe, African LC 32.0 Tricholaema leucomelas Barbet, Acacia Pied LC 8.1 Indicator indicator Honeyguide, Greater LC 0.5 Prodotiscus regulus Honeybird, Brown-backed LC 0.5 Geocolaptes olivaceus Woodpecker, Ground LC 0.9 Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal LC 4.1 Dendropicos griseocephalus Woodpecker, Olive LC 3.6 Galerida magnirostris Lark, Large-billed LC 14.4 Chersomanes albofasciata Lark, Spike-heeled LC 0.5 Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped LC 13.1 Certhilauda brevirostris Lark, Agulhas Long-billed NT 2 0.9 Certhilauda curvirostris Lark, Cape Long-billed LC 0.9 Mirafra apiata Lark, Cape Clapper LC 2.3 Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn LC 27.0 Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated LC 29.3 Hirundo dimidiata Swallow, Pearl-breasted LC 3.2 Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped LC 50.0 Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock LC 34.7 Delichon urbicum House-martin, Common LC 1.4 Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated LC 18.5 Riparia cincta Martin, Banded LC 0.5 Psalidoprocne holomelaena Saw-wing, Black (Southern race) LC 29.7 Campephaga flava Cuckoo-shrike, Black LC 0.5 Dicrurus adsimilis Drongo, Fork-tailed LC 73.4 Centropus burchellii Coucal, Burchell's LC 3.2 Corvus albus Crow, Pied LC 18.5 Corvus capensis Crow, Cape LC 18.5 Corvus albicollis Raven, White-necked LC 57.7 Chaetops frenatus Rock-jumper, Cape LC 2 1.4

112

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Pycnonotus capensis Bulbul, Cape LC 77.0 Andropadus importunus Greenbul, Sombre LC 55.0 Turdus olivaceus Thrush, Olive LC 53.6 Monticola rupestris Rock-thrush, Cape LC 23.0 Monticola explorator Rock-thrush, Sentinel LC 0.5 Oenanthe pileata Wheatear, Capped LC 12.6 Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar LC 9.9 Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African LC 17.6 Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape LC 87.4 Cercotrichas coryphoeus Scrub-robin, Karoo LC 5.4 Acrocephalus gracilirostris Swamp-warbler, Lesser LC 27.9 Acrocephalus baeticatus Reed-warbler, African LC 3.6 Bradypterus baboecala Rush-warbler, Little LC 20.7 Cryptillas victorini Warbler, Victorin's LC 2 1.4 Prinia maculosa Prinia, Karoo LC 78.8 Sphenoeacus afer Grassbird, Cape LC 38.3 Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed LC 1.8 Apalis thoracica Apalis, Bar-throated LC 65.3 Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting LC 11.3 Cisticola textrix Cisticola, Cloud LC 5.0 Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky, Neddicky LC 10.8 Cisticola subruficapilla Cisticola, Grey-backed LC 20.7 Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant's LC 47.3 Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted LC 2.3 Muscicapa adusta Flycatcher, African Dusky LC 22.5 Parisoma subcaeruleum Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented LC 0.5 Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal LC 81.5 Batis capensis Batis, Cape LC 35.6 Trochocercus cyanomelas Crested-flycatcher, Blue-mantled LC 0.9 Terpsiphone viridis Paradise-flycatcher, African LC 20.7 Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape LC 85.6 Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African LC 19.8 Anthus similis Pipit, Long-billed LC 0.5 Anthus leucophrys Pipit, Plain-backed LC 3.6 Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape LC 5.4 Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) LC 86.9 Laniarius ferrugineus Boubou, Southern LC 26.6 Tchagra tchagra Tchagra, Southern LC 4.1 Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie LC 44.6 Sturnus vulgaris Starling, Common LC 81.5

113

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Onychognathus morio Starling, Red-winged LC 49.5 Spreo bicolor Starling, Pied LC 14.9 Promerops cafer Sugarbird, Cape LC 2 61.7 Nectarinia famosa Sunbird, Malachite LC 62.6 Anthobaphes violacea Sunbird, Orange-breasted LC 2 37.4 Cinnyris afer Sunbird, Greater Double-collared LC 1.8 Cinnyris chalybeus Sunbird, Southern Double-collared LC 73.0 Chalcomitra amethystina Sunbird, Amethyst LC 5.9 Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape LC 80.6 Passer domesticus Sparrow, House LC 25.2 Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape LC 73.0 Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed LC 11.3 Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape LC 73.9 Ploceus velatus Masked-weaver, Southern LC 17.6 Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red LC 28.4 Euplectes capensis Bishop, Yellow LC 40.1 Coccopygia melanotis Waxbill, Swee LC 7.2 Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common LC 52.7 Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed LC 22.5 Crithagra totta Siskin, Cape LC 2 4.5 Serinus canicollis Canary, Cape LC 67.6 Crithagra sulphuratus Canary, Brimstone LC 35.1 Crithagra albogularis Canary, White-throated LC 2.7 Crithagra flaviventris Canary, Yellow LC 15.8 Crithagra gularis Seedeater, Streaky-headed LC 9.5 Emberiza tahapisi Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted LC 0.5 Emberiza capensis Bunting, Cape LC 3.2

114

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 5: FAUNA REPORT (Burger, 2016)

115

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

HERPETOFAUNAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED HERMANUS CBD BYPASS

Report compiled for: COASTEC, coastal and environmental consultants, PO Box 370, Rondebosch 7701

Report compiled by: Marius Burger, trading as Sungazer, 6 Putter Street, Lakeside 7945

Phone: 083-2317452; Email: [email protected]

FIRST DRAFT – July 2016

Figure 1: Arum Lily Frog from Hermanus Figure 2: Common Platanna from Golf Club (Burger 2013). Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013).

Figure 3: Cape River Frog from Hermanus Figure 4: A pair of Clicking Stream Frogs Golf Club (Burger 2013). from Hermanus Golf Club (Burger 2013).

116

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

1. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998)

I hereby declare that I have no conflicts of interest related to the work of this report. Specifically, I declare that I have no personal financial interests in the property and/or development being assessed in this report, and that I have no personal or financial connections to the relevant property owners, developers, planners, financiers or consultants of the development. I declare that the opinions expressed in this report are my own and a true reflection of my professional expertise.

CV OF SPECIALIST CONSULTANT (abridged) Mr Marius Burger holds a National Diploma in Nature Conservation with Cape Technicon, and worked as a research assistant with Eastern Cape Nature Conservation (1987-1997). Subsequently he took up employment with the Animal Demography Unit (ADU, University of Cape Town) as National Coordinator of the Southern African Frog Atlas Project (1997-2003) and as Project Herpetologist of the Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment (2005-2009). Burger’s EIA activities as a faunal specialist started in 1996, and since then he has participated in about 85 different projects in collaboration with a variety of EIA consultancies. In 1998, he established a sole-proprietor business Sungazer. His achievements as a faunal specialist are summarised below:

 Research Collaborator with the Smithsonian Institute (2002 – 2004).

 Research Collaborator with the South African Museum (2000 – 2002).

 Country liaison for the journal Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (2000 – 2004).

 Chairman of the Port Elizabeth Herpetological Club (1992 – 1996).

 Compiled about 90 specialist and EIA reports for various consultancies.  Published 29 scientific papers and 70 semi-scientific and popular articles.  Authored/edited three books and 34 chapters/accounts in books.  Presented 34 papers/posters at national/international symposia.  Assisted/presented in ca. 100 natural history television documentaries for National Geographic, BBC World, SABC, Kyknet and others.

M. Burger – trading as Sungazer – July 2016

117

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

2. SUMMARY

A faunal scoping report was compiled by Harrison (2016), relating to the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass. The four vertebrate groups assessed were mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Of these, only the amphibians were flagged as being potentially sensitive to the proposed development. Since this assessment was a desktop study, it was proposed to appoint a herpetologist to investigate the situation on the ground.

COASTEC contracted Marius Burger (Sungazer) to conduct a one-day site visit (on 25 March 2016), with the specific aim of assessing the habitats and their associated herpetofaunal assemblages. These would then be evaluated in respect of the proposed bypass development. Although the site visit took place during the dry season (i.e. suboptimal for amphibian assessments), the field study was nevertheless feasible because 1) the herpetologist has previously studied the region in optimal conditions, and 2) it was still possible to discern suitable habitats within the study area even though no frog breeding activities were present at the time.

The amphibian and reptile checklists compiled by Harrison (2016) were updated (see Appendix 1). In essence, these did not change much from the original, other than adding some of the previously confirmed records (Burger 2013, unpublished records), and updating current taxonomy and conservation status. The revised values for these two fauna groups are:  Potential amphibian richness of the Hermanus region: 22 of which 6 are Red Listed species.  Probable (including confirmed) amphibian species richness directly associated with the development footprint, based on this subsequent herpetofaunal assessment: 11 of which 0 are Red Listed species.  Potential reptile richness of the Hermanus region: 47 of which 3 are Red Listed species.  Probable (including confirmed) reptile species richness directly associated with the development footprint, based on this subsequent herpetofaunal assessment: 37 of which 2 are Red Listed species.

Table 1: Summary of amphibian and reptile checklists (see Appendix 1), updated from Harrison (2016).

Group Number of Number of Number of Number of species possible/probable possible/probable possible/probable possible/probable Western Cape South African Threatened and endemics & near- endemics & near- Near Threatened endemics endemics species

Amphibians 22/11 16/6 20/9 6/0

Reptiles 47/37 2/1 32/25 3/2

118

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

The most significant finding gleaned from the on-site assessment is that no threatened amphibian species are likely to be associated with the proposed development, thereby addressing the concerns raised in the desktop faunal report (Harrison 2016). Additionally, of the three threatened reptile species that were listed as possibly occurring in the general region, only the Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Vulnerable) and Cape Grass Lizard (Near Threatened) are likely to be present within the proposed development footprint. However, the anticipated negative impact on these two species within this particular development scenario is deemed to be low to negligible.

The preferred choice of route alternative would be to swing southwards (Southern Alignment Alternative) through the urban setting, rather than running within the Fernkloof Nature Reserve boundary belt (Northern Alignment Alternative). This is due to the higher conservation value of transformed terrain versus relatively natural terrain. From a herpetofaunal perspective, these two alternatives are both of low to low/medium significance or concern, and no specific insistence will be made in this regard. However, the only section that poses a degree of concern are the wetland habitats along the south-western limits of the Hermanus Golf Club (HGC), especially in the furthest corner (Figure 11, site 2) where the road is projected to cut through a section of vegetated seepage area which becomes inundated during the wet season. This particular wetland is probably rated fairly high as being important from a wetland conservation perspective. But purely from an amphibian perspective, it is of low/medium importance. It currently serves as breeding habitat for a number of Least Concerned frog species. Ideally (as a mitigation measure), it would be preferable not to direct the bypass through this section. Nonetheless, if such a mitigation option should be wholly constrictive to the development, then from an amphibian perspective the degree of degradation of this small section of wetland would be considered acceptable at a national scale and even at a local (Hermanus) scale.

In conclusion, although the preferred alternatives would always be to limit the impacts on natural or semi-natural terrain (i.e. Southern Alignment Alternative and the No-go Alternative), in this particular case there are no strong grounds for objecting to any of the three proposes options. From a herpetofaunal perspective, the degree of impact is likely to be low in most instances, with the exception of the south-westerly HGC wetland zone which is of low/medium (amphibian) to medium/high (wetland) conservation value.

A number of mitigation measures were proposed by Harrison (2016), and were subsequently collated in the EIA report (Low 2016). The mitigation measures proposed by Harrison (2016) are deemed adequate in respect of the proposed CBD bypass development. An additional proposal in the EIA report (Low 2016) to conduct search & rescue efforts for plants and key faunal species is however, not considered practical or in any way useful for the two

119

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

herpetofaunal groups. Search & rescue of amphibians and reptiles is thus not deemed to be a genuinely beneficial mitigation measure.

3. INTRODUCTION

A desktop study of the fauna likely to be affected by the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass was conducted by Harrison (2016). Based on concerns raised therein, it was decided to deploy a herpetologist to conduct a site visit. To this end, Marius Burger was employed to conduct such a study, with the following as terms of reference:  Assess the habitats in terms of herpetofaunal assemblages, with particular attention to the potential presence/absence of threatened amphibian/reptile species.  Discuss the threatened herpetofaunal communities in greater detail, in the light of the proposed development.  Identify/highlight sensitive nodes, and provide mitigation measures if appropriate

The site was subsequently visited by Burger on 25 March 2016, and the following report is thus an update of the herpetofaunal components of the general faunal report compiled by Harrison (20156).

4. RESULTS

The amphibian and reptile checklists compiled by Harrison (2016) were updated to include all of the records obtained during an amphibian survey of Hermanus Golf Club (Burger unpublished records, 2013), and to reflect the most recent conservation status and taxonomic changes. These are:

Frogs recorded from Hermanus Golf Club Hyperolius horstockii – Arum Lily Frog (Figure 1) Hyperolius marmoratus – Painted Reed Frog Xenopus laevis – Common Platanna (Figure 2) Amietia fuscigula – Cape River Frog (Figure 3) Arthroleptella villiersi – De Villiers' Moss Frog Cacosternum australis – Southern Caco Strongylopus bonaespei – Banded Stream Frog Strongylopus grayii – Clicking Stream Frog (Figure 4) Tomopterna delalandii – Cape Sand Frog

A total of nine frog species have been confirmed from the Hermanus Golf Club property. Another two species are likely (probable) to occur, thus totalling eleven frog species that may

120

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

be of relevance to the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass. The Painted Reed frog is in essence an alien species to this region, which have become established here during the past decade.

Conservation status

The faunal report (Harrison 2016) concluded that there were no major issues relating to mammals, birds and reptiles, but that amphibians may present some important constraints. With the advantage of having previous gained insight of the amphibian fauna of the Hermanus Golf Club, and the subsequent ground assessment of the study area and habitat, it is now possible to make a more definitive statement in this regard. Ten confirmed/probable frog species are listed as being of Least Concern, whereas the Southern Caco is currently Not Evaluated. Its pending conservation status is likely to also be of Least Concern. As for the six threatened amphibians that occur in the general region, it is predicted (with a high degree of certainty) that none of these are in fact present in the vicinity of the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass. The specific tentative concerns raised by Harrison (2016) in respect of threatened amphibians are thus herewith renounced. These species frequent specific habitat types which are not present within the proposed development zone. The two Red Listed reptile species are Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Vulnerable) and Cape Grass Lizard (Near Threatened). Both species may be negatively affected by the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass (during construction and operational phases), but this impact is likely to be of low significance even at a local scale.

Taxonomic changes

Herewith a summary of herpetological taxonomic changes that were not reflected in the Harrison (2016) faunal report:

Two species of Cacosternum (i.e. C.boettgeri and C. platys) were listed as possible/probable occurrence (Harrison 2016), but only one actually occurs here. The taxonomy of this group was recently revised (Channing et al. 2013), and the appropriate name for the taxon in this region is likely to be Cacosternum australis. The genus Amietophrynus underwent a recent taxonomic adjustment (see Ohler & Dubois 2016), affecting two of the species listed by Harrison (2016). The corrected names are Scleropus pantherina (not Amietophrynus pantherinus) and Sclerophus capensis (not Amietophrynus rangeri). Up until recently, the genus Pelomedusa was considered to be monotypic with a single species (Pelomedusa subrufa) distributed throughout most of Africa. However, the latest revision (Petzold et al. 2014) revealed a substantial cryptic diversity. Currently the genus comprises ten species, with P.galeata (not subrufa) occurring in the Western Cape.

121

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

5. DISCUSSION

Habitat assessment

Frog habitat should be distinguished in two different ways: 1. Breeding habitat. 2. Area of occupancy, i.e. the total expanse of area occupied by a particular species in addition to the breeding habitats.

For some frogs the breeding habitat may to a large extent also be its area of occupancy. For example, aquatic pipid frogs (Xenopus species) live and breed in water, and would only occasionally leave a particular water body to move to another. Likewise, terrestrial breeders (direct developers) such as rain frogs (Breviceps species) breed independently of wetlands. Such species have generally a lot more suitable habitat to their disposal, because they are not limited to the relatively localised wetland habitats. Although moss frogs are also terrestrial breeders that use a direct development breeding strategy, they are nevertheless still reliant on seepage areas for breeding and occupation. Compared to the rain frogs, they are thus much more restricted in terms of suitable habitat options. Apart from these examples, most other frogs tend to congregate around wetland habitats during the wet breeding season, where after they may often disperse several hundred metres away from the breeding habitat. The important point here is that most frog species are reliant not only on the breeding habitats (i.e. wetlands), but they also require suitable natural habitat in the immediate surroundings for their out of season phases.

The main wetland habitat sites that are of relevance to the proposed Hermanus CBD bypass are situated within the Hermanus Golf Club (see figure 11). Site 1 (Figure 7) is a small shallow artificial dam inhabited by several common species of frogs. In the general vicinity are vegetated seepage sections, which from a wetland perspective are ecologically of high conservation value. The eastern extent of the proposed bypass is projected to run within the south-western borders of the golf club, and cutting across a section of wetland site 2 (Figures 5 & 6). This area is clearly the most sensitive node from an ecological perspective. However, it is of relatively low/medium importance from an amphibian perspective. Thus although it would be ideal to limit the development outside of this zone, at the same time it certainly is not a no-go option from an amphibian perspective. These wetlands are of low/medium importance to a relatively small population of Least Concern frog species.

The other ecological zone that stands to be negatively compromised by the proposed bypass, is the boundary section of the Fernkloof Nature Reserve (Figures 8 & 9). Although the site survey was not conducted during the wet season (which would have been the ideal), it was nevertheless clear that this area does not contain any significant wetland habitat. In fact, no traces of wetland breeding frog habitat were observed. Thus again, from an amphibian

122

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

perspective this area is also of low importance and does not represent a development constraint in this regard.

Reptile habitat in this region is more varied compared to that for the frog communities. It ranges to accommodate terrestrial, fossorial, rupicolous, arboreal and semi-aquatic assemblages. Much of the study area has already been transformed (e.g. the existing urban zone), and has become unsuitable for many of the local reptile species. Of the remaining natural/semi-natural habitat nodes, certain features are relatively sparse, e.g. rocky outcrops (Figure 10) for rupicolous species and wetlands for semi-aquatic species (Figures 5 – 7). These two poorly represented habitat types are also the most valuable and sensitive in terms of the proposed CBD bypass development.

Figure 5: Site 2, seasonally flooded wetland Figure 6: Site 2, seasonally flooded wetland on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure on Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 11). 11).

Figure 7: Site 1, a small artificial pool on Figure 8: View from Fernkloof Nature Hermanus Golf Course (see also Figure 11). Reserve, towards Mountain Drive.

123

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Figure 9: Fernkloof Nature Reserve Figure 10: Rocky habitat for rupicolous boundary with Mountain Drive. reptiles in Fernkloof Nature Reserve.

Figure 11. Northern bypass alternative in green. Southern bypass alternative in red. Wetland habitat within Hermanus Golf Club are indicated with approximate outlines: 1 = small shallow artificial dam; 2 = rehabilitated vegetated seepage wetland habitat, which forms part of the wetland area directly NNE of it (also indicated with yellow oval outline).

Assessment of route alternatives

From an ecological integrity perspective, the choice of preferred route alternative would be to swing southwards (Southern Alignment Alternative) through the urban setting, rather than

124

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

running within the Fernkloof Nature Reserve boundary belt (Northern Alignment Alternative). This is purely because of weighing up the conservation value of transformed terrain versus relatively natural terrain. From a herpetofaunal perspective, these two alternatives are both of low to low/medium significance or concern. As such no specific insistence will be made in this regard. However, the only section that poses a degree of concern are the wetland habitats along the south-western limits of the Hermanus Golf Club (HGC), especially in the furthest corner (Figure 2, site 2) where the road is projected to cut through a section of vegetated seepage area which becomes inundated during the wet season. This particular wetland is probably rated fairly high as being important from a wetland conservation perspective. But purely from an amphibian perspective, it is of low/medium importance. It currently serves as breeding habitat for a number of Least Concerned frog species. Ideally (as a mitigation measure), it would be preferable not to direct the bypass through this section. Nonetheless, if such a mitigation option should be wholly constrictive to the development, then from an amphibian perspective the degree of degradation of this small section of wetland would be considered acceptable at a national scale and even at a local (Hermanus) scale.

In conclusion, although the preferred alternatives would always be to limit the impacts on natural or semi-natural terrain (i.e. Southern Alignment Alternative and the No-go Alternative), in this particular case there are no strong grounds for objecting to any of the three proposes options. From a herpetofaunal perspective, the degree of impact is likely to be low in most instances, with the exception of the south-westerly HGC wetland zone which is of low/medium (amphibian) to medium/high (wetland) conservation value.

125

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Figure 12. Northern bypass alternative in green. Southern bypass alternative in red.

126

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

6. REFERENCES Channing, A., Schmitz, A., Burger, M. and Kielgast, J. 2013. A molecular phylogeny of African Dainty Frogs, with the description of four new species (Anura: Pyxicephalidae: Cacosternum). Zootaxa 3701(5): 518–550. Harrison, J.A. 2016. Scoping report on vertebrate fauna for proposed road development in Hermanus, Western Cape. Unpublished report compiled by JAH Environmental Consultancy. Low, A.B. 2016. Hermanus bypass: Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment. Unpublished report compiled by Coastec. Ohler, A., and A. Dubois. 2016. The identity of the South African toad Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura). PeerJ 4(e1553): 1–13. Petzold, A., Vargas-Ramírez, M., Kehlmaier, C., Vamberger, E., Branch, W.R., Du Preez, L.H., Hofmeyr, M.D., Meyer, L., Schleicher, A., Široký, P. and Fritz, U. 2014. A revision of African helmeted terrapins (Testudines: Pelomedusidae: Pelomedusa), with descriptions of six new species. Zootaxa 3795(5): 523–548.

127

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 1: Amphibian and reptile checklists, updated from Harrison (2016).

Key to tables:  Red List status (RL): NE = Not Evaluated; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NT = Near Threatened; VU = Vulnerable; EN = Endangered; CR = Critically Endangered.  Endemism: 0 = not endemic, 1 = near endemic, 2 = endemic, m = marginal.  Occurrence: * = possible; ** = probable; *** = confirmed.

Table 2: Amphibians relevant to the site, updated from Harrison (2016).

WC SA Occurrenc Scientific name Common name RL end end e

Family Bufonidae toads

Capensibufo rosei Rose's Mountain Toad VU 2 2 *

Sclerophrys pantherina Western Leopard Toad EN 2 2 *

Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad LC 0 2 **

Vandijkophrynus angusticeps Cape Sand Toad LC 1 2 *

Family Heleophrynidae ghost frogs

Heleophryne purcelli Cape Ghost Frog LC 2 2 *

Family Hyperoliidae leaf-folding and reed frogs

Hyperolius horstockii Arum Lily Frog LC 1 2 ***

Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog LC 0 0 ***

Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog LC 0 1 *

Family Brevicipitidae rain frogs

Breviceps acutirostris Strawberry Rain Frog LC 2 2 *

Breviceps montanus Cape Mountain Rain Frog LC 2 2 **

Breviceps rosei Rose’s Rain Frog LC 2 2 *

Family Pipidae platannas

Xenopus gilli Cape Platanna EN 2 2 *

Xenopus laevis Common Platanna LC 0 0 ***

Family Pyxicephalidae bullfrogs, river frogs and allies

Amietia fuscigula Cape River Frog LC 0 1 ***

Arthroleptella drewesii Drewes' Moss Frog NT 2 2 *

128

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Arthroleptella villiersi De Villiers' Moss Frog LC 2 2 ***

Cacosternum australis Southern Caco NE 2 2 ***

Microbatrachella capensis Micro Frog CR 2 2 *

Poyntonia paludicola Montane Marsh Frog NT 2 2 *

Strongylopus bonaespei Banded Stream Frog LC 1 2 ***

Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog LC 0 1 ***

Tomopterna delalandii Cape Sand Frog LC 1 2 ***

129

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 3: Reptiles relevant to the site, updated from Harrison (2016).

WC SA Scientific name Common name RL Occurrence end. end.

Family Testudinidae tortoises

Chersina angulate Angulate Tortoise LC 0 1 **

Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Dwarf Tortoise LC 0 2 **

Family Pelomedusidae side-necked terrapins

South African Helmeted Pelomedusa galeata NE 0 2 ** Terrapin

Family Typhlopidae blind snakes

Delalande's Beaked Blind Rhinotyphlops lalandei LC 0 0 ** Snake

Family Leptotyphlopidae thread snakes

Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake LC 0 2 **

Family Lamprophiidae lamprophid snakes

Amplorhinus multimaculatus Many-spotted Snake LC 0 1 **

Boaedon capensis Common House Snake LC 0 0 **

Duberria lutrix Southern African Slug-eater LC 0 2 **

Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake LC 0 2 **

Lamprophis aurora Aurora Snake LC 0 2 **

Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied Snake LC 0 2 **

Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake LC 0 1 **

Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive Ground Snake LC 0 2 **

Lycodonomorphus rufulus Common Brown Water Snake LC 0 0 **

Lycophidion c. capense Cape Wolf Snake LC 0 0 *

Prosymna sundevallii Sundevall's Shovel-snout LC 0 1 *

Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake LC 0 1 **

Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake LC 0 0 **

Psammophylax r. rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake LC 0 1 **

Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake LC 0 0 **

130

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 3 (continued): WC SA Scientific name Common name RL Occurrence end. end.

Family Colubridae colubrid snakes

Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake LC 0 0 **

Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater LC 0 0 **

Dispholidus typus Boomslang LC 0 0 **

Family Elapidae elapid snakes

Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals LC 0 1 **

Naja nivea Cape Cobra LC 0 0 **

Family Viperidae vipers

Bitis a. arietans Puff Adder LC 0 0 **

Bitis armata Southern Adder VU 2 2 *

Bitis atropos Berg Adder LC 0 0 **

Family Scincidae skinks

Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink LC 0 2 **

Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink LC 0 0 **

Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink LC 0 2 **

Family Lacertidae lacertid lizards

Meroles knoxii Knox’s Desert Lizard LC 0 1 *

Nucras lalandii Delalande's Sandveld Lizard LC 0 2 *

Pedioplanis lineoocellata Common Sand Lizard LC 0 1 ** pulchella

Tropidosaura gularis Cape Mountain Lizard LC 0 2 *

Tropidosaura montana montana Common Mountain Lizard LC 0 2 *

Family Gerrhosauridae plated lizards

Gerrhosaurus flavigularis Yellow-throated Plated Lizard LC 0 0 *

Tetradactylus seps Short-legged Seps LC 0 2 **

Tetradactylus tetradactylus Cape Long-tailed Seps LC 0 2 *

131

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Table 3 (continued): WC SA Scientific name Common name RL Occurrence end. end.

Family Cordylidae girdled lizards

Chamaesaura a. anguina Cape Grass Lizard NT 0 2 **

Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard LC 0 2 **

Pseudocordylus m. Cape Crag Lizard LC 0 2 ** microlepidotus

Family Agamidae agamas

Agama atra Southern Rock Agama LC 0 1 **

Family Chamaeleonidae chameleons

Bradypodion pumilum Cape Dwarf Chameleon VU 2 2 **

Family Gekkonidae geckos

Afrogecko porphyreus Marbled Leaf-toed Gecko LC 0 2 **

Lygodactylus c. capensis Common Dwarf Gecko LC 0 0 *

Pachydactylus geitje Ocellated Gecko LC 0 2 **

132

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

APPENDIX 6: IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (AS SUPPLIED BY SRK)

133

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Impact Assessment Methodology for EIAs - Instructions to Specialists

The significance of all potential impacts that would result from the proposed project is determined in order to assist decision-makers. The significance rating of impacts is considered by decision-makers, as shown below.  INSIGNIFICANT: the potential impact is negligible and will not have an influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity.  VERY LOW: the potential impact is very small and should not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity.  LOW: the potential impact may not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity.  MEDIUM: the potential impact should influence the decision regarding the proposed activity.  HIGH: the potential impact will affect a decision regarding the proposed activity.  VERY HIGH: The proposed activity should only be approved under special circumstances.

The significance of an impact is defined as a combination of the consequence of the impact occurring and the probability that the impact will occur. The significance of each identified impact6 must be rated according to the methodology set out below:

Step 1 – Determine the consequence rating for the impact by determining the score for each of the three criteria (A-C) listed below and then adding them7. The rationale for assigning a specific rating, and comments on the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources and be irreversible, must be included in the narrative accompanying the impact rating:

Rating Definition of Rating Score A. Extent– the area over which the impact will be experienced Local Confined to project or study area or adjacent areas 1 Regional The region, which may be defined in various ways, e.g. 2 cadastral, catchment, topographic (Inter) Nationally or beyond 3 national B. Intensity– the magnitude of the impact in relation to the sensitivity of the receiving environment, taking into account the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources Low Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and 1 processes are negligibly altered Medium Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and 2

6 This does not apply to minor impacts which can be logically grouped into a single assessment. 7 Please note that specialists are welcome to discuss the rating definitions as they apply to their study with the EIA team.

134

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

processes continue albeit in a modified way High Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions or 3 processes are severely altered C. Duration– the timeframe over which the impact will be experienced and its reversibility Short-term Up to 2 years (i.e. reversible impact) 1 Medium-term 2 to 15 years (i.e. reversible impact) 2 Long-term More than 15 years (state whether impact is irreversible) 3

The combined score of these three criteria corresponds to a Consequence Rating, as follows: Combined Score 3 – 4 5 6 7 8 – 9 (A+B+C) Consequence Rating Very low Low Medium High Very high

Example 1: Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Regional Medium Long-term High 2 2 3 7

Step 2 – Assess the probability of the impact occurring according to the following definitions:

Probability– the likelihood of the impact occurring Improbable < 40% chance of occurring Possible 40% - 70% chance of occurring Probable > 70% - 90% chance of occurring Definite > 90% chance of occurring

Example 2: Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Regional Medium Long-term High Probable 2 2 3 7

Step 3 – Determine the overall significance of the impact as a combination of the consequence and probability ratings, as set out below:

Probability Improbable Possible Probable Definite

Very Low INSIGNIFICANT INSIGNIFICANT VERY LOW VERY LOW Low VERY LOW VERY LOW LOW LOW Medium LOW LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM High MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH

Consequence Very High HIGH HIGH VERY HIGH VERY HIGH

Example 3:

135

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Regional Medium Long- High term Probable HIGH 2 2 3 7

Step 4 – Note the status of the impact (i.e. will the effect of the impact be negative or positive?)

Example 4: Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Regional Medium Long- High term Probable HIGH – ve 2 2 3 7

Step 5 – State your level of confidence in the assessment of the impact (high, medium or low).

Depending on the data available, you may feel more confident in the assessment of some impact than others. For example, if you are basing your assessment on extrapolated data, you may reduce the confidence level to low, noting that further groundtruthing is required to improve this.

Example 5: Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Regional Medium Long-term High Probable HIGH – ve High 2 2 3 7

Step 6 – Identify and describe practical mitigation and optimisation measures that can be implemented effectively to reduce or enhance the significance of the impact. Mitigation and optimisation measures must be described as either:

 Essential: best practice measures which must be implemented and are non- negotiable; and.

 Best Practice: recommended to comply with best practice, with adoption dependent on the proponent’s risk profile and commitment to adhere to best practice, and which must be shown to have been considered and sound reasons provided by the proponent if not implemented.

Essential mitigation and optimisation measures must be inserted into the completed impact assessment table. The impact should be re-assessed with mitigation, by following Steps 1-5 again to demonstrate how the extent, intensity, duration and/or probability change after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Best practice measures must also be inserted into the impact assessment table, but not considered in the “with mitigation” impact significance rating.

Example 6: A completed impact assessment table

136

hermanus bypass – terrestrial ecology assessment

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Regional Medium Long-term High Probable HIGH – ve High mitigation 2 2 3 7 Essential mitigation measures:  Xxx1  Xxx2  Xxx3 Best practice mitigation measures:  Yyy1  Yyy2 With Local Low Long-term Low Improbable VERY LOW – ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

Step 7 – Summarise all impact significance ratings as follows in your executive summary:

Impact Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Impact 1: XXXX Medium Improbable LOW –ve High With Mitigation Low Improbable VERY LOW High Impact 2: XXXX Very Low Definite VERY LOW –ve Medium With Mitigation: Not applicable

137