project location - cssgis.co.za d_ecological speciali… · study methodology ... loss/hydrological...

Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PROJECT TITLE: Ecological Specialist Report for the Proposed Demolition and Rebuilding of a

House on Stand 365, along the Kariega Estuary, Kenton-On-Sea

PROJECT LOCATION:

Kenton-On-Sea, Ndlambe Local Municipality, Eastern Cape

PROJECT ASSESSMENT TYPE: Ecological Specialist Assessment

Prepared by:

Ms D.C. Vromans

PO Box 133

Bathurst, 6166

Tel: 046 625 0300/ 082 714 6904

Email: [email protected]

Prepared for:

Ms S. van der Waal/Mr B. Cobbing

Conservation Support Services

PO Box 504, Grahamstown, 6140

61 New Street, Grahamstown, 6139

Tel: 46 6224526

Email: [email protected]

Submission date:

16 August 2013

mailto:[email protected]


SPECIALIST STATEMENT DETAIL

This statement has been prepared with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment

Regulations and the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), any subsequent amendments and

any relevant other National and / or Provincial Policies related to ecological or biodiversity assessments in

mind, such as the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) and National Water Act

(36 of 1998).

Report Prepared By: Ms Deborah Vromans

Expertise / Field of Study: MSc Botany (Estuaries), BA Environmental & Geographical Science, ND Horticulture,

Botanical assessments (terrestrial, wetland and estuarine), Environmental Impact Assessments, Biodiversity

and Planning Professional.

I, Ms Deborah Vromans, declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or

prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs

Signed: Date: 16 August 2013

Report Reviewed By: Dr. Brian Colloty Pr.Sci.Nat. (Ecology) / Certified EAP / Member SAEIES & SASAqS

Expertise / Field of Study: BSc (Hons) Zoology, MSc Botany (Rivers), Ph.D Botany Conservation Importance

rating (Estuaries) and interior wetland / riverine assessment consultant from 1996 to present.

I, Dr. Brian Michael Colloty declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or

prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs.

Signed: Date: 16 August 2013


Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................... 11

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND MOTIVATION .......................................... 11

3. THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES)................................. 16

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 18

5. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 19

5.1. CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPH (LANDSCAPE), GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................. 19

5.2. TERRESTRIAL HABITATS: VEGETATION TYPE ....................................................................................... 19

5.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Endemic) .................................................................... 22

5.2.2. STUDY SITE ASSESSMENT AND OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................. 22

5.3. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: RIVERS, WETLANDS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH ............................. 27

5.3.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) .................................................................. 34

5.4. FAUNA ................................................................................................................................................. 34


5.5. BIRDS ................................................................................................................................................... 35

5.5.1. Important Bird Areas (IBA) of South Africa ..................................................................................... 36


5.6. REPTIILES ............................................................................................................................................. 37


5.7. AMPHIBIANS ....................................................................................................................................... 38


5.8. INSECTS ............................................................................................................................................... 38


6. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS DEVELOPED FOR THE REGION ........................................................... 39

6.1. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLAN OR CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS MAP

(2012) ............................................................................................................................................................ 39

6.2. THE NATIONAL FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITY AREAS ASSESSMENT (2011), INCLUDING THE

NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT: ESTUARINE COMPONENT, 2011). ..................................................... 40

6.3. MAPUTALAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY HOTSPOT’S (MPAH) BIODIVERSITY MAP (2010)..................... 41

7. OTHER STRAGETIC SPATIAL PLANS THAT MAP BIODIVERSITY ...................................................................... 42

7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK: CANNON ROCKS TO GREAT KEI RIVER ................. 42

7.2. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK .............................................. 43

8. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ................................................................................................................. 43

9. CLIMATE CHANGE ......................................................................................................................................... 44

10. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................. 45


Table of Contents

10.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) ..................................................................................................... 45

10.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 ......................................................................................... 46

10.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 .......................................... 46

10.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24

OF 2009 ............................................................................................................................................................ 47

10.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 .................. 47

10.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) .......................... 48

10.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPAA) 57 OF 2003 ....... 48

10.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 ........................................................................................ 48

10.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 ..................................................................... 48

10.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) ........................... 48

10.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 .................................................... 48

10.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 ......................................... 49

11. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 50

11.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 50

11.2. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSED .......................................................................................... 53

11.3. DESIGN OR PLANNING PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT .......... 55

11.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT .................... 57

11.4.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ..................... 57

11.4.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) .......................... 59

11.4.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...................................................................... 61

11.4.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...................................... 62

11.4.5. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL

PROCESSES)................................................................................................................................................... 63

11.4.6. IMPACT 6: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY

LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ............................................................................................................... 65

11.4.7. IMPACT 7: LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS

(BIODIVERSITY LOSS) .................................................................................................................................... 67

11.4.8. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND

FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ................................................................................................. 68

11.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ....... 71

11.5.1. IMPACT 1: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) .......................... 71

11.5.2. IMPACT 2: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...................................................................... 72

11.5.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...................................... 72

11.5.4. IMPACT 4: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL

PROCESSES)................................................................................................................................................... 73


LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ............................................................................................................... 73


Table of Contents


(BIODIVERSITY LOSS) .................................................................................................................................... 75

11.5.7. IMPACT 7: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND

FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ................................................................................................. 75

11.6. POST CLOSURE / DECOMMISSIONING PHASE – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND

ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 76

11.7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND RECOMMENDED

MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................................... 77

12. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 87


6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conservation Support Services (CSS) was appointed by Mr Alan to undertake a Basic Assessment in terms of

the regulations promulgated under Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998).

The Basic Assessment is for the construction of a new residential house, which will involve the demolition of

existing residential unit (excluding a double garage and separate unit). An ecological assessment for the

proposed residential unit is the subject of this report and will provide input into the Basic Assessment Report.

The proposed residential unit is positioned along the Kariega Estuary at Kenton-On-Sea, on Erf 365 (±1 000

m²), falling within the Ndlambe Local Municipality (Sarah Baartman District Municipality formerly the Cacadu

District Municipality), Eastern Cape. The motivation for the proposed dwelling is to upgrade an existing

dwelling to a larger residential unit. The existing dwelling (with an estimated total footprint of 376.67 m²),

excluding the double garage and detached ‘Flat’, will be demolished and a new residential unit erected,

resulting in a development footprint of approximately 512 m². A BIOROCK sewage system is proposed for the

storage and biological treatment of sewage. Liquid effluent will be discharged into the ground and de-sludging

will be required every 3/4 – 5 years. This system is capable of producing wastewater effluent four times the

minimum standard for water quality (Global norms: Biochemical Oxygen Demand of 20mg/ℓ, Suspended Solids

of 20mg/ℓ and Ammonia as Nitrogen of 20mg/ℓ or 20:20:20, BioRock typically: 4:3:3).

The property is transformed due to residential structures and a formalized garden, which has a number of

indigenous Thicket plants, of which a few are protected either by the National Forest Act, namely a mature

Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), and the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance (19 of 1974).

Species protected under the Ordinance include three Aloe plants, Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower),

Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig), and two Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies).

The Kariega Estuary is a permanently open estuary that is ranked number 27 in South Africa in terms of its

conservation importance (out of 250). It is a priority estuary or Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) (van

Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2002) and a Critical Biodiversity Area (Skowno and Holness, 2012).

Numerous fish species inhabit and rely on the estuary, it is even considered a potential habitat for the Zambezi

Shark. According to the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012), the water quality is “fair” and the

estuary is in a ‘’C’’ Ecological Category (provisional Present Ecological Status) i.e. it is moderately impacted.

The only Species of Special Concern, other than the protected plants mentioned above, which may potentially

frequent the property, is the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis), an endemic and ‘’Rare’’ mouse.

Other Species of Special Concern known to frequent the Kariega Estuary and Thicket areas, e.g. Pallid Harrier

and Ground Hornbill, will not be destroyed by the proposed residential dwelling.

The property is classified as an Ecological Support Area by the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map, the

most current and detailed biodiversity map for the Municipality (1:10 000), while the estuary floodplain (5m

contour) and natural Thicket areas are Critical Biodiversity Areas. All developments should be restricted to

above 5 m contour and/or the projected 1:100 year flood line.

Municipal spatial planning needs to consider the future predictions of climate change where properties are

sited within the coastal protection zone, as is Erf 365, and as a result, in close proximity to the high water

mark. Climate change researchers have predicted a rise in sea level, increased freshwater flooding, scouring

and increased storm surges. The Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy requires the mapping

of the projected 1:50 and 1:100 year flood lines; and the identification of flood prone zones in Spatial

Development Frameworks. In addition, and in terms of the National Environmental Management: Integrated

Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009), the Provincial Environmental Authority must determine a coastal set

back line. The Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2011) maintains that a 15 cm rise in sea level will

impact all coastal areas below the 20 m contour (also included in the Ndlambe SDF, 2012). Flooding, due to the


7

predicted sea level rise and more frequent flood events or storm surges, is considered unlikely in the case of

the Kariega Estuary, given the relatively steep incline and significant vertical height from the 5 m contour

(floodplain) to the 20 m contour.

Apart from the Basic Assessment required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of

1998), other legislative requirements triggered by the proposed development, include: (1) A waste

management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the general measures of the National

Environmental Management: Waste Management Act (59 of 2008) Act, as part of the Basic Assessment

Report, (2) Waste generated during construction must be disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site, which is

likely to be licensed in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act (73 of 1989), and (3) the landowner

(developer) will be responsible for clearing alien invasive plants within the property.

Design or planning phase recommendations to reduce the impact on the natural environment, which the

Applicant should consider:

Geotechnical study to confirm the stability of eastern portion (estuary side) of the property given the

proximity of the residential structure to the 15 m contour and steeper incline leading towards the

estuary, although it appears that the valley slopes are stable because there are residential structures

sited along the valley edge. (The motivation for requesting a study, however, is based on an incident

in Port Alfred where an existing residential unit partially collapsed due to close proximity to the edge

of a steep incline above the Central Business District).

Approval of the BIOROCK sewage system by the Department of Water Affairs and the Ndlambe

Municipality.

Alternative energy sources e.g. solar power, wind power, gas.

Low flush toilets.

Low flow showers.

Rainfall harvesting (5 000 litre tank is required under Municipal by-laws for any new developments).

Building with local resources, as far as is possible.

Design to incorporate natural heating and cooling mechanisms e.g. large north facing windows.

Implement design measures that enhance run off infiltration into the ground e.g. increase natural

plant cover (along the drive way and patio areas) to reduce potential soil erosion and sedimentation

downslope (rainfall harvesting should assist with reducing this impact).

In other words, apply ‘’Green Building Principles’’ as far as is possible.

Summary of Potential Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation, for the three development alternatives, that were identified and assessed where relevant:

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE:

PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT LAYOUT (PREFEERRED ALTERNATIVE)

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE)

NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT OPTION)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A

SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

LOW LOW LOW LOW N/A N/A


8






PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A

TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

MEDIUM-LOW (54)

VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW (48)

VERY-LOW N/A N/A

EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)




N/A N/A

DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)





N/A N/A

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW

LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW NO IMPACT (No further impact from the status quo)


LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)



TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT

EFFLUENT POLLUTION – LIQUID EFFLUENT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)








9






PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)







Summary of Findings:

The current residential dwelling will have the lowest impact on the natural environment because it maintains

the status quo; and existing garden habitat will not be reduced. The proposed residential development

(Preferred Layout) and Alternative Development Alternative (Extension) will have an equal impact on the

natural environment, post mitigation.

The proposed development layout (Preferred Layout) should not cause any significant ecological impacts post

mitigation, especially if effluent management is implemented.

A summary of key mitigation measures:

SUMMARY OF KEY MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

TO REDUCE SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE/EFFLUENT

1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste

management plan, as required for the Basic Assessment.

2. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs regarding discharge of

wastewater effluent and the water quality standards required (although it is acknowledged that effluent will not

be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary, it may have a detrimental impact on water resources when

considering cumulative impacts of septic tanks with French drains in the catchment (General Authorisations

Section 21f, 21g and 21h of the National Water Act).

3. The BIOROCK sewage system must be managed to ensure no effluent wastewater, which is of inadequate water

quality standard, is discharged in to the ground. The water quality standards must meet the National Water Act

General Authorisations Section 21f, 21g and 21h (Table 3.1) and the South African Water Quality Guidelines –

Marine and Coastal Waters – Recreational Use (Volume 2) or as directed by the Department of Water Affairs.

4. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and Sanitation Services By-

Law” (permeability tests etc.) or be approved by the Municipality. Currently, there is a directive from the

Department of Water Affairs that all new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or

install a conservancy tank. Hence the need for Department of Water Affairs approval prior to municipal approval.

5. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the discharge of

sewage effluent, although this should be dealt with in points 2 and 3 above.

6. Installation of the BIOROCK sewage system at the position as indicated on the Architectural Drawing i.e. at a

significant distance above and from the 5 m contour / estuary floodplain (as recommended by the National

Estuarine Assessment).

TO REDUCE TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY


10

SUMMARY OF KEY MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

1. Implement storm-water control measures to reduce sheet run off e.g. excavate a swale on the eastern boundary (estuary side), and maintain as much plant cover as possible downslope of construction.

2. Immediate planting of indigenous species after construction (rehabilitation). The homeowner is a keen gardener and will in all likelihood supervise procedures.

3. Removal of vegetation within the construction / development footprint only (although it is acknowledged that much of the existing plant cover will be removed in order to establish the larger dwelling).

TO REDUCE IMPACTS ON PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

1. A license application to the Department of Forestry will be required for the removal of the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree.

2. Purchase another medium to large sized Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) on removal of the existing Milkwood, and plant on the property.

3. Translocate Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Aloe arborescens, Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Mesems or Vygies) species (which will be removed to construct the dwelling).

TO REDUCE THE SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANTS OR DECLARED WEEDS

1. Remove typical alien or non-indigenous plants as they establish. 2. Removal of listed alien plants within the development footprint / construction area, and property boundaries, where they occur, namely: Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper). However, S. terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper) is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act.

TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF FAUNA

1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These species should not be destroyed.

2. No fauna should be destroyed.

Strategic Planning Recommendations

Either the local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should delineate the coastal set back line, which

will incorporate the projected 1:100 year flood line and flood prone zones. Funding via all three sources

should be investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where possible.

No development within the 5 m contour or estuary floodplain.

Only 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark, of priority estuaries, namely the Kariega,

Bushmans and Great Fish River estuaries, should remain undeveloped (within the urban edge), although all

estuaries are Critical Biodiversity Areas that should be appropriately managed.

The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works to

ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.

The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) should determine the Reserve for the Bushmans and Kariega

Estuaries to prevent the negative culmination of potential long term cumulative impacts. The

Municipalities Environmental Department could encourage the DWA.


11

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Conservation Support Services (CSS) was appointed by Mr Alan to undertake a Basic Assessment in terms of

the regulations promulgated under Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998).

The Basic Assessment is for the construction of a new residential house, which will involve the demolition of

existing residential unit (excluding a double garage and separate unit). An ecological assessment for the

proposed residential unit is the subject of this report and will provide input into the Basic Assessment Report.

The following Scope of Work and required deliverables were provided by Conservation Support Services

(CSS):

1) Submit an Ecological Specialist Report including all the information as stipulated in the Terms of

Reference (Appendix A of the Contract).

2) Conduct a site visit for the purposes of the Report.

3) Prepare necessary maps (Appendix A of the Contract) and/or assess relevant GIS data for the

purposes of the Report.

4) Present the Terms of Reference in the required format (as Stipulated in Appendix B of the Contract).

Deliverables:

1) The Ecological Specialist Report to CSS in MSWord format.

2) An electronic copy of all GIS data (vector data) you may have used for map production.

3) Electronic copies of all maps produced for the Ecological Specialist Report.

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND MOTIVATION

The proposed project or development is the construction of a new, larger residential unit (Figure 1a). The

existing residential unit, apart from the free standing double storey garage (double) and ‘flat’ (ground floor),

will be demolished in order to establish the new unit.

A BIOROCK package sewage treatment system is proposed for the storage and treatment of sewage (Figure

1b). The system will be installed underground and on the eastern side (estuary side) of the existing flat and

double garage. According to the manufacturers of BIOROCK, Biobox, the system produces effluent to an

effluent standard of 4:3:3 (BOD 4mg/l; TSS 3mg/l; NH3 3mg/l), which means that the system is four times as

clean as the minimum global norms (20:20:20).

The BIOROCK sewage system is comprised of three components (process units), namely:

1. The primary receiving tank where all wastewater flows are collected by gravity. This tank operates similarly

to a septic tank whereby sludge settles and anaerobically digests at the bottom, a scum develops on the

surface and, essentially solids-free liquor separates in the middle. This solids free liquor passes, by

displacement, into the BIOROCK trickling filter, flowing through a brush filter on the primary tank outlet. The

primary tank provides mixing, thereby blending the influent concentration and in this way caters for occasional

peaks beyond the PE loading of the BIOROCK model selected. The BIOROCK can also be retrofitted to an

existing septic tank provided it is sound and of adequate capacity. In accordance with good design practice, the

primary tank (or your existing septic tank), should allow for 500 litres capacity per head, which will result in a 4

– 5 year de-sludge frequency when loaded with typical domestic effluents.


12

2. The BIOROCK trickling filter – the treatment unit – a biological filter with both aerobic and anoxic layers,

with air introduced by means of the innovative and electricity-free draft aeration system, comprising of a low

level air inlet and a high level chimney (>4,000mm above air inlet) with a ventilator on the outlet. Air passes

through the BIOROCK, providing much needed oxygen for the aerobes to respirate and metabolise the waste

in the incoming waste stream, leaving clear and odourless treated effluent.

3. The discharge and disinfection system, which would vary depending on the site. In this case, the system will

discharge treated effluent into the ground (either into a soak-away or on a sloped installation flow down the

slope where it will soak away and evaporate).

The location of the proposed residential unit is along the Kariega Estuary within the urban edge of Kenton-On-

Sea, in the Ndlambe Local Municipality (Sarah Baartman District Municipality, previously Cacadu District

Municipality), Eastern Cape. Kenton-On-Sea is approximately 30 km south of Port Alfred (Figures 1c & d).

The study site is Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827° 26.675908°), while

the study area constitutes the Kariega Estuary catchment and the Ndlambe Municipality.

The construction period will most likely be approximately 1 year (+).

The motivation for the proposed residential unit is to upgrade the existing unit to a larger residential dwelling

that will provide the required space for the Applicant’s possessions. In addition, the existing dwelling has been

damaged by damp. As a result, problems associated with damp will persist and future reparation work will be

required. Demolishing the existing residence and constructing new foundations would eradicate the damp.

Refer to the Basic Assessment Report for a more detailed motivational explanation, and Section 11.2 for a

comparison of the alternative layouts.

Geological stability of the property (due to proximity to the relatively steep valley slope): A geotechnical

study has not been undertaken. It appears, from the existing residential dwellings along the valley, that the

area is stable, however this cannot be stated with certainty.


13

Figure 1a: The proposed development, an upgraded residential unit. The existing house, apart from the free standing double storey garage (double) and ‘flat’ (ground

floor), will be demolished and replaced with a modernized residential unit.


14

Figure 1b: The proposed Biorock sewage system discharges liquid effluent of a suitable water quality meeting the relevant guidelines.


15

Figure 1c: Locality map showing the position of the new proposed residential unit along the Kariega Estuary,

Kenton-On-Sea, Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827° 26.675908°).

Figure 1d: Aerial photograph showing the position of the new proposed residential unit along the Kariega

Estuary, Kenton-On-Sea, Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827°

26.675908°).

3


16

3. THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES)

The alternative development layout involves a double-storey extension of the existing residential dwelling in

order to provide additional space to accommodate the Applicant’s possessions (currently in storage in Port

Elizabeth). The existing residential structure will therefore remain, including the double storey structure

comprising the detached double garage and flat (ground floor). The double storey extension is positioned

parallel to the Kariega Estuary (Figure 1e). Refer to Section 11.2 for a comparison of the alternative layouts.

The alternative development layout was regarded as unfavourable due to the following:

The existing dwelling would be retained and thus, with it, the structures that have been damaged by damp.

The problem would most likely persist and require future reparation. Demolishing the existing dwelling, and

building new foundations for the ‘preferred alternative’ or proposed development layout, would ensure that

the damp problem is eradicated.


17

Figure 1e: The Alternative Development Layout, which is an extension to the existing residential structures.


18

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY

A site assessment was conducted on 29 July 2013 in order to assess the ecological character of the property,

with the objective to determine vegetation type, as well as other associated biota (plants, mammals, birds and

insects etc.) and presence of Special Habitats i.e. the Kariega River Estuary and associated buffer.

Coupled with the site assessment, was the use of 2010 Spot 5 Satellite images, Aerial photographs (2009) and

Google Earth (2012) images. Estuary delineation was directed by the South African National Biodiversity

Institutes (SANBIs) national estuary layer, which is the 5 m topographical contour (available from SANBIs

Biodiversity Geographical Information System website – BGIS website).

The study site (Erf 365) is a developed residential erf with a formalized garden; although several protected

species were identified on site, some of which may or may have not been planted. GPS coordinates of these

Species of Special Concern were recorded in the field and used in GIS software (Quantum GIS version 1.8) to

map the location of each plant. Plant species were identified along the fence line (outside of the erf) to identify

general habitat type. Literature was consulted to determine the ecological character of the surrounding

environment i.e. local biota, Kariega Estuary and Species of Special Concern.

The National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas (NFEPA) Map (Nel et al., 2011) was consulted to determine

if the estuary and associated catchment was mapped as important i.e. mapped as Freshwater Ecosystem

Priority Areas or FEPAs.

Literature was consulted to determine the vegetation unit or habitat type that depicts the biodiversity of the

surrounding environment, presence of Special Habitats and Ecosystem Status, including potential presence of

Species of Special Concern. The distribution of Species of Special Concern in the Ndlambe Municipality was mapped

by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010) according to their location in a

Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South African

topographical map). Systematic biodiversity plans developed for the region were consulted to assist with

determining the ecological importance of the surrounding landscape, for example presence of Critical

Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas. These biodiversity features were mapped with Quantum GIS

(Version 1.8), as well as level of degradation or sensitivity of the larger study area indicated (including the

estuary catchment).


19

5. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION

5.1. CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPH (LANDSCAPE), GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The climatic conditions of the Ndlambe municipal region are warm-temperate, with mild temperatures

representing both the winter and summer season. Temperatures range between 10-22oC. Summer winds

reduce temperatures and humidity levels (Lubke 1988a). A maximum mean daily temperature of 22oC

(December and January) is experienced; and a minimum mean daily temperature of 14oC (July). The average

annual temperature is 17ºC. All months present a minimum of 60mm rainfall. Rainfall is generally bi-modal,

although somewhat erratic, with spring (October/November) and autumn (March) usually representing the

periods of maximum rainfall (Lubke 1983, Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). The minimum rainfall usually takes

place during June. It should be noted that a period of drought was experienced during 2009 to 2010, with

intense rainfall and flooding occurring during the latter part of 2012, experienced mostly during October; and

onwards.

The topographical landscape of the Ndlambe Municipality is incised with large river valleys and floodplains

along the coastline, and an undulating, hilly landscape in the inland areas. The coastline has a varied dune

landscape covered by dune thicket. The inland areas are interspersed with grassland and patches of forest and

fynbos, while the river valleys are covered by thicket.

The geology is characterised by the Algoa Group overlain by the Alexandria Formation. The Alexandria

Formation is comprised of alternating layers of calcareous sandstone, conglomerate and coquinite (shelly

conglomerate) (1:250 000 Geological Series). It is a limestone and therefore a good aquifer. A thin strip of the

Bokkeveld Group runs adjacent to the western boundary of the estuary near the property. Bokkeveld is

composed largely of black shales, compact siltstone and subordinate sandstones (Mouton, 2004).

5.2. TERRESTRIAL HABITATS: VEGETATION TYPE

The study site (property) is currently transformed with a formalized garden, which contains many indigenous

species. Two large, mature trees, Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) and Harpephyllum caffrum (Wild-Plum) are

likely to be historical species prior to residential development

Historical Vegetation prior to Urban Development

According to the Eastern Cape Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010), the study site supports

Albany Dune Thicket with Forest. The vegetation map for the Environmental Management Framework was

mapped at a scale of 1:10 000, by integrating the South African vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2005), the

Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) vegetation map (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002), and a

grassland map (PHD Thesis: Judd, 2010 cited in SRK, 2010); as well as ground-truthing.

According to the South African vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2005), the vegetation or habitat type that

typified the property, prior to residential transformation, was Albany Dune Strandveld (Figure 2a), in close

proximity to Cape Coastal Lagoons and Cape Estuarine Salt Marsh which represents vegetation associated with

the Kariega Estuary.

In terms of the National Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Albany Dune Strandveld is Least

Threatened. It is well protected. Some of the dominant species of this habitat comprise: Trees and shrubs -

Azima tetracantha, Brachyleana discolor (Silver Oak), Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood - protected species),


20

Zanthoxylum capense, Cassine peragua, Cussonia thyrsiflora; Climbers: Asparagus asparagoides, Rhoicissus

digitata; Herbs: Dietes iridoides, Sansevieria hyacanthoides.

The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) Vegetation Map (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002), was

largely incorporated into the national South African Vegetation Map, however it entailed a more detailed map

of the thicket units (Note how the mapped unit boundaries are very similar in the figures below).

According to the STEP Vegetation Map, the property falls within Albany Thicket (no Spekboom) and Kasouga

Dune Thicket (Albany Dune Mosaic with Grassland mosaic) (Figure 2b).

In terms of the STEP Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Albany Thicket (no Spekboom) is

Least Threatened. The dominant species include: Trees and shrubs - Allophylus decipiens, Canthium inerme,

Elaeodendron zeyheri, Olea europaea subsp. africana, Pittosporum viridiflorum, Ptaeroxylon obliquum, Rhus

lucida, Schotia latifolia and Scutia myrtina. Ground covers occur where the canopy is not developed,

comprising grasses (e.g. Panicum coloratum, P. deustum), ferns (e.g. Cheilanthes viridis, Mohria caffrorum),

succulents (e.g. Crassula cordata, C. pellucida), and herbaceous species (e.g. Dietes iridioides, Hypoestes

forskaolii). Lianas comprise Rhoicissus digitata, Pelargonium peltatum, Senecio angulatus and S. tamoides.

In terms of the STEP Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Kasouga Dune Thicket is Least

Threatened. The dominant species comprise: Trees and shrubs - Azima tetracantha, Brachylaena discolor,

Cordia caffra, Ekebergia capensis, Erythrina caffra, Euphorbia triangularis, Plumbago auriculata, Rhus pallens,

Sideroxylon inerme and Tecomaria capensis, with a matrix of grassland dominated by, for example Cynodon

dactylon, Eragrostis curvula, Sporobolus fimbriatus, Stenotaphrum secundatum and Themeda triandra.


21

Figure 2a: The South African (SA) vegetation type, called Albany Dune Strandveld, characterising the

property (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Figure 2b: The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) vegetation type, called Kasouga Dune

Thicket, characterising the property (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002).


22

5.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Endemic)

No endemic species are supported by Albany Dune Strandveld (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) or the Albany

Thicket (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002).

Kasouga Dune Thicket supports Brachystelma campanulatum, Cyrthanthus loddegesianus and Selago recurva,

some of the rare or endemic species, while Merremia malvaefolia, an endemic, which is probably extinct (Vlok

and Euston-Brown, 2002).

5.2.2. Study Site Assessment and Observations

The property is currently transformed by residential structures, patio and a formalized garden that contains

many indigenous species and lawn (Cynodon dactylon or Star Grass and Panicum deustum or Broad-leaved

Panicum). A large, mature Harpephyllum caffrum (Wild Plum) is positioned in the garden area, but will not

require removal as it is located outside of the development footprint. A number of protected species are sited

in the garden area, a Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Carpobrotus edulis

(Sour Fig), three Aloe species and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Vygies) species. Refer Section 4.2.2.1 below.

Declared alien / weed plants on the property

Listed in terms of

Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper)

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) 43 of 1984 - Category 3. This category species does not require removal.

The vegetation habitat to the east of the property (outside of the property), which grows adjacent to the

Kariega Estuary on a relatively steep slope, is likely to be Albany Dune Strandveld or Albany Dune Thicket with

Forest.

Species recorded along the fence line, outside of the property comprised:

Plant type Species

Grass Panicum deustum (Broad-leaved Panicum)

Herbaceous Hypoestes aristata (Purple Ribbon Bush), Limonium perezii (Sea Lavender), Pelargonium alchimilloides (Pink Trailing Pelargonium).

Climbers Asparagus setaceous (Asparagus), Senecio tamoides (Canary Creeper).


23

Trees and Shrubs Azima tetrachantha (Needle Bush), Ekebergia capensis (Cape Ash), Euphorbia triangularis (River Euphorbia), Lycium cinereum (Desert thorn), Plumbago auriculata (Plumbago), Ptaeroxylon obliqum (Sneezewood), Scutia myrtina (Cat Thorn), Searsia incisa (Rub Rub Currant), Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), Tecomaria capensis (Cape Honeysuckle), Zanthoxylum capense (Small Knobwood)

Alien plants Agave americana (Century Plant), Bouganvillae glabra (Bouganvillae), Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory), Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper), Thunbergia alata (Black Eyed Susan). The following are listed aliens (2001 publication) in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) 43 of 1984:

- Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory) – Category 3. - Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) – Category 3.

Category 3 species are invader plants that may no longer be propagated or sold. Existing plants do not need to be removed.

5.2.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected)

The following species are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). These species

may or may not require removal depending on their position within the development and/or construction

footprints. All the plants are positioned within a formal garden and therefore a permit application will NOT apply as

it is likely that they were planted (Pers. Comm. Mr Southwood, Department of Economic Development,

Environmental Affairs, and Tourism). Where the plants are not within the development and construction

footprints, they can be cordoned off and designated as a ‘’no-go’’ area.

1. Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe) - This species will not require removal, where it is located adjacent to the

double garage, as it is located outside of the development footprint. The area can be designated as a ‘’no-

go’’ area. Where the species is located close to the development line and possibly within the construction

footprint, the homeowner should rescue and translocate.

2. Aloe barbarae (Tree Aloe) - This species will not require removal, as it is located outside of the

development footprint adjacent to the double garage. The area can be designated as a ‘’no-go’’ area.

3. Aloe ciliaris (Common Climbing Aloe) - This species will not require removal, where it is located adjacent to

the double garage, as it is located outside of the development footprint. The area can be designated as a

‘’no-go’’ area.

4. Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig): This species may be sited within the construction footprint, if so, the

homeowner should rescue and translocate.

5. Mesembryanthemacea species (Vygies): Two species may be sited within the construction footprint, if so,

the homeowner should rescue and translocate.

6. Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) - Two individuals will require removal. The homeowner should rescue and

translocate.

The following species is protected by the National Forest Act (84 of 1998):

7. Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) - This large, mature tree will require removal as it is sited within the

development footprint.


24

Other species that are indicated as Species of Special Concern (SANParks metadata, 2010), which may occur

in the Thicket habitat, but which do not occur on the property:

Clivia nobilis or Clivia (Vulnerable), Crinum lineare or River Lilly (Vulnerable), Encephalartos altensteinii or

Eastern Cape Giant Cycad (Vulnerable), Encephalartos arenarius or Alexandria Cycad (Endangered),

Encephalartos trispinosus or Bushmans River Cycad (Vulnerable), Syncarpha sordescens (Endangered).


25

Plate 1: Photographic images showing the property with vegetation on site and along the Kariega Estuary.

1a. The property, Erf 356, looking from the R72. 1b. The property, patio and lawn, with Milkwood in the background.

1c. The property, looking towards the Kariega Estuary and Indian Ocean.

1d. The property, looking northwards, showing the stepped garden, lawn areas and formal garden beds.

1e. Looking up towards the existing house. 1e. Entrance to the property.

Milkwood


26

Plate 2. Protected Species

2a. The large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) that will need to be removed to make way for the new residential unit. The existing water tank.

2b. Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe), Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two other Mesembryanthemacea species are positioned within the formal garden, which are likely to be removed.

2c. Two Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) plants that will need to be removed.

2d. Three Aloe species, that will not require removal as this area will not be developed. The area can be demarcated as a no-go area to prevent damage during the construction phase.

Plate 2e (to Left): Two Mesembryanthemaceae species, proximate to the development line (also proximate to the Aloe arborescences plants)

Existing Water Tank

Milkwood


27

Figure 2c: Position of ‘’Protected’’ plant species.

5.3. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: RIVERS, WETLANDS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH The Ndlambe Municipality has a number of relatively large rivers and associated estuaries, as well as several

smaller non perennial streams, along the coastline. The property is located along one of these large rivers and

its associated estuary, the Kariega Estuary. The property is situated high above the high water mark, at a

maximum vertical distance of approximately 10 m (from the 5 m contour to the 15 m contour), and the erf

boundary (estuary side) is at a horizontal distance of some 13.7 m (measurements based on Quantum GIS

estimations).

The Kariega River is some 138 km long in length with a catchment area of 685 km2. The Kariega Estuary is a

large, warm temperate and permanently open estuary (Figure 2c & d). The catchment area is roughly 686 km2 and

estuary some 18 km long, with a spring tidal range of approximately 1.6 min the lower reaches. The main

channel is approximately 100 m wide in the mouth region and narrowing to 40–60 m upstream. Channel depth

is on average 2.3 m deep (Grange et al., 2000 cited in Richardson, 2006). Sand flats and salt marshes border

the estuary, which are up to 3.3 m wide in the upper reaches and 5.2 m in than the lower reaches. The Kariega

Estuary is a marine dominated system as it has very little freshwater input with an average spring tidal prism of

approximately 1.9 × 106 m3, and a 106:1 ratio of prism volume to river flow volume (Allanson and Read 1995;

Grange et al. 2000; Strydom et al. 2002 cited in Richardson et al., 2006). It has a well-mixed water column with

little thermal stratification, low turbidity (<10 NTU) and average salinity at 35 psu (practical salinity units).

During drought periods hyper saline conditions develop at the head of the estuary (Whitfield and Paterson

2003 cited in Richardson et al., 2006).


28

Harrison (2000) measured the following average variables in the Kariega Estuary: Depth (2.39), Temperature

(22.95ºC), Salinity (31.59 parts per thousand), Dissolved Oxygen (6.59 mg/litre) and Turbidity (4.7 - Secchi

disc).

Because the Kariega Estuary has a small catchment with three dams (Settlers, Howiesons Poort and Moss’), it

receives limited freshwater input, receiving a negligible annual inflow of approximately (15 × 106 m3) (Allanson

and Read, 1987, cited in Orr, 2007). Several storm-water drains discharge into the estuary. There is no

industrialization in the catchment (Jennings, 2005 cited in Orr, 2007). Impoundments empty during dry periods

due the freshwater requirements of Grahamstown and riparian farmers, which have caused the river to stop

flowing downstream of these dams (Allanson and Read, 1987, cited in Orr, 2007).

It has been shown that the numerically dominant fish in the Kariega Estuary are Atherina breviceps,

Caffrogobius superciliosus, Gilchristella aestuaria, G. callidus, Diplodus capensis, Liza dumerili, Monodactylus

falciformis, M. cephalus and Rhabdosargus holubi (Ter Morshuizen & Whitfield, 1994; Paterson & Whitfield,

1996 cited in Harrison, 2005). Other fish species that are known to inhabit the Kariega Estuary (Richardson et

al., 2006) include:

Solea bleekeri Glossogobius callidus Heteromycteris capensis Caffrogobius nudiceps Rhabdosargus holubi Caffrogobius gilchristi Psammogobius knysnaensis Caffrogobius natalensis Diplodus cervinus hottentotus Pomadasys commersonnii Diplodus sargus capensis Stephanolepis auratus

Clinus superciliosus Platycephalus indicus Gobiopsis pinto Pomadasys olivaceum Syngnathus temminckii Lithognathus lithognathus Lithognathus mormyrus Pseudorhombus arsius Chelidonichthys kumu Amblyrhynchotes honckenii Dasyatis chrysonota

Harrison (2000) considered the Kariega Estuary to be in a good ecological state, based on geomorphology, fish

community structure and aesthetics. This conclusion was further substantiated by Matcher et al (2011) due to

the absence of pathogenic bacteria.

The 5 m contour delineates the functional zone of estuaries and represents those areas that may be inundated

during flooding i.e. the estuary floodplain (Figure 2c). In the event of sea-level rise due to global climate

change, the 5 m contour should also provide a buffer area that can allow an estuary to ‘’migrate’’ to. However,

in some instances, the functional zone may go beyond the 5 m contour due to e.g. deeply incised floodplains,

the bed of a river/estuary is meters below the mapped floodplain, tidal action and/or back-flooding may be

detected further upstream (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012). Erf 365 is approximately 13.7 m horizontally and

some 10 m vertically from the 5 m contour, in other words, a fair distance.

The Kariega Estuary was given the following health condition in the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment

(van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012):


29

PR

ESSU

RES

Change in Flow Medium

Pollution Low

Habitat Loss Medium

Mining 0

Artificial Breaching

0

Fishing effort Low

Fishing Effort (Catches in tons)

2.2

Bait collection Yes

HEA

LTH

CO

ND

ITIO

N

Hydrology Fair

Hydrodynamics Excellent

Water Quality Fair

Physical habitat Fair

Habitat State Fair

Microalgae Fair

Macrophytes Fair

Invertebrates Fair

Fish Final Fair

Birds Good

Biological State Fair

Estuary Health State

Fair

Ecological Category / Provisional Ecological Status

C

The overall Ecological Category or provisional Present Ecological Status for the Kariega Estuary was determined

to be a C category or Moderately Modified, meaning that there has been a loss and change of natural habitat

and biota but the ecosystem functions and processes are still predominantly unmodified. The recommended

Ecological Category, on the other hand, is a B, meaning that the system should be Largely Natural where only a

few modifications have taken place.

The Kariega Estuary is an important nursery for Kob (Argyromus inodorus) and is a highly likely habitat for the

Zambezi Shark. The estuary is ranked number 27 in South Africa in terms of its conservation importance (out of

250 estuaries). The National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012) has classified it as a priority estuary or

an estuary Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2002)

(Figure 2d). The national recommendation is that 50 % of the estuary extent should be sanctuary protected

(no-take areas, if possible), the minimum management class should be A/B (largely natural) and rehabilitation

is a high priority. Further, 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark should remain

undeveloped (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2012), and should be interpreted as land within the

urban edge. The catchment area is also classified as a Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, meaning

that it is a priority for rehabilitation.

The most recent, large flood event took place last year, sometime during September and October 2012. The

previous flood event of such magnitude occurred in 1952. Damage that resulted from the flood included sand


30

bank scouring (from below Mullins camp towards the mouth), channel modification (increased depth below

the R72 Bridge) and mouth modifications (wider). Scouring has resulted in the uprooting of vegetation

(Website: Kenton-On-Sea Ratepayers Association).


31

Figure 2c: The Kariega Estuary floodplain, indicated by the 5 m contour (with close up).


32

Figure 2d: Kariega Estuary catchment indicated as Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, meaning that rehabilitation is a priority in order to safeguard estuary function.


33

Land within the Kariega catchment is classified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA), Ecological Support Areas (ESA) or

No Natural Areas Remaining (NNAR) (Refer Figure 2d and Section 5.1). Critical Biodiversity Areas are positioned

predominantly along the estuary and river, while large tracts of land within the catchment area are Ecological

Support Areas or No Natural Areas Remaining. No Natural Areas Remaining constitute transformed areas (no natural

habitat remaining), which is either urban or agriculture (past or present), and which mostly occur in the mid to lower

reaches of the catchment (Figure 2e). Land use activities within the Kariega catchment are mainly pineapple farming,

livestock farming, and conservation / game farming (Vorwerk, 2000). Land cover within the catchment is near-

natural or degraded where it is CBA and ESA. However, it should be noted that degraded areas are most likely under-

estimated as data is out-dated and therefore these areas have not been mapped accurately i.e. no ground-truthing

was undertaken.

Figure 2d: Kariega Estuary catchment and the degree of transformation shown as No Natural Areas Remaining (as

indicated in the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas Map – Refer Section 5.1).


34

Figure 2e. The Kariega Estuary floodplain (5 m contour), with associated catchment; and land cover indicating the

degree of transformation and degradation.

5.3.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected)

The Critically Endangered and endemic River Pipefish (Syngnathus watermeyerii) was last recorded in the

Kariega Estuary in 2006. Juvenile S. watermeyeri were recorded in its historic range (Bushmans, Kariega and

Kasouga estuaries), after an absence of four decades (Whitfield and Bruton, 1996 cited on IUCN website

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41030/0). According to Turpie et al., (2009), it was recorded in the East

Kleinemonde Estuary from 1995 – 2002.

Refer below for other biota, which are Species of Special Concern.

5.4. FAUNA

Large mammals will not frequent the site because the property is fenced in, is situated in a high density urban

residential area and is sited above a relatively steep incline, although smaller mammals may, such as:

Bats Straw coloured fruit bat (Eidolon helvum), Egyptian free tailed bat (Tadarida aegyptiacus), Banana bat (Pipistrellus nanus), Cape Serotine Bat (Eptisecus capensis), Common slit-faced bat (Nyceteris thebaica), Sundevall’s Leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros caffer).

Shrew Least dwarf shrew (Suncus infinitesimus), Greater red musk shrew (Crocidura favescens) (Endemic to SA). The Greater red musk shrew is known to inhabit houses and gardens.

Mice and Mice: Striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio), Woodland mouse (Grammomys

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41030/0


35

Dormice dolichurus), House Mouse (Mus domesticus), Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides). Dormice: Spectacled dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare), Woodland dormouse (Graphiurus murinus).

Rats Vlei rat (Otomys irroratus), Cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), House Rat (Rattus rattus).

Monkeys Vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops).


The study site does not represent a habitat for faunal Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) in

terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-

Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010).

It is possible, however, although unlikely that the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and

Rare) may frequent the property and surrounds.

This species will not be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced during

the construction period.

5.5. BIRDS

The following birds are potential inhabitants or visitors of the Kariega Estuary (Jafta, 2010):

Additional birds observed by the Diaz Cross Bird Club at Kariega Park (1999) and Kariega Estuary (2006) that frequent the area:

BIRD GROUPS SPECIES (COMMON NAMES)

Raptors Lanner Falcon (Near Threatened)

Guineafowl Helmeted Guineafowl

Species

African Sacred Ibis: Threskiornis aethiopicus Hadeda Ibis: Bostrychia hagedash

Black-headed Heron: Ardea melanocephala Grey Plover: Pluvialis squatarola

Blacksmith Lapwing: Vanellus armatus Kelp Gull: Larus dominicanus

Black-winged Stilt: Himantopus himantopus Little Egret: Egretta garzetta

Cape Cormorant: Phalacrocorax capensis – Near Threatened

Little Stint: Calidris minuta

Cape Wagtail: Motacilla capensis Mountain Wagtail: Motacilla clara

Common Greenshank: Tringa nebularia Pied Kingfisher: Ceryle rudis

Common Ringed Plover: Charadrius hiaticula Reed Cormorant: Phalacrocorax africanus

Common Sandpiper: Actitis hypoleucos Ruddy Turnstone: Arenaria interpres

Common Tern: Sterna hirundo Ruff Ruff: Philomachus pugnax

Common Whimbrel: Numenius phaeopus Sanderling Sanderling: Calidris alba

Curlew Sandpiper: Calidris ferruginea Swift Tern: Sterna bergii

Egyptian Goose: Alopochen aegyptiacus White-fronted Plover: Charadrius marginatus

Great Egret: Egretta alba Yellow-billed Duck: Anas undulata

Grey Heron: Ardea cinerea


36

BIRD GROUPS SPECIES (COMMON NAMES)

Terns and Plovers Caspien Tern (Near Threatened) Sandwich Tern (Endangered) Crowned Plover Blacksmith Plover

Cuckoos, swifts Black Cuckoo Black Swift Alpine Swift

Hornbills Crowned Hornbill

Orioles Blackheaded Oriole

Bulbuls Blackeyed Bulbul Sombre Bulbul

Robins, Warblers, Apalis Barthroated Apalis Yellowbreasted Apalis Cape Robin Whitebrowed Robin Cape Reed Warbler Bleating Warbler

White-eyes, Wagtails Cape White-eye Cape Wagtail

Shrikes, Starlings, Sunbirds Fiscal Shrike Redwinged Starling Lesser Doublecollared Sunbird Grey Sunbird

Touracos and Hoopoes Knysna Lourie Hoopoe

Barbet, Martin, Cisticola, Neddicky, Longclaw

Redfronted Tinker Barbet Rock Martin Lazy Cisticola Neddicky Orangethroated Longclaw

Doves Redeyed Dove Cape Turtle Dove Greenspotted Dove

Weavers Forest Weaver Spottedbacked Weaver Cape Weaver

The fiscal flycatcher (Sigelus silens), is an endemic of the region, which inhabits scrub, thicket and gardens. As

a result, it may frequent the garden and surrounding areas.

A list of species observed and recorded adjacent to the Estuary and surrounds can also be sourced from Southern African Bird Atlas Project (2) (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/coverage.php). The list was consulted to identify Bird Species of Special Concern.

5.5.1. Important Bird Areas (IBA) of South Africa

The Kariega Estuary does not fall within an Important Bird Area (IBA) of South Africa. The Alexandria Coastal

Belt, an International Bird Area of significance, extends from the Sundays River in the west to Cannon Rocks to

the east, which is approximately 16.2 km south-west of the Kariega Estuary.

http://sabap2.adu.org.za/coverage.php


37


The following bird Species of Special Concern are listed in the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan

(2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010), which may

frequent the Kariega Estuary and surrounding Thicket areas.

Scientific Name Common Name Threat Status (Red Data) Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane Vulnerable Bradypterus sylvaticus Knysna Warbler Vulnerable Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Near Threatened Bucorvis leadbeateri Ground Hornbill Least Concern

According to the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (2) (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/coverage.php), the

following birds have been sited along the estuary, in the surrounding landscape and/or along the adjacent

coastline:

- African Marsh Harrier (Circus ranivorus) - National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act

(NEMBA) protected species.

- Black Harrier (Circus maurus) – Near Threatened.

- The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus) – Vulnerable species also

protected under NEMBA protected species.

- Denham's Bustard (Neotis denhami) – Vulnerable species protected under NEMBA protected species.

- Cape Cormorant (Phalacrocorax capensis) – Near Threatened species protected under NEMBA

protected species.

- Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) – Vulnerable species protected under NEMBA protected species.

- Gape Gannet (Morus capensis) – Vulnerable.

- Half-collard Kingfisher (Alcedo semitorquata) – Near Threatened.

- Black-winged Lapwing (Vanellus melanopterus) – Near Threatened.

- African Openbill (Anastomus lamelligerus) – Near Threatened.

- African Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini) – Near Threatened.

- Greater Painted-snipe (Rostratula benghalensis) – Near Threatened.

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential unit.

5.6. REPTIILES

No reptiles were observed during the site visit, although various reptiles will frequent the site, such as lizards

(e.g. Yellow Throated Plate Lizard or Gerrhosaurus flavigularis), geckos (e.g. Moreau’s Tropical House Gecko or

Hemidactylus mabouia), snakes (e.g. Wolf Snakes, House Snakes, Boomslang or Dispholidus typus) and

tortoises (e.g. the endemic Parrot-Beaked Padloper or Homopus areolatus and Angulate Tortoise or Chersina

angulata). Chameleons have been reported in Kenton-on-Sea and so would be expected to frequent the site.

The species may include the Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodium ventrale) which are are usually

found in forest or fynbos habitats (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009).


No known reptile Species of Special Concern occur within the study site and immediate environment.

It should however be highlighted that all lizards (Order – Lacertilia) are protected by the Provincial Nature

Conservation Ordinance (1974). House Snakes, Wolf Snakes, Mole Snakes, Green and Bush Snakes; as well as

Egg Eaters and Slug Eaters are also protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974).

Consequently, it is illegal to kill any of these snakes or lizards.


38

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced

during the construction period.

5.7. AMPHIBIANS

No amphibians were observed on site, although frogs are an obvious candidate where water collects and along

the estuary. For example: Bronze Caco (Cacosternum nanum), which inhabits a wide variety of habitats,

including Thicket and Forest, Common River Frog (Ametia angolensis), Striped Stream Frog (Strongylopus

fasciatus), Clicking Stream Frog (Strongylopus grayii) (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009).


No known amphibian Species of Special Concern occur within the study site and immediate environment.

It should however be highlighted that all frogs and toads (Order – Anura) are protected by the Provincial

Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). Consequently, it is illegal to kill any amphibians.

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced

during the construction period.

5.8. INSECTS

Springtails, mayflies, stoneflies (True Stoneflies), damselflies and dragonflies, as well as butterflies, are

common insects that occur around aquatic environments, such as the Kariega Estuary, while many occur

within the soil and leaf litter (e.g. springtails). The damselflies and dragonflies include, for example jewels,

demoiselles, threadtails and spreadwings, while the mayflies will include small minnow mayflies that inhabit

riverine habitats. Numerous beetles, bugs, moths and mantids are likely to inhabit the vegetated areas.

Butterflies that may frequent the estuary environment include Metisella metis (Gold spotted Sylph), which

usually occurs along streams. The Marsh Commodore (Precis ceryne ceryne) uses wetlands (therefore

estuaries) as its habitat. Its distribution is localised. Two other species that may inhabit the estuary

environment include the Green-marbled Sandman (Gomalia elma elm) and the Olive-haired Swift (Borbo

borbonica borbonica).


It is unlikely that any of the species mentioned above inhabit the property, as the estuary is at a considerable

vertical distance from Erf 365. Further, there is a lack of food and host plants for butterfly species on the

property and thus the likelihood of their presence on the property is reduced.


39

6. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS DEVELOPED FOR THE REGION

Systematic conservation plans/maps that have been produced for the region in which the study site is located

include, namely:

1. The Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan or Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (2012).

2. The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (2011), which incorporates the

National Biodiversity Assessment: Estuarine Component, 2011).

3. Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010).

4. The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s (ECBCP) Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Map

(2007).

5. The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) Map (2003).

6.1. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLAN OR CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY

AREAS MAP (2012)

According to the Ndlambe Municipality CBA Map, the property falls within an Ecological Support Area (ESA)

because it is positioned adjacent to the Kariega Estuary. Sites that are not natural but proximate to the

estuary (to within 100m of the estuary) are classed as ESA. Ecological Support Areas are priority biodiversity

areas that require appropriate management, in which ecological processes should be maintained. Some

disturbance is therefore permitted. No further hardening of surfaces should be allowed in ESA, where relevant

and depending on the context of the site, which is within the urban edge on a transformed Erf.

A small portion of the eastern boundary is mapped as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). However, this area

is considered to be an ESA rather than a CBA as it is transformed (not natural Thicket cover).

The estuarine functional zone (or 5m contour) is designated as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) where it is

intact (near-natural) and an Ecological Support Area (ESA) if transformed. In addition, the Kariega Estuary (and

all other estuaries in the Municipality) is buffered by 100 m. All natural areas within this 100 m zone are

defined as CBA and transformed areas are classed as ESA, as is the case for Erf 365.

The land use management guideline most relevant to the property is to prevent development with the 5 m

contour (i.e. the estuary floodplain = National Estuary Layer) and/or the 1:100 year flood line.

Note that the Ndlambe Municipality CBA Map incorporated the spatial data generated for the Eastern Cape

Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010), which mapped the coastal area (in which the property is

IMPORTANT:

Both the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Berliner and Desmet,

2007) and STEP Biodiversity Map (Cowling et al., 2002) have been superseded by the Ndlambe Municipality

Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012) (Figure 3) (which incorporated key

biodiversity information from both these maps). This is because the Ndlambe CBA Map is spatially more

accurate than the aforementioned maps (scale approximately 1: 20 000) with respect to extant biodiversity

features and land cover (transformation). In addition, the spatial information generated for the National

Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (2011) (which incorporates the National Biodiversity

Assessment: Estuarine Component, 2011) and the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH)

Biodiversity Map (2010) was also incorporated into the Ndlambe CBA Map. Consequently, the Ndlambe CBA

Map is the most current and detailed biodiversity map for the study site and Municipality.


40

sited) at a scale of 1:10 000 (Refer Section 6.1 below). It also integrated the spatial data generated for the

Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010).

Figure 3: The Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012),

which delineates the property as an Ecological Support Area (ESA) because it is positioned adjacent to the

Kariega Estuary. A small portion of the eastern boundary is mapped as a Critical Biodiversity Area.

6.2. THE NATIONAL FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITY AREAS ASSESSMENT (2011), INCLUDING

THE NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT: ESTUARINE COMPONENT, 2011).

Aquatic ecosystems (river with their associated catchments, wetlands and estuaries) in South Africa have been

mapped on a broad-scale by various stakeholders and have been included in the National Freshwater

Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) assessment (Nel et al., 2011). The location of NFEPA wetlands was derived

from the National Land Cover 2000 (Van Den Berg et al., 2008 cited in Nel et al., 2011) and inland water

features from the Department of Land Affairs’ Chief Directorate: Surveys and Mapping (DLA-CDSM). All

wetlands are classified as either ‘natural’ or ‘artificial’ water bodies. Due to the broad-scale nature of the

NFEPA wetland map it is not spatially accurate and therefore some error is expected. Priority estuaries in

terms of the National Biodiversity Assessment: Estuarine Component (Turpie and van Niekerk, 2011) were

incorporated into the NFEPA map, while rivers and their sub-quaternary catchments, along with river health

data (Present Ecosystem State, Reserve data etc.) was also used to determine Priority Rivers and associated

catchments.


41

The use of the Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA) Map is useful at the national and desktop level,

while at the local planning level, ground-truthing is required (Nel et al., 2011; Driver et al., 2011), particularly

with respect to wetlands.

The national estuary layer represents the 5 m topographical contour which corresponds to the extent of the

estuary floodplain. The 5 m contour delineates the functional zone of estuaries and represents those areas

that may be inundated during flood events. In the event of sea-level rise, due to global climate change, the 5 m

contour should also provide a buffer area that can allow an estuary to ‘’migrate’’ to. The 5 m contour is also

useful in that an accurate delineation of the high-water mark is not available for the entire South African

coastline. It also provides the best protection against natural floods and storms, as estuarine flood lines (1:50

or 1:100) are frequently inaccurately delineated (SANBI BGIS website).

Refer to Figure 2d which shows that the Kariega Estuary is a priority estuary, while the Kariega catchment is a

Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area. This means that the estuary requires protection (50 % of the

estuary extent should be sanctuary protected and 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark

should remain undeveloped), while the catchment is a priority area for rehabilitation (van Niekerk and Turpie,

2012; Turpie et al., 2012).

6.3. MAPUTALAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY HOTSPOT’S (MPAH) BIODIVERSITY MAP (2010)

The Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) extends from Mozambique and the Limpopo River in the

north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, while encompassing the majority of Swaziland

(Figure 4). The systematic conservation plan that was generated for the MPAH, mapped 72 key biodiversity

areas and 12 biodiversity corridors for priority conservation action. The biodiversity corridors are important for

long term protection of Threatened species and ecosystem function, particularly due to future predicted

climate change impacts. The distribution of these Threatened species was mapped according to their location

in a Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South

African topographical map).

Important biodiversity features relative to the proposed development: The property is not situated in one of

the key biodiversity areas or corridors, although it is approximately 7.4 km from a mapped point for

Threatened species (refer sub-sections above).

As noted above, the data generated by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA)

assessment (Nel et al., 2011) was incorporated into the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Section

5.1 above). Consequently, the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

As noted, above these key biodiversity features have been integrated into the Ndlambe Critical

Biodiversity Areas Map (Section 5.1 above). Consequently, the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA)

Map will apply (Figure 3).


42

Figure 4: The location of the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot, extending from Mozambique and the

Limpopo River in the north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, as well as the majority

of Swaziland.

7. OTHER STRAGETIC SPATIAL PLANS THAT MAP BIODIVERSITY

7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK: CANNON ROCKS TO GREAT KEI RIVER

The Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010) identified priority areas along the coastline at a scale

of 1:10 000. The Kariega Estuary is delineated as ‘’Conservation’’, with the property falling within the urban

edge, indicated as a residential land use type.

Kariega

Note that these priority areas, in this case ‘’Conservation’’, were integrated into the Ndlambe

Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012) (Figure 3). Consequently,

the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).


43

7.2. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

The Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Map has been revised by Metroplan (2012)

and approved by Council (2013).

Figure 5: The Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Map (Metroplan, 2012)

indicating Open Space along the Kariega Estuary (Orange Circle = position of Erf 365).

8. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

The Kariega Estuary is an Ecologically Sensitive Area, while sites along the Kariega Estuary require appropriate

management measures, such as ‘no development within the 5 m contour’, which represents the floodplain of

the estuary and maintenance of natural areas. Development should also occur outside potential flood areas,

especially when considering future climate change predictions.

The SDF Map has incorporated the Ndlambe CBA Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012). Consequently, the

Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

Erf 365


44

9. CLIMATE CHANGE

Given the location of the proposed development within the coastal protection zone, the implication of climate

change needs to be highlighted with respect to spatial planning. Climate change impacts, such as flooding of

vulnerable coastal areas, are a significant concern in the international and national community. The

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an average sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 m by the end of

the 21st century, although the maximum is likely to be an under estimate (CES, 2011). However, current

predictions that consider new ice sheet understanding are twice this range, projecting an upper limit of 2 m

(Umvoto Africa, 2010 cited in Vromans et al., 2012).

A coastal set back line study for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality utilized a maximum sea level rise of 1000

mm (1 m) in 100 years, coupled with a sea storm with a return period of 1:10 years. Additionally,

environmental, social and economic buffers were considered (Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers,

2012). A study done by the City of Cape Town highlighted that there will be a sea level rise of 15 cm by 2020

and 0.33 m by the end of the century.

South Africa is as a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and must fulfil

certain obligations in terms of adapting and mitigating the impacts of climate change. As a result, a number of

policies have been generated at the national and provincial level. Although all are relevant, the most poignant

to the Ndlambe Municipality are the Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy, the National

Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009) and the Provincial Spatial

Development Framework (2011).

The Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy (CES, 2011), proposes numerous climate change

response programmes with response options, one of which has particular relevance to spatial planning,

namely: Mapping a standardized set of 1:50 and 1:100 year flood lines using projected, rather than historical

data; and to identify flood prone zones in Spatial Development Frameworks.

One of the recommended targets for the Flood Management Programme is the production of a high-resolution

provincial flood line map based on projected rainfall data, which is then disseminated to the relevant

authorities and planners (the relevant custodian being the Department of Local Government and Traditional

Affairs, Eastern Cape - Spatial Planning and Land Development).

The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009) takes into

consideration potential climate change impacts, such as freshwater flooding, ocean storm flooding, and

flooding due to rising sea level, where the coastal protection zone can be adjusted (by the Minister of the

Executive Committee) to account for potential future flooding. The delineation of a coastal set back line should

also take into consideration flood prone areas, which will require the inclusion of climate change impacts.

Refer to Section 9.4 below.

The Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2011) also requires the mapping of areas sensitive to the

impacts of global climate change (i.e. sea level rise and flooding of low lying areas). The Provincial Spatial

Development Framework states that a 15 cm rise in sea level will impact all areas below the 20 m contour line

along the coastal areas (also included in the Ndlambe SDF, 2012). This is considered highly unlikely when

considering the property, but cannot be stated with confidence without studies done relevant to the Ndlambe

Municipality. The unlikelihood of the property being impacted is particularly the case for this reach of the

Kariega Estuary, where the 20 m contour is high above the estuarine 5 m contour i.e. the floodplain area of the

estuary is relatively small along the urban area, while the valley slope, leading up to residential areas, is

relatively steep, as well as comparatively high above the high water mark.


45

10. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT A summary of the relevant legislation and policy that relates to potential ecological impacts that may accrue from the proposed development is provided in the table

below. The legislative implication (management measures) is also indicated.

LEGISLATION AND OBJECTIVE: LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

10.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the land and ensures that: '… everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. It requires that development is sustainable.

Measures must be implemented that 1) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; 2) promote conservation; and 3) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development'.


46

10.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 The NWA is concerned with the overall management, equitable allocation and conservation of water resources in South Africa. It controls and manages water use in terms of water abstraction, wastewater discharge, impact on watercourses, altering watercourse flow and the determination of the Reserve. The General Authorisations in terms of Section 39 of the Act identify certain activities that require registration or licensing via the Department of Water Affairs that impact aquatic resources (watercourses). Section 144 requires that the 1:100 year flood line be determined by a developer for township developments. In terms of Sections 21(f) and (h) of the National Water Act and the General Authorisation regarding ‘’Discharge of waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer or other conduit” – a General Authorisation will only apply if:

- The daily discharge is equal to or less than 2 000 cubic metres (2 000 000 litres) of wastewater and if the wastewater effluent complies with the general wastewater limit values set out in Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations.

Section 21(g) relates to ‘’Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water resource’’ and covers septic tanks, conservancy tanks and soak-aways. It usually applies to domestic wastewater discharged into communal septic tanks serving more than 50 households. Further, the location of wastewater disposal sites (sewage discharge), must be (a) outside of a watercourse (the Kariega Estuary); (b) above the 100 year flood line, or alternatively, more than 100 metres from the edge of a water resource or a borehole which is utilised for drinking water or stock watering, whichever is further; and (c) on land that does not overlie a Major Aquifer (to be indicated by the Department).

Measures must be implemented that prevent pollution and ecological degradation of aquatic resources i.e. rivers, estuaries and wetlands. A water use licensing application will not be needed as the proposed development is not sited in close proximity to a wetland or within a river, but in close proximity to an estuary, which is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). Refer below. The proposed development is for one residential unit, not a township. Wastewater effluent from the BIOROCK Sewage System: Although the sewage system will not discharge wastewater directly into the Kariega

Estuary, it may detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g). The general wastewater limit values set out in Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations should be complied with (Section 21f and 21h). The South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters: Recreational Use (Volume 2) should also apply, where relevant; or unless otherwise directed by the Department of Water Affairs. Further advise should be sought from the Department of Water Affairs because wastewater will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary, although it may detrimentally impact on a water resource. Further, Ndlambe Municipality has advised that only conservancy tanks or connection to existing sewage infrastructure should be permitted by the Municipality, while other instances will require the approval of the Department of Water Affairs. Although this 1:100 year flood line has not been determined, it is highly likely that the BIOROOCK sewage system is sited well above the line due to the significant height above the 5 m contour or floodplain.

10.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 The NEMA provides for overarching principles that should inform South Africa’s environmental management and governance. The NEMA is mainly regarded as a reasonable legislative measure required from the State in order to fulfil the environmental right (Section 24) of the Constitution. It requires development to be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, gazetted in terms of Section 24, trigger an authorisation process for certain activities.

A Basic Assessment must be implemented for the proposed development. Listed Activity Notice 3 requires that development within a Critical Biodiversity Area (accepted by the DEDEAT) must be authorised as well.


47

10.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009

The objective of the Act is to establish a system of integrated coastal and estuarine management, to promote conservation and to ensure that development and natural resource use within the coastal zone is ecologically sustainable and socio-economically justifiable. The Act identifies (i) the coastal protection zone (100m – 1km belt) and (ii) the coastal public property (low to high water mark) that should be protected for safeguarding biodiversity and public access. The coastal protection zone, as determined by the Minister of the Executive Committee, should take into account the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding of vulnerable areas). Discharge of effluent into coastal waters, including estuaries, is controlled via Section 69, either through the National Water Act (Section 32 & 33) or an ICMA permit. A coastal set back line should be established or approved by the provincial Authority (Department of Environmental Affairs) within four years of the promulgation of the Act (Section 25). In terms of the Draft National Estuarine Management Protocol (2012), municipalities must compile Estuary Management Plans for estuaries under their jurisdiction.

The proposed development is located within the coastal protection zone. The Authority (National Department of Environmental Affairs) may insist on an environmental assessment where a significant impact may occur as a result of a proposed development, however, this is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). Refer above. The proposed development is within the coastal protection zone, and cannot restrict public access to the coastal public property or discharge effluent into the Kariega Estuary without an authorisation. A coastal set back line has not be delineated by the provincial Authority, and can be determined by the local Authority (Ndlambe Municipality), but must then be approved by the provincial Authority i.e. Developers are not responsible for determining set back lines, provincial and local Authorities are. The coastal set back line delineation should take into account the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding of vulnerable areas). (Refer Section 8 regarding the Provincial Climate Change Response Strategy). There is no Estuary Management Plan for the Kariega Estuary. Developers are not responsible for compiling this plan, the local Authority is.

10.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 The Act provides for the protection of listed endangered ecosystems and restricts activities according to the categorization of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations). It promotes the application of appropriate environmental management tools to protect biodiversity. Chapter 3 allows for the publication of bioregional plans. The Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, in terms of Section 97 (Chapter 8), requires an authorisation process to be followed. Chapter 5 of the Act refers to the introduction and control of alien invasive species.

The proposed development must consider biodiversity and in particular threatened and important biodiversity features. Although the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map and Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s CBA Map are not bioregional plans, they are the precursor to one (with the Ndlambe CBA Map representing the more accurate map to be used), and should ideally be consulted in decision-making. Any Threatened or Protected Species cannot be removed without an authorisation. No species listed under this Act were recorded on the property. Alien species invasion should be controlled by landowners. No alien species listed under this Act were recorded on the property.


48

10.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) The Act administers matters pertaining to waste minimisation, recovery, re-use, recycling, treatment, disposal and integrated waste management. Part 5 and 6 relate to general storage, collection and transport of waste, including the prevention of littering. The NEMA EIA regulations apply to several listed waste management activities, in which a Basic Assessment or EIA is required.

A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the general measures of the Act, and as part of the Basic Assessment Report e.g. storage of waste (e.g. bins), disposal of waste (such as concrete, fuels, litter), prevention of oil leaks from construction vehicles, ablution facilities etc.

10.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPAA) 57 OF 2003

The Act provides for the declaration of Protected Areas (PAs) in three forms (Chapter 3), namely Special Nature Reserves (Part 2), Nature Reserves (Part 3) and Protected Environments (Part 4). National Parks are the equivalent of National Protected Areas. Section 10 states that a Protected Area, declared in terms of provincial legislation, is either a nature reserve or protected environment.

No National Protected Area (PA) is sited within or adjacent to the proposed property and therefore this Act does not apply i.e. permission would need to be granted in terms of this Act if the proposed development occurred within a PA or impacted on a PA. The study site is however situated approximately 736 m from a formal Protected Area, which extends along the coastline from the eastern bank of the lower reaches of the Kariega Estuary.

10.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 Any area that has vegetation that is characteristic of a closed and contiguous canopy is defined as a ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Forestry. No person may cut, disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree The removal of any indigenous or protected trees or clearing of any woodland, thicket or forest requires a permit.

One large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) tree was recorded on the property. A license application will apply because this tree will need to be removed as it is sited within the development footprint.

10.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 Section 20 of the Act requires for the appropriate disposal of waste and licensed waste disposal site, although any new waste licenses are subject to approval via the NEMWA.

All wastes (general and hazardous) generated during the construction phase must be disposed of at an ECA licensed waste disposal site, if applicable, by the contractor/developer.

10.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) Also known as the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PCNO). The Ordinance allows for conservation of the natural environment; and the protection of wildlife. Certain biota are scheduled and therefore protected. A permit must be obtained from Department of Economic Development, Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT), Provincial Environment Affairs (Biodiversity Unit), to remove or destroy any plants listed in the Ordinance.

Although seven listed plants are sited within the property, these are part of a formal garden and therefore a permit application will NOT apply (Pers Comm. Mr Alan Southwood, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism).

10.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 The Bill provides for the protection, preservation and conservation of the environment and biodiversity, and utilization of living resources to ensure sustainable economic growth and human development and a sound ecological balance with the development objectives of the provincial government. Several species are listed under this Bill for protection.

As above, but because this is not an Act, it does not yet apply and therefore the Cape Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance applies..


49

10.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 [to be replaced by the Sustainable Use of Agricultural Resources Bill] Section 6 of the Act, relates to the prescription of measures which all land users have to comply with, e.g. the prohibition of modifying run-off flow patterns; the control of invader plants; and the restoration of eroded land. Section 7 protects any vlei, marsh, water sponge or watercourse.

This Act is not implemented if not associated with an agricultural application. However, the NEMA, ICMA and NWA effectively deal with the potential impacts of proposed developments in relation to erosion, alien invasive plants and impacts on aquatic resources.


50

11. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT

11.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The risk/impact assessment methodology was provided by Conservation Support Services, which is, for the

most part, aligned with the DEAT guidelines for assessing impacts, and standard assessment methodologies

development in the field of Environmental Impact Assessments. The first stage of the risk/impact assessment

is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of

receptors and resources, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the

sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are given below.

An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organization for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or pieces of infrastructure that are possessed by an organization. An activity may include, for example, the clearing of vegetation.

An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment’

1. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an

impact.

Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, which include the biophysical environment. For example, an impact associated with the activity of clearing vegetation is loss of vegetation or loss of habitat.

Receptors comprise, but are not limited to, people or man-made structures.

Resources include components of the biophysical environment.

Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place.

Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will impact on the receptor.

Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact (increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; threat to environmental and health standards.

Spatial scope refers to the geographical scale of the impact.

Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in the resource or receptor.

The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically according to defined criteria

as outlined in Table 1a. The frequency of the activity and impact together comprise the likelihood of the

impact occurring. The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the consequence of

the impact. The values for likelihood and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance rating

matrix (Table 1b), and Table 1c is used to determine whether mitigation is necessary2.

The assessment of significance should be undertaken twice. Initial significance is based only on natural and

existing mitigation measures (including built-in engineering designs). The subsequent assessment takes into

account the recommended management measures required to mitigate the impacts. Measures such as

demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of land, are considered post-mitigation.

The model outcome of the impacts is then assessed in terms of impact certainty and the consideration of

available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied as per the National Environmental Management

Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances of uncertainty or lack of information by increasing assigned ratings or

adjusting final model outcomes.

1 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 2 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation.


51

Table 1a: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts

CO

NSE

QU

ENC

E

Severity of impact RATING

Insignificant / non-harmful 1

Small / potentially harmful 2

Significant / slightly harmful 3

Great / harmful 4

Disastrous / extremely harmful 5

Spatial scope of impact RATING

Activity specific 1

Mine specific (within the mine boundary) 2

Local area (within 5 km of the mine boundary) 3

Regional 4

National 5

Duration of impact RATING

One day to one month 1

One month to one year 2

One year to ten years 3

Life of operation 4

Post closure / permanent 5

LIK

ELIH

OO

D

Frequency of activity/ duration of aspect RATING

Annually or less / low 1

6 monthly / temporary 2

Monthly / infrequent 3

Weekly / life of operation / regularly / likely 4

Daily / permanent / high 5

Frequency of impact RATING

Almost never / almost impossible 1

Very seldom / highly unlikely 2

Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3

Often / regularly / likely / possible 4

Daily / highly likely / definitely 5


52

Table 1b: Significance Rating Matrix

CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration)

LIK

ELIH

OO

D (

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f ac

tivi

ty +

Fre

qu

en

cy o

f im

pac

t)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90

7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120

9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Table 1c: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings

Value Significance Rating 126-150 Very high

101-125 High

76-100 Medium-high

51-75 Medium-low

26-50 Low

1-25 Very Low

Risk/impact assessment guidelines - The following points are considered when undertaking the assessment:

Risks and impacts must be analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence encompassing:

Project site and related facilities that the client and its contractors develops or controls;

Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for further planned development of the project, any existing project or condition and other project-related developments; and

Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location.

Where necessary, impacts should be assessed for all stages of the project cycle including:

Pre-construction;

Construction;

Operation; and

Post-closure.

Identifying mitigation and performance improvement measures

Mitigation and performance improvement measures that address both positive and negative impacts are identified and described.

Measures and actions to address negative impacts favour prevention over minimization, mitigation or compensation.

Measures comply with applicable laws and regulations.

Desired outcomes are defined, and are measurable events with performance indicators, targets and acceptable criteria that can be tracked over defined periods, with estimates of the resources and responsibilities for implementation.


53

For the purposes of compiling an Environmental Management Programme, the following is addressed: (1) Measures that are specific to laws and regulations; (2) Measures are prioritized; and (3) A time-line for implementation.

11.2. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSED

The Proposed Development Layout or Preferred Alternative

Refer to Section 2 for a detailed description of the proposed development alternative (Figure 6). The

development footprint is approximately 512 m². This alternative has a larger development footprint than the

no-go alternative (existing residential unit) and the alternative development layout. The development line is

approximately 4 m from the erf boundary (estuary side), about 17.7 m from the 5 m contour, and roughly 1.9

m from the incline of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour), which leads to the estuary and natural Thicket

vegetation.

The Alternative Development Layout (Extension)

Refer to Section 2 for a detailed description of the alternative development layout (Figure 6). The development

footprint is approximately 462 m². This alternative has a larger development footprint than the no-go

alternative (existing residential unit) and a slightly smaller development footprint than the proposed

development layout. The development line is approximately 6.4 m from the erf boundary (estuary side), about

20.1 m from the 5 m contour, and roughly 4 m from the incline of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour), which

leads to the estuary and natural Thicket vegetation.

The No-Go Alternative

The no-go alternative represents the no development option, meaning that the existing residential dwelling

will remain as it is currently (Figure 6), namely one house with a free standing double storey garage (double)

and ‘flat’ (ground floor). The existing development footprint is approximately 275 m². The existing

development footprint (at the water tank) is approximately 21.6 m from the 5 m contour.

Comparison of Alternatives

The proposed development footprint is estimated at approximately 512 m2, of which 57.60 m

2 will be patio

(excludes formal garden). The property is roughly 1 000 m², therefore constituting some 51 % of the property.

The footprint of the Alternative Development Layout (Extension) is some 462 m², which constitutes roughly 46

% of the property (excludes formal garden).

The existing footprint is approximately 275m², which constitutes roughly 27.5 % of the property (excludes

formal garden).

The new development footprint (buildings only) will therefore be slightly larger in extent when compared to

the alternative layout and roughly double that of the existing residence. However, it should be noted that the

remaining land on the property is a formalized garden, for all alternatives. Consequently, the development

footprint (structures, patio and garden = transformed area) is equivalent for all residential units. The most

important implication this has for the assessment of impacts relates to storm water run-off and potential

erosion, sedimentation and turbidity. However, the significance of these impacts for the proposed versus

alternative development options are only slightly different, whereas for the no-go option, this impact does not

take place or no change from the status quo will occur.


54

Figure 6: The various development alternatives.


55

11.3. DESIGN OR PLANNING PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

The residential dwelling has been designed as a brick and mortar structure on concrete beams with concrete

columns (on approximately 1.5 m x 1.5 m bases). The concrete column bases will have less impact compared

with the conventional strip footings and walls, which are built to floor level with backfilling i.e. the proposed

design will have a slightly smaller development footprint where the columns are sited (at the estuary

boundary).

The BIOROCK sewage system was part of the original proposal by the Applicant to provide a system that is

‘environmentally friendly’ (Refer Section 2). The potential for discharged effluent that is not of adequate water

quality standard is assessed in the operational phase, despite the fact that system is supposed to discharge

liquid effluent of a good water quality standard.

In terms of layout and footprint size, the objective of the new residential unit is to establish a larger,

residential unit for the Applicant’s possessions. This leaves very little land on the property available for a

layout alternative that will reduce potential ecological impacts in any meaningful or significant way.

The alternative layout (Extension) is essentially a design alternative, but as mentioned, the degree of impact

significance is comparatively small when compared to the Proposed Development Layout (Preferred), and

potential impacts are considered equivalent to the construction phase impacts. The potential impacts are

therefore assessed under the Construction Phase, and where applicable, the Operational Phase (Section 11.4

and 11.5 below).

Design or planning phase recommendations to reduce the impact on the natural environment, which the

Applicant could consider:








Municipality.


Low flush toilets.

Low flow showers.








These design/planning phase measures are not assessed because the assessment scores should not be

significantly altered. The use of concrete columns, which reduces the development footprint very slightly, does

not significantly or even moderately reduce potential ecological impacts discussed in the construction or

operational phases below, and therefore this design measure is not assessed in the planning phase i.e. the


56

potential impacts are related to the development footprint (m²) of each development option, which is

adequately dealt with in the construction and operational phases.


57

11.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

With regards to the impact: Loss of Thicket Vegetation (Natural Plant Cover and Thicket Habitat), it is

important to note that natural Thicket vegetation or Albany Thicket cover will not be removed because the

property is a formal garden. Nature of the impact: The proposed residential unit will require the removal of

vegetation. However, the vegetation on site is representative of a formalized garden with planted beds and

lawn. The plants are mostly indigenous, and therefore some Thicket species do occur on site, but this does not

necessitate, in the author’s opinion, an impact assessment. The impact has already occurred due to the

existing residential dwelling and thus this impact has not been assessed in this assessment.

11.4.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: Although the vegetation on site is representative of a formalized garden with planted

beds and lawn, there are several protected species on site. One large Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree will

require removal, which is protected under the National Forest Act (84 of 1998).

Two Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) will also require removal. This species is protected under the Provincial

Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1974). Three species of Aloes, namely Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe), Aloe

barbarae (Tree Aloe) and Aloe ciliaris (Common Climbing Aloe); and two Mesembryanthemaceae species

(Vygies), are also protected under the Ordinance. The patch of Aloe plants adjacent to the existing garage

(Figure 2d) will not require removal, while the Aloe arborescence and two Mesembryanthemaceae species

(Vygies) near the existing water tank will require removal (Figure 2d). However, all these species are formal

garden plants and a permit for their removal will not be required (Pers. Comm. Mr Alan Southwood –

Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism).

11.4.1.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating

Likelihood Frequency of Activity <Annually 1 6

60 MEDIUM-LOW

Frequency of Impact Definite 5

Consequence

Severity of Impact Significant 3 10

Spatial Scope Boundary 2

Duration Permanent 5

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Replace the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree that will be removed with a reasonably sized new S.

inerme (Milkwood) tree. A National Forest Act license application will need to be processed with the

Department of Forestry for the removal of the existing Milkwood tree.

2. Translocate the Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) individuals into pots for re-planting post

construction, or plant immediately into the garden outside of the development/construction

footprint.

3. Translocate the Aloes and Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies) i.e. remove, pot and re-plant later,

or plant immediately into the garden outside of the development/construction footprints.

4. The patch of Aloe plants adjacent to the existing garage can be cordoned off as a no-go area to

prevent disturbance by construction workers.


58

5. Disturbance should be limited to within the construction footprint, as far as is practically possible,

albeit the fact that the entire property is largely transformed, and that the remaining plant cover will

be established garden and lawn.

POST-MITIGATION

POST-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating


15 VERY-LOW

Frequency of Impact Possible 4

Consequence

Severity of Impact Insignificant 1 3

Spatial Scope Activity 1

Duration One month 1

11.4.1.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION)

The alternative layout will not result in any of the assessment criteria for likelihood and consequence; or the

associated scores, being altered. The impact on plant species of special concern is therefore equivalent to the

proposed development layout.

11.4.1.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE

The construction phase will not take place in this alternative. This impact will not occur as no Species of Special

Concern will require removal if the development is not pursued.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of transformation and degradation within the

Kariega Estuary catchment and Ndlambe Municipality (based on the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map).

In addition, cumulative impacts must also consider potential future development within the Kariega Estuary

Catchment, which has been based on the Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework, as this

Framework is designed to direct future development within the Municipality and should consider socio-

economic trends. It should be noted that the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map was integrated

into the development of the latest Spatial Development Framework.

According to the Ndlambe CBA Map, the total extent of transformed areas in the Municipality is 52 133.7 ha or

28.4 % of the municipal landscape. Degradation is 5 457.4 ha or 3 %, although this data is most likely an under-

estimation (Vromans et al., 2012). Transformation and degradation is therefore relatively low (31.4 %). With

the addition of an upgraded residential unit, which is to replace an existing unit that is smaller in extent, it is

concluded that the cumulative impacts associated with loss of vegetation and Species of Special Concern in the

municipality are Low-Medium, based on 31.4 % (28.4 % + 3 %) of the landscape being currently transformed

and degraded. The loss of vegetation, and therefore the potential loss of Species of Special Concern, within the

catchment of the Kariega Estuary, is considered relatively Moderate as the level of transformation and

degradation is not extensive (Refer Figure 2e above and Figure 7 below), although future urban expansion

within the delineated urban edge must be considered (Figure 5). Most of the urban development occurs within

the lower reaches of the estuary near the mouth at Kenton-On-Sea, with the estuary head being located some

18 km inland. Only if future development complies with the Spatial Development Framework, the potential

cumulative impact should be Moderate.


59

Figure 7: Agricultural land cover in the Kariega Catchment shown in orange and near natural cover indicated

as green. Urban areas are shown in black and degraded areas in brown. Yellow areas are agricultural land

parcels outside of the catchment (Skowno and Holness, 2012).

11.4.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


Nature of the impact: During the construction of the proposed residential structures, disturbed areas and

exposed soils will be created. This can potentially promote the encroachment of alien invasive plants that

already occur within the study site e.g. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) or within the surrounding

environment. A S. terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) tree and Ipomeae purpurea (Morning Glory) were

recorded along the boundary fence. If these plants set seed they become a source for further encroachment

beyond the property. However, the area available for alien invasive species to establish within the property is

small in extent and will be comparatively small during both the construction and operational phases. If

construction occurs within a year, perennial plants may not receive the time required to set seed and become

a source for further encroachment within and beyond the property.

The control of alien invasive species is regulated through the Conservation of Agricultural and Resources Act

(CARA) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), which requires landowners to

remove invasive alien plants. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) and Ipomeae purpurea (Morning Glory)

are listed Category 3 alien plants in terms of the CARA. Category 3 species are invader plants that may no

longer be propagated or sold. Existing plants do not need to be removed. The CARA regulations (1985) state in

Section 15(c) 1 - Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (3), the provisions of sub-regulation (1) (namely:

Category 3 plants shall not occur on any land or inland water surface other than in a biological control reserve),

removal of plants shall not apply in respect of category 3 plants already in existence at the time of the

commencement of these regulations (in 1984).


PRE-MITIGATION


60



50 MEDIUM-LOW


Consequence

Severity of Impact Potentially 2 10

Spatial Scope Local 3



1. Remove Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) trees from the property, although not required by

legislation.

2. Remove any alien or non-indigenous plant species as they establish during the construction period.

3. Rehabilitate/Plant disturbed areas with natural/indigenous plants. Immediate rehabilitation/planting

of disturbed areas once construction is complete, with indigenous plants. It is however acknowledged

that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to construct the residential unit and only a

small percentage of the property will remain as formal garden.

POST-MITIGATION



6 VERY LOW

Frequency of Impact Almost imp. 1

Consequence



Duration One month 1


The potential spread of alien invasive plants species is considered equivalent to the proposed development

layout (Refer above).


The construction phase will not occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of alien invasive plants within the estuary

catchment and the Ndlambe Municipality. Future housing and agriculture could increase this impact due to an

increase in exposed soil and disturbance affects, if alien management procedures are not implemented.

According to the Ndlambe CBA Map, the total extent of degradation in the Municipality is 5 457.4 ha or 3 %,

which includes alien infestation, however this data is most likely an under-estimate (Vromans et al., 2012).

Cumulative impacts are considered Medium-Low as the percentage cover of existing alien plants is not

significantly higher than the percentage cover of natural plants in the Municipality or within the catchment

(based on knowledge of the area), although invasion by invasive plants is a problem in the Municipality and

along rivers and estuaries in particular, as with many in the Province. However, it should be noted that a fine-

scale alien map has not been produced for the municipality and therefore this assessment is not based on

accurate data.


61

11.4.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


Nature of the impact: Large fauna are unlikely to frequent the property as it is a fenced in formalized garden,

although smaller species may, such as birds, bats, mice, rats, lizards and snakes. It should however be noted

that this impact has already occurred due to the existing residential dwelling, although it is acknowledged that

smaller species will frequent the garden and further loss will occur due to a decline in garden habitat that will

occur due to the two development options.

It is highly unlikely that the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare) and the Greater

red musk shrew (Crocidura favescens) (Endemic to SA) frequent the property. Further, the site has not been

indicated as a site for Species of Special Concern in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan

(2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010).

Irrespective, these species will not be removed due to the proposed residential unit, although they may be

displaced during the construction phase.


PRE-MITIGATION



36 LOW


Consequence



Duration Year 2


1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These

species should not be destroyed.

2. No fauna should be destroyed.

POST-MITIGATION

POST MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating


30 LOW


Consequence



Duration Year 2


The potential loss of faunal species is considered to be equivalent to the proposed development layout.


The construction phase does not apply because the no-go option refers to maintaining the existing residential

dwelling, which has already caused the loss of Thicket vegetation and habitat; and consequently fauna, both


62

large and small. No further loss of fauna will occur for the no-go option during the operational phase. The loss

of fauna is therefore not assessed as it has already occurred, while no further loss of garden habitat will take

place which would further reduce the number and diversity of smaller fauna already frequenting the site.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Refer to Impact 1. Cumulative impacts are considered equivalent to Impact 1 because habitat degradation and

transformation within the catchment and estuary determines the extent of habitat available to fauna.

11.4.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


Nature of the impact: Invertebrates (insects), such as butterflies, moths, praying mantis, centipedes etc. will

certainly frequent the garden. During construction these species will be displaced by construction activities as

available garden habitat declines, but will return once construction is complete in lower numbers because

available garden habitat and plants will be reduced for both the two development layouts.

Although some butterfly species are associated with estuaries, these are unlikely to permanently inhabit the

property since it is positioned some distance, both vertically and horizontally, from the Kariega Estuary.

Further, the site has not been indicated as a site for Species of Special Concern in terms of the Ndlambe

Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study

(SANParks metadata, 2010).

Irrespective, insects (other than soil burrowing insects) will not be removed due to the proposed residential

unit, although they may be displaced during the construction phase.


PRE-MITIGATION


Likelihood

Frequency of Activity <Annually 1 3

18 VERY-LOW

Frequency of Impact Highly Unlikely

2

Consequence



Duration Year 2


1. No mitigation measures feasible.

POST-MITIGATION



18 VERY-LOW


2

Consequence



Duration Year 2


63


The potential loss of insects is considered equivalent to the proposed development layout (Preferred Layout).


The construction phase does not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Refer to Impact 1. Cumulative impacts are considered equivalent to Impact 1 because habitat degradation and

transformation within the estuary and its catchment determines the extent of habitat available to insects.

11.4.5. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY

(HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


Nature of the impact: Topsoil will be removed during the construction of the residential dwelling, which will

result in increased surface or storm-water run-off (sheet run off), which may increase soil erosion on site; as

well as sedimentation (hydrological processes) downslope into the Kariega Estuary.

This will be particularly evident during rainfall events, and could potentially be exacerbated by the steepness

of the slope. Sedimentation may increase turbidity levels, which may impact on estuarine biota within the

immediate estuarine environment e.g. smothering of invertebrates and macrophytes (plants), lowering

channel depth, reducing visibility for predation. However, the Thicket and riparian buffer area, which extends

between the estuary and the property, will provide some degree of protection against sedimentation and

turbidity impacts. Tidal exchange will also alleviate this impact to a short term impact.


The new residential development is roughly 4 m from the erf boundary and approximately 1.9 m from the

edge of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour).

PRE-MITIGATION



54 MEDIUM-LOW


Consequence

Severity of Impact Great 4 9

Spatial Scope Local Area 3

Duration Year 2


1. Where possible, implement protective measures to reduce sheet run off during high rainfall periods

e.g. excavation of an artificial swale to trap run off at the eastern boundary (estuary side) of the

property, maintain as much grass and herbaceous plant cover adjacent to the erf boundary fence

(estuary side).

2. Minimize the removal of vegetation to within the construction footprint only, to reduce the extent of

bare areas. It is however acknowledged that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to

construct the residential unit.


64

3. Immediate rehabilitation/planting of disturbed areas once construction is complete, with indigenous

plants. It is however acknowledged that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to

construct the residential unit and only a small percentage of the property will remain as formal

garden.

4. An Environmental Management Programme (EMP) is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment

regulations and these specifications should be included to manage storm-water and ensure

immediate planting to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation.

5. If necessary and where possible, stockpile topsoil for re-use when planting of indigenous plants in

disturbed areas/construction footprints (rehabilitation).

6. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of

Decision/Environmental Authorisation. Alternatively, the Ndlambe Municipality Building Inspector

(with assistance from the Ndlambe Municipality Environmental Department) should ensure

compliance with the Basic Assessment EMP when undertaking site assessments.

POST-MITIGATION



12 VERY-LOW


2

Consequence

Severity of Impact Non-harmful 1 4


Duration Year 2


The potential for topsoil loss, soil erosion and sedimentation is considered slightly lower than the proposed

development layout. The reason is because the development line is further from the edge of the valley slope,

at approximately 6.4 m from the erf boundary and roughly 4 m from the edge of the valley slope (at the 15 m

contour), which should potentially reduce the degree of erosion, sedimentation and turbidity downslope to

some degree when compared with the proposed development layout (Preferred).

PRE-MITIGATION



48 MEDIUM-LOW


Consequence

Severity of Impact Significant 3 8


Duration Year 2


1. As per the Proposed Development Layout.

POST-MITIGATION


Likelihood Frequency of Activity <Annually 1 3 12 VERY-LOW


65


2

Consequence



Duration Year 2


The construction phase does not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing impacts in the estuary catchment (degraded and

transformed areas) that potentially modify flow dynamics and flow patterns, which could result in increased

soil erosion, sedimentation and turbidity in the Kariega Estuary. In terms of the Ndlambe CBA Map,

transformation in the Kariega Estuary catchment is Moderate (Refer Figure 2e and Figure 7).

Mean turbidities of between 5 and 7 NTU were recorded by Whitfield (1994) in the Kariega Estuary, whereas

Hecht & van der Lingen (1992) reported turbidities between 3 and 7 NTU (cited in Harrison, 2000). This data

suggests that turbidity levels in the estuary are low, which may mean that soil erosion and sedimentation in

the catchment is not significant. However, data relating to anthropogenic impacts (surrounding land use

activities) that may cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity was not available.

The degree to which the residential unit (proposed and alternative layout) will contribute to this impact during

the construction phase (from a cumulative perspective) will be minimal given the local extent of the potential

impact and the tidal nature of the estuary. During the operational phase, once rehabilitation has been

implemented, this impact should not materialize, as is evidenced by the fact that the existing urban

developments have not resulted in any significant impacts in this regard (based on available turbidity and

transformation data).


LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


Nature of the impact: During the construction of the residential unit, ground and surface water pollution

impacts may accrue due to construction materials (i.e. cement); and from potential oil and fuel leakages from

construction equipment (e.g. concrete mixer, JCV, compactor, generator). Ablution facilities that are not

properly maintained during the construction phase may also result in pollution of ground and surface water

e.g. high in nitrates etc. Raw sewage (from construction staff ablutions) also contains "heavy metals" which

may not be degraded by the sewage treatment processes and may be discharged in the final effluent or

through the sludge produced. Heavy metals include aluminium, calcium, cadmium, copper, chromium, iron,

magnesium, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc.

Solid waste generated during the construction phase (i.e. building rubble and litter) also has the potential to

cause pollution of the environment; and given that the existing structures will be demolished, the amount of

rubble will be comparatively high. Pollution impacts can negatively affect flora and fauna, as well as

hydrological processes.

Refer to the cumulative impacts below regarding pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals correlated with

anthropogenic pollution.


66

The BIOROCK sewage system is proposed that will require approval from the Department of Water Affairs and

the Ndlambe Municipality prior to installation due to the potential effluent pollution during the operational

phase (see operational phase).

Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution is regulated through the National Water Act, the National

Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act and the National Environmental

Management: Waste Act.


PRE-MITIGATION



54 MEDIUM-LOW


Consequence



Duration Year 2


1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to prevent

accidental leakage of pollutants into the estuary e.g. oil, fuel, cement. An EMP is required by the

NEMA Basic Assessment regulations.

2. The EMP to identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or burning policy) and

the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a

licensed waste disposal site.

3. The EMP to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur

proximate to the estuary, but at a petrol station.

4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of

Decision/Environmental Authorisation. Alternatively, the Municipal Building Inspector (with guidance

from the Municipality’s Environmental Department), should ensure compliance with the EMP.

5. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs and the Ndlambe

Municipality prior to installation (see operational phase impact).

6. The BIOROCK sewage system to be positioned as high above the 5 m contour as possible, and to be

constructed appropriately during the construction phase; and then appropriately managed during the

operational phase. The proposed position is adequate and should be adhered to.

POST-MITIGATION


Likelihood


12 VERY-LOW


2

Consequence



Duration Year 2


The potential for this impact occurring is equivalent to that of the proposed layout.


67


The construction phase will not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing effluent impacts in the estuary and potential future

impacts. Existing effluent impacts include the potential for polluted storm water run-off from vehicles and

Escherichia coli contamination from upstream/upslope areas (i.e. from sewage infrastructure and pet

excrement) to drain into the Kariega Estuary. Although a survey has not been conducted, it appears that many

residences along the estuary have septic tanks with soak-aways, as is the case for Erf 365.

According to Matcher et al. (2011), there is an absence of pathogenic bacteria in the estuary, which are usually

correlated with anthropogenic pollution. A Master of Science thesis (Orr, 2007) researched metal

concentrations due to anthropogenic pollution in several estuaries along the Eastern Cape Coastline, including

the Kariega Estuary. Results showed that the mean concentrations of Cadmium (Cd) and Lead (Pb) during the

dry season were above the target values (4 μg・ℓ-1 and 12 μg・ℓ-1, respectively) recommended for South

African coastal waters (DWAF, 1995), but decreased significantly during the wet season. Freshwater inflow

therefore reduced Pb and Cd concentrations in the surface water through flushing or dilution. Of import, the

average Lead concentration was significantly higher in the sediment at the sampling site below the storm

water drain discharging near the mouth of the estuary. Orr (2007) concluded that, absolute metal

concentrations are relatively low and that these concentrations do not pose a threat to estuarine

environments yet. Appropriate management however is important since rainfall is limited while

impoundments reduce freshwater inflow in the estuary. A study by Harrison et al. (2000) concluded that the

ecological health of the Kariega Estuary was “moderate” with water quality classed as “fair” (for suitability for

aquatic life). According to the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012), which was based on a

Desktop National Health Assessment, the water quality is “fair” and the estuary is in a ‘’C’’ Ecological Category

(provisional Present Ecological Status) or is moderately impacted. However, detailed data is not available to

accurately confirm anthropogenic impacts on water quality within the Kariega Estuary, specifically with

reference to sewage discharges from septic tanks with French drains (currently on the property).


(BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


Nature of the impact: The Kariega Estuary has been delineated as a Critical Biodiversity Area and the study site

(property) as an Ecological Support Area because it is adjacent to the estuary. The 5 m contour or estuary

floodplain represents the Critical Biodiversity Area. Estuaries and their associated buffer areas provide spaces

for ecological processes to occur, such as animal, bird and fish movement, nutrient cycling etc. During the

construction and operation of the proposed development, these process impacts are not considered

significant or even plausible to assess given the fact that the property is currently developed and

transformed (i.e. a residential unit with formalized garden exists) and is situated within a residential area

(i.e. transformed urban area).

Birds, reptiles, small mammals (e.g. mice, rats, reptiles) and insects will obviously be the main biota that utilize

the property, and will continue to utilize the site, but the existing residence has already impacted on ecological

process areas and the biota using these areas.

From a project specific perspective, no further loss of Ecological Process Areas will occur due to the three

development alternatives because it is currently developed; and therefore the significance rating is


68

concluded as “Insignificant” or “No Impact“. The property does still allow for ecological processes to occur,

such as water percolation / purification, pollination, use by birds and insects etc., but the level of existing

disturbance of these processes are comparatively high given that the property is transformed (formal

garden and building). If the property was natural Thicket, it would still have a negligible or limited impact in

terms of loss and disturbance of Ecological Process Areas because it is surrounded by urban development.

There is the potential to impact on hydrological processes (e.g. infiltration of run off and seepage into

ground and surface water) because there will be an increase in hard surfaces (patio, building structures,

drive way) with less garden area (plant cover) for the two layout alternatives. However, this is considered to

be negligible. Design measures are provided which should slightly reduce the impact on these hydrological

processes adjacent to the estuary (Section 11.3).

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The proposed development will not cause a significance change in the cumulative impacts along the Kariega

Estuary or within its catchment, as the property is already developed, and the proposed construction of the

residential structures will not significantly increase the development footprint within the property boundaries.

The proposed development will therefore not contribute much to the negative cumulative impacts that

already occur along the estuary or within its catchment.

However, from a strategic municipal planning point of view, the potential cumulative impacts must consider

both existing and potential future impacts on Ecological Process Areas along estuaries in the Municipality.

Estuaries and their buffer areas are designated as Critical Biodiversity Areas and/or Ecological Support Areas in

the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. These ecological process areas are essentially ecological corridors

required to maintain ecological processes, and therefore biodiversity pattern, in the long term. Existing

impacts have already impacted on many of the estuaries within the Municipality, including the Kariega Estuary,

through urban and agricultural development. The Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map is based on targets

required for the maintenance of ecological processes. These target areas are integrated into the Critical

Biodiversity Areas. Consequently, if the Critical Biodiversity Areas represent the biodiversity targets, then the

cumulative impacts in terms of loss and disturbance of ecological processes are Low (because the targets can

still be met through safeguarding Critical Biodiversity Areas). Compliance with maintaining ecological process

areas in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map, as well as the recommended

guidelines in terms of the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012) for priority estuaries (such as the

Kariega), should not result in high cumulative impacts in the long term (Refer strategic planning

recommendations below).

Municipal Strategic Planning Recommendations

50 % of the Kariega Estuary should be sanctuary protected (if possible), the minimum management

class should be A/B (largely natural), rehabilitation implemented and 50 % of the area below the 100

m from the high water mark should remain undeveloped (National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment,

van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012), within the urban edge.


The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works

to ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.

11.4.8. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN

AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)



69

Nature of the impact: The proposed layout and alternative layout indicates that the residential structures will

be positioned well above and beyond the 5 m contour or estuarine floodplain, namely: at an approximate

horizontal distance of 17.7 m and 20.1 m respectively, and at a minimum of approximately 10 m above the

floodplain (the erf boundary is approximately 13.7 m from the 5 m contour). The impact on estuarine

hydrological process area is therefore considered obsolete given that the property is located well above

(vertically) and beyond (horizontally) the 5 m contour i.e. outside of the estuarine floodplain. However, it

should be noted that hard surfaces (houses, roads) reduce rainfall infiltration into the ground which ultimately

drains into the estuary, which provides freshwater to the system. Hard surfaces have the potential to increase

soil erosion, sedimentation and turbidity (which is covered in Impact 5).

With regards to flood lines and flood damage to infrastructure, it is considered highly unlikely that

infrastructure may be subject to flood damage in the future. Flood damage may be the consequence of future

climate change predictions i.e. rising sea level (and therefore estuarine water level), increased storm surges,

and increased freshwater flood events. This is because the residential unit is situated high above the 5 m

contour.

The property is located within an existing urban residential area that has not experienced flooding in the past,

and specifically during a large storm event that occurred some four years ago along the Ndlambe coastline.

Further, the October 2012 flood event, caused by significant rainfall along the Ndlambe coastline, did not

result in any damage to existing infrastructure (dwellings) along the Kariega Estuary.

The provincial climate change response strategy recommends that projected 1:100 year flood lines should be

delineated. It is considered unlikely that the 1:100 year flood line is situated above or in close proximity to Erf

365 or other residential properties along this portion of the Kariega Estuary, because these properties are

situated at a significant vertical distance from the high water mark of the estuary. However, the projected

1:100 year flood line is not available.

The impact of the residential unit on estuarine hydrological process areas is assessed as having “No Impact”

because it is located outside of the 5 m contour / estuarine floodplain. The associated impact relating to

flood lines and flood damage, i.e. the likelihood of the residential unit being located within the 1:100 flood

line, is considered to be highly improbable. Consequently, this impact should not occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The residential unit will not contribute to cumulative impacts relating to loss of hydrological process areas

(flood areas / floodplain).

On consultation of the latest imagery (Google imagery, 2012), it appears that agricultural land use activities

(past or present) and degraded areas (probably due to past agriculture) are present within the estuarine

floodplain (5 m contour). These areas therefore reduce the extent of natural hydrological process areas and

disturb hydrological processes to some degree because they are transformed or degraded, and are susceptible

to flooding i.e. flood prone areas. As indicated in the National Estuarine Assessment, there has been a

moderate loss of habitat, while hydrological and physical habitat is in a ‘fair’ Ecological Health; and

hydrodynamics is in an ‘Excellent’ Ecological Health. The cumulative impacts are therefore potentially

Moderate, although a detailed survey has not been undertaken. This conclusion is based on Google Imagery

(2012), agricultural land cover data (Skowno and Holness, 2012) and the National Estuarine Assessment (van

Niekerk and Turpie, 2012). Refer Figure 8 below.


70

Figure 8: Agricultural land cover data indicated as orange, which can be seen to be an underestimate based

on the underlying Google Image (2012).


Where development along the Kariega Estuary is in very close proximity to the 5 m contour, especially from

a vertical perspective (unlike Erf 365), the local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should delineate

the coastal set back line, which will incorporate the projected 1:100 year flood line and identify flood prone

zones, as well as all other necessary studies and delineations (e.g. projected sea level rise, storm surges and

scouring, and high water mark). Funding via all three sources should be investigated, including other

funding mechanisms, where possible. Areas that are close to the Kariega Estuary 5 m contour (floodplain)

are more likely to be flooded by the projected 1:100 year flood line or other impacts associated with future

climate change predictions. These areas will be sited where the valley slopes do not have a steep incline

and the valley floor is wide, or the floodplain is wide, rather than deeply incised and narrow floodplain

areas.



71

11.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

11.5.1. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

Nature of Impact: During the operational phase, alien species may establish on the property due to the

germination of alien seed species (from the existing seed bank or plants not removed on the property, and

from plants growing within the surrounding environment). Seed production makes this impact a potentially

permanent impact.


Once the construction phase is completed, this potential impact will be equivalent to that prior to construction

of the residential unit, and therefore the potential for the spread of alien invasive plants still exists. As a result,

this impact is not altered by the new development during the operational phase. If rehabilitation is

implemented (as part of the construction phase recommendations), the spread of alien plants during the

operational phase, should be minimized. Although the extent of exposed soils will be greater during the

construction phase, and therefore the density of established alien plants higher within the property

boundaries, the operational phase impact (pre-mitigation and post mitigation) assessment scores and

significant ratings are equivalent to the construction phase impacts (i.e. the methodology does not allow for

such minor differences). Notwithstanding, the ‘’MEDIUM-LOW’’ and ‘’VERY LOW’’ impact ratings for the

construction phase reflect the significance pre and post mitigation accurately enough for the operational

phase.


1. Remove any alien or non-indigenous species as they establish.

2. Remove the alien species, Schinus terebenthifolius (Brazilian Pepper), although it is a Category 3

species that does not need to be removed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act

regulations (2001).

3. Only plant indigenous vegetation.


Equivalent to the proposed development layout above.


The potential spread of alien invasive plants species is considered slightly lower than the proposed and

alternative development layouts. This is because the property will not be disturbed and exposed bare areas

will not be established (during a construction phase), which may in turn result in increased density of alien

plants. However, the existing alien species still provide a source for the spread of alien plants into the

surrounding environment through seed production. The post mitigation impact assessment scores and

significant rating, however, will be equivalent to the proposed and alternative development layouts above.


1. As per the proposed and alternative development layouts above.


72

11.5.2. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


Once the construction phase is completed, this impact will be equivalent to that prior to construction of the

residential unit, although available garden habitat will be reduced for use by visiting fauna. The activity that

reduces fauna is associated with clearing vegetation and garden area (i.e. plant cover). The existing residential

unit has already resulted in the loss of some fauna frequenting the site (number and species of smaller fauna)

i.e. the impact has already occurred. As a result, this impact is not significantly altered by the proposed

dwelling during the operational phase (period of occupancy) and the further loss of fauna is considered

insignificant. In terms of the assessment methodology, it is considered to have a ‘’VERY LOW’’ impact post

construction because fauna that frequented the site prior to construction should in all likelihood return,

although the number and diversity will decline as available garden (plant cover) will be reduced to a relatively

small area on the property (i.e. most of the property is hard surface).


Likelihood

Frequency of Activity (removing plants)

Clearing garden will not occur

0 1

9 VERY-LOW Frequency of Impact Almost

Impossible 1

Consequence





1. There are no reasonable mitigation measures.


As per the proposed development layout above.


The no-go option refers to maintaining the existing residential dwelling, which has already caused the loss of

Thicket vegetation and habitat; and consequently the loss of fauna. No further loss of fauna will occur for the

no-go option during the operational phase. No further loss of garden habitat will occur which will reduce the

number and diversity of fauna already frequenting the site. It is therefore considered to have ‘’No Impact’’

because the existing fauna will continue to frequent the property.

11.5.3. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


As per Impact 3 above.


As per the proposed development layout (Preferred Layout).


As per Impact 3 above.


73

11.5.4. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY

(HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

Nature of Impact: No further loss of vegetation will be incurred and therefore the impacts relating to soil

erosion should not materialize during the operational phase. It is therefore considered to have ‘’No Impact’’

for all development options and is not assessed.


LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

Nature of Impact: During occupancy of the residence, sewage effluent will be directed to an underground

BIOROCK sewage tank which will discharge treated effluent into the ground (Refer Section 2). The treated

effluent from the BIOROCK sewage system exceeds most water-discharge standards and surpasses the highest

regulations and norms, including the criteria for several prestigious certifications. However, it will require

appropriate maintenance/management to prevent the accidental production of wastewater effluent that is

not of an acceptable water quality standard. Raw sewage (from construction staff ablutions) also contains

"heavy metals" which may not be degraded by the sewage treatment processes and may be discharged in the

final effluent or through the sludge produced. Heavy metals include aluminium, calcium, cadmium, copper,

chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc.

Sewage effluent has the potential to infiltrate into and contaminate groundwater, and therefore associated

water bodies, such as an estuary. Considering that the sewage tank will be positioned at a reasonable distance,

both vertically and horizontally, from the 5 m contour, the potential for sewage effluent to reach the estuary is

potentially unlikely. However, without data relating to soil infiltration and percolation rates, and soil depth

required (to ensure that the wastewater is adequately filtered and purified before reaching the groundwater

and estuary), this potential impact cannot be ascertained with certainty. According to the National Building

Regulations, a percolation / permeability test must be done (prescribed by the South African Bureau of

Standards) before a septic tank with French drain is installed to prevent pollution of soil and water resources.

A precautionary approach has therefore been adopted by using a score of (4) for ‘’severity’’ pre-mitigation.

Refer to the cumulative impacts regarding pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals correlated with

anthropogenic pollution below.

Solid waste pollution is not assessed during the operational phase as waste disposal is managed by the

Ndlambe Municipality.


PRE-MITIGATION – LIQUID EFFLUENT



60 MEDIUM-LOW


Consequence





1. During the construction phase, the BIOROCK sewage system must be established as high above the 5

m contour as is possible, and to be constructed according to the specifications. The proposed position

is adequate and should be adhered to.


74

2. Appropriate management of the system during the operational phase, namely: sludge removal by the

Municipality, wastewater water quality is of adequate standard (in terms of the National Water Act,

General Authorisations 21f, 21g and 21h {Table 3.1} and South African Water Quality Guidelines for

Coastal Marine Waters Volume 2: Recreational Use, or as directed by the Department of Water

Affairs) and that it does not degrade the environment or have a detrimental impact on the Kariega

Estuary.

3. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs regarding

discharge of wastewater effluent (General Authorisations Section 21f, 21g and 21h). It is

acknowledged that effluent will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary (21f and 21h), but

it may have a detrimental impact on the Kariega Estuary, especially when considering the potential

cumulative impacts of septic tanks with soak-aways in the catchment (General Authorisations Section

21g).

4. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and Sanitation

Services By-Law” or be approved by the Municipality, because there is a directive from the

Department of Water Affairs that new developments must either connect to existing sewage

infrastructure or install a conservancy tank.

5. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the

discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be covered in points 3 and 4 above.

6. Ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles to prevent oil and fuel leakages.

POST-MITIGATION


Likelihood


6 VERY-LOW

Frequency of Impact Almost impossible

1

Consequence



Duration One day - month

1


The potential for this impact occurring is equivalent to that of the proposed layout.


During the operational phase, this impact is potentially higher than the proposed and alternative development

layouts since the current sewage system is a septic tank with a soak-away / French drain (if a permeability test

according to the National Building Regulations was not conducted). This means that sewage liquid effluent is

being discharged into the ground. Further, if sludge waste is not removed regularly, and the septic tank not

properly maintained/operated, (septic tanks in particular) the liquid effluent that is discharged into a French

drain, may contaminate water resources (ground and surface). This is particularly so when considering

cumulative impacts, if all residences along the Kariega Estuary are utilizing French drains and permeability

tests were not undertaken to determine if the soils are suitable for percolation of sewage effluent that may

drain into the Kariega Estuary and ground water resources. Refer to the cumulative impacts in the Section

above (Construction Phase).

Current research data suggests that the water quality in the Kariega Estuary is ‘’fair’’ and that no pathogens or

metals occur within the estuary. It would seem therefore that the estuary is not significantly impacted,

although there is room for improvement from a ‘’fair’’ condition.


75

Pre-mitigation impact significance rating should be equivalent to the alternatives above (based on existing

research data and because the assessment criteria and scores will not change) i.e. ‘’MEDIUM-LOW’’.

Post mitigation would include the installation of a BIOROCK sewage system, as per the alternatives above,

which would result in the same significance rating i.e. ‘’VERY LOW’’.


(BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

As per the construction phase i.e. no further impact for all development options.

11.5.7. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN

AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

As per the construction phase i.e. no further impact for all development options.


76

11.6. POST CLOSURE / DECOMMISSIONING PHASE – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND

ASSESSMENT

A post closure phase is unrealistic i.e. demolition of the residential unit and re-establishment of Thicket

vegetation (i.e. restoration of natural plant cover) within an urban area. The impacts during a post closure

phase are therefore not assessed.


77

11.7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Post closure or decommissioning was not assessed as this phase is considered to be an unrealistic event. No

particular design or planning phase impacts were identified by the Environmental Assessment Practitioners, as

impacts were considered equivalent to the construction and operational phases, although several ‘’design’’

related recommendations are provided, namely:








Municipality.


Low flush toilets.

Low flow showers.








Eight potential construction phase impacts were identified and assessed, whereas seven of these were

assessed for the operational phase (Table 2a below). None of the potential ecological impacts identified were

considered to be fatal flaws.

Table 2a: Summary of Potential Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation for the development alternatives:






PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

1. LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


2. SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


3. LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

LOW LOW LOW LOW N/A N/A

4. LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES –

VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A


78






PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

5. TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

MEDIUM-LOW (54)

VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW (48)

VERY-LOW N/A N/A

6. EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


7. LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)





N/A N/A

8. DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)





N/A N/A

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

2. SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)


3. LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)



4. LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)



5. TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT

6. EFFLUENT POLLUTION – LIQUID EFFLUENT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)


7. LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT

NO IMPACT (No further impact

NO IMPACT (No further impact

NO IMPACT (No further





79






PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

PRE- MITIGATION:

POST MITIGATION

ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

from the status quo)

from the status quo)

impact from the status quo)




8. DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)







Impact 7 (Loss or Disturbance of Important Ecological Process Areas) and Impact 8 (Disturbance of

Hydrological Process Areas – Estuarine Floodplain and Flood Lines). Both impacts were identified (listed)

because the property is adjacent and in close proximity to the Kariega Estuary, and the key motivation for

undertaking a Basic Assessment. When considering future climate change predictions in relation to Impact 8,

the post mitigation impact remains as a ‘’No Impact’’ despite the fact that data relating to projected flood

lines, sea level rise and consequent rise in estuarine water level, freshwater flooding and storm surges is not

available. This is because the property is at a significant vertical distance from the 5 m contour, approximately

10 m (maximum).

It should be acknowledged that the Provincial Spatial Development Framework states that a 15 cm rise in sea

level will impact all areas below the 20 m contour line along the coastal areas (also included in the Ndlambe

SDF, 2012). This is however considered highly improbably in the case of the Kariega Estuary, given the very

steep incline and significant vertical height from the 5 m contour to the 20 m contour. Erf 365 is approximately

10 m (maximum) above the 5 m contour, which constitutes a significant vertical distance from the estuarine

floodplain. The floodplain representing that area where the estuary is able to ‘’retreat’’ to if sea level rise takes

place in the future.

The most significant impact or risk associated with the proposed residential unit is considered to be the

potential for solid and effluent pollution during the construction and operational phases; as well as the loss of

topsoil, sedimentation and turbidity during the construction phase. Both impacts received a MEDIUM-LOW

significance rating pre mitigation and a ‘’LOW’’ significance rating post mitigation. Other ecological impacts are

relatively minor (e.g. loss of Species of Special Concern, loss of fauna, loss of insects etc.) given the fact that

the proposed residential unit is replacing an existing residential unit that has transformed Erf 365,

notwithstanding the fact that the property is located within an urban residential setting. Effluent management

is therefore the key mitigation measure, while other important mitigation measures relate to rehabilitation

(planting of disturbed areas) and alien plant control. Minimizing the construction and development footprint

does not constitute a key mitigation measure because the majority of the property will be utilized in order to

construct the residential unit i.e. only a small percentage of the property will remain as formal garden (for

both layout alternatives).

A summary of the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table 2b below, which reduce the

significance of each impact. These mitigation measures can be carried through to the Environmental

Management Programme, which must form part of the Basic Assessment Report.

In summary, all impacts can be reduced to ‘’VERY LOW’’ or ‘’LOW’’. During the construction phase, for both the

proposed (Preferred Layout) and alternative development layout (extension), two impacts were rated as


80

having “NO IMPACT” (no further impact), one impact was rated as ‘’LOW’’ post mitigation and the remaining

five impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post mitigation. During the operational phase, three impacts were

rated as having “NO IMPACT” (no further impact) and four of the impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post

mitigation

From an ecological perspective, the no-go option does not apply during the construction phase. During the

operational phase, two impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post mitigation, namely the spread of alien plants

and effluent pollution, whereas the loss of fauna and insects was considered ‘’VERY LOW’’ (Insignificant). The

loss of ecological process areas and hydrological process areas were rated as having ‘’NO IMPACT’’ (or no

further impact as the impact has already occurred as a result of the existing dwelling – there will be negligible

change from the status quo).

Summary of Impact Assessment

In conclusion, the current residential dwelling will have the lowest impact on the natural environment because

it maintains the status quo; and existing garden habitat will not be reduced. The proposed residential

development (Preferred Layout) and Alternative Development Alternative (Extension) will have an equal

impact on the natural environment, post mitigation.

The proposed residential development (Preferred Layout) places minimal impact on the ecology of the

property and surrounds, especially if effluent management is implemented.


Either the local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should delineate the coastal set back line, which

will incorporate the projected 1:100 year flood line and flood prone zones. Funding via all three sources

should be investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where possible.


Only 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark, of priority estuaries, namely the Kariega,

Bushmans and Great Fish River estuaries, should remain undeveloped (within the urban edge), although all

estuaries are Critical Biodiversity Areas that should be appropriately managed.

The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works to

ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.

The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) should determine the Reserve for the Bushmans and Kariega

Estuaries to prevent the negative culmination of potential long term cumulative impacts. The

Municipalities Environmental Department could encourage the DWA.

Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

81

Table 2b. Summary of project specific recommended mitigation measures, indicating the management objective, priority of the mitigation measure, and capacity requirements

Impact

No. Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority

Capacity

requirements Frequency

Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)

Time line for mitigation

measures to be

implemented

7 Effluent

pollution and

solid waste

pollution

The BIOROCK sewage system must: - Be approved by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA)

regarding discharge of wastewater effluent into the ground (although it is acknowledged that effluent will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary General Authorisations Section 21f and 21h), although it may detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g), especially when considering cumulative impacts of existing septic tanks and soak-aways in the catchment).

- Comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and Sanitation Services By-Law” or be approved by the Municipality, because there is a directive from the Department of Water Affairs that all new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or install a conservancy tank. Hence the need for DWA approval prior to municipal approval.

- Comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be covered in the two points above.

Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste management plan, to: - Prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel, cement,

sewage from ablutions. - Identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no

littering or burning policy) and the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site.

- Ensure no hazardous wastes to be stored on site, or where storage is required (e.g. cement) it is within the existing garage which will not be demolished (i.e. a bunded, enclosed surface

Prevent effluent

pollution and

solid waste

pollution

1 1. BIOROCK

approval from

the

Department of

Water Affairs:

Environmental

Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP)

2. EMP

compilation -

Environmental

Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP)

3. EMP

Compliance:

Environmental

Control Officer

/Ndlambe

Building

Inspector

1. Once off

application to

Department of

Water Affairs.

2. Once off EMP

3. ECO/Building

Inspector: Start

of construction

and then every

2nd / 4th week

depending on

construction

activities

(ECO/Building

Inspector).

1. Pre-

construction

2. Pre-

construction

3. Pre-

construction &

Construction

1. BIOROCK Approval

from the Department

of Water Affairs:

Unknown at this stage

(If it meets the water

quality standards a

General Authorization

is likely).

2. EMP compilation: 1

week (as part of the

Basic Assessment

Report).

3. EMP implementation

(ECO / Building

Inspector):

Dependent on

duration of the

construction period

(±1 year).


82

Impact


Capacity


Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)


measures to be

implemented

area). - Ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or

maintenance activities occur proximate to the estuary, but only at petrol stations or vehicular workshops.

- Installation of the BIOROCK sewage system at the position as indicated on the Architectural Drawing i.e. at a significant distance above and from the 5 m contour / estuary floodplain.

During the operational phase, the BIOROCK sewage system, if approved, must – - Be managed to ensure no effluent wastewater that is of

inadequate standard is discharged in to the ground, which may reach the Kariega Estuary.

- The water quality standards must meet the National Water Act General Authorisations Section 21f and 21h (Table 3.1) and the South African Water Quality Guidelines – Marine and Coastal Waters – Recreational Use (Volume 2), or other standards as directed by the Department of Water Affairs, so that it does not degrade the environment or the Kariega Estuary.

- Be cleared of sludge by the Municipality, when required (according to the BIOBOX information it is 3/4 – 5 years).

6, 8 Topsoil loss,

soil erosion,

sedimentatio

n & turbidity

(hydrological

processes)

Disturbance

of important

ecological

process areas

1. Implement storm-water control measures to reduce sheet run off e.g. excavate a swale on the eastern boundary (estuary side), and maintain as much plant cover as possible as well.

2. Immediate planting of indigenous species after construction (rehabilitation). The homeowner is a keen gardener and will in all likelihood supervise procedures.

3. Removal of vegetation within the construction footprint only. 4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure

compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision, or alternatively the Municipal Building Inspector fulfills this role.

Minimize soil

erosion,

sedimentation

and turbidity

2 1. Environment

al Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP) – EMP

compilation.

2. Environment

al Control

Officer

(ECO)/Building

Inspector

1. Once off EMP

2. Start of

construction

and then every

2nd

/ 4th

week

depending on

construction

activities

(ECO/Building

Inspector)

1. Pre-

construction

2. Pre-

construction

Construction



Basic Assessment

Report).

2. EMP implementation -

ECO / Building

Inspector: Dependent

on duration of the

construction period

(±1 year).


83

Impact


Capacity


Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)


measures to be

implemented

(Biodiversity

loss)

2 Loss of

Species of

Special

Concern

3. A license application to the Department of Forestry will be required for the removal of the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood).

4. Purchase another medium to large sized Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) on removal of the existing Milkwood, and plant on the property.

5. Translocate Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Aloe arborescens, Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Mesems or Vygies) species. See Plate 2.

6. Plants should preferably be planted during the rainy season or the dormant period, but this is not necessary as long as additional care is provided, e.g. watering, survival should be guaranteed, especially with reference to the succulents.

7. Water the plants until they are established, unless natural rainfall fulfills this role.

8. Removal of vegetation within the construction footprint only.

9. Plant disturbed areas with indigenous species immediately after construction.

10. Make use of compost and mulching when translocating/planting to enhance establishment and survival.

11. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that specifies the points above. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations.

Prevent loss of

Plant Species of

Special Concern

Minimize

vegetation loss /

habitat loss to the

development

footprint only.

3 1. Homeowner

(planting and

translocation)

2. Environ-

mental

Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP) – EMP

compilation.

3. EMP

Compliance:

Environment

al Control

Officer (ECO)/

Building

Inspector

1. Period of

planting and

translocation.

2. Once off EMP.

3. EMP

Compliance:

Start of con-

struction &

then every 2nd

/ 4th week

depending on

construction

activities

(ECO)/ Building

Inspector

1. Pre-

construction &

Construction.

2. Pre-

construction

3. Construction

1. Rehab: 1 - 2

weeks(translocation,

planting);

Minimum 4 week

establishment

period (i.e. watering

period, dependent

on rainfall).

2. ECO

employment/Buildin

g Inspector:

Dependent on the

construction period

(±1 year).



Basic Assessment

Report).


84

Impact


Capacity


Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)


measures to be

implemented

12. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision/Environmental Authorisation, or alternatively the Municipal Building Inspector fulfills this role.

3 Spread of

alien invasive

plant species

(Biodiversity

loss)

1. Removal of alien or non-indigenous species that establish. 2. Removal of listed alien plants within the development footprint / construction area, and property boundaries, where they occur, namely: Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper), and if they establish during the construction period. Although this is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in terms of legislation.

3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that specifies the requirement to remove alien plants. Photograph of Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper) with

fruit, listed as an alien invasive in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act.

Prevent and

minimize spread

of alien invasive

species

4 1. Environment

al Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP) – EMP

compilation.

2. Environment

al Control

Officer

(ECO)/Building

Inspector

3. Contractor

(alien removal)

1. Once off EMP

2. Start of

construction and

then every 2nd

/

4th

week

depending on

construction

activities

(ECO/Building

Inspector)

3. Construction

period

1. Pre-

construction

2. Pre-

construction &

Construction

3. Construction



Basic Assessment

report).


(ECO): Dependent on

duration of the

construction period.

3. Alien Removal:

Dependent on the

construction period

(±1 year).


85

Impact


Capacity


Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)


measures to be

implemented

4 Loss of Fauna 1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These species should not be destroyed.

2. No fauna should be destroyed. 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental

Management Programme (EMP) that specifies that no fauna may be destroyed.

Prevent the

destruction of

fauna

5 4. Environment

al Assessment

Practitioner

(EAP) – EMP

compilation.

5. Environment

al Control

Officer

(ECO)/Building

Inspector

6. Contractor

(instruction to

staff)

1. Once off EMP

2. Start of

construction and

then every 2nd

/

4th

week

depending on

construction

activities

(ECO/Building

Inspector)

3. Construction

period

1. Pre-

construction

2. Pre-

construction &

Construction

3. Construction



Basic Assessment

report).


(ECO): Dependent on

duration of the

construction period.

3. Alien Removal:

Dependent on the

construction period

(±1 year).

9 Disturbance

of

hydrological

process areas:

estuarine

floodplain

and flood

lines -

hydrological

processes

Strategic Planning Recommendations (NOT Project Specific)

The local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should

delineate the coastal set back line, which will incorporate the

projected 1:100 year flood line and identify flood prone zones

as well as all other necessary studies and delineations (e.g.

projected sea level rise, storm surges & surges; and high

water mark). Funding via all three sources should be

investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where

possible.

No development proximate to or within the 5 m contour or

estuary floodplain.

50 % of the Kariega Estuary should be sanctuary protected (if

possible), the minimum management class should be A/B

(largely natural), rehabilitation implemented and 50 % of the

area below the 100 m from the high water mark should

remain undeveloped (National Estuarine Biodiversity

Not Applicable to

the construction

of the dwelling

Not

Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable


86

Impact


Capacity


Commence-

ment (Project

Phase)


measures to be

implemented

Assessment, van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012), interpreted to

mean within the urban edge.

The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works,

where necessary, and maintain these works to ensure that

sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.


87

12. REFERENCES CEPF. 2010. Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot. Ecosystem Profile. Final Draft. Submission to Critical

Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) Donor Council.

CES. 2011. Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy. Prepared for the Province of the Eastern Cape

Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs. Prepared By Coastal & Environmental

Services. Grahamstown.

Berliner, D., Desmet, P., Hayes, R. and Hayes, A.Y. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan

Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town.

DWAF. 2007. Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South African floodplain

and channelled valley bottom wetland types by M. Rountree (ed); C.P. Todd, C. J. Kleynhans, A. L.

Batchelor, M. D. Louw, D. Kotze, D. Walters, S. Schroeder, P. Illgner, M. Uys. and G.C. Marneweck. Report

no. N/0000/00/WEI/0407. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria,

South Africa.

DWAF. 2008. River health Programme. State-of-Rivers Report: Mthatha River System. Department of Water Affairs

and Forestry. Pretoria ISBN No: 978-0-620-42131-7.

Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J., Funke, N. 2011.

Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission.

du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of South Africa. Struik Nature. Cape Town.

Harrison, T.D., Cooper, J.A.G. and Ramm, A.E.L. 2000. State of South African estuaries. Geomorphology,

ichthyofauna, water quality and aesthetics. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, State of the

Environment Series Report No. 2. 126pp.

Harrison, T.D. 2000. Biogeography and Community Structure of Fishes in South African Estuaries. MSc Thesis. Rhodes

University.

Harrison, T.D. 2005. Ichthyofauna of South African estuaries in relation to the zoogeography of the region.

Smithiana, Publications in Aquatic Biodiversity, Bulletin 5, December, 2005, pp. 1-27.

Henning, G.A., Terblanche, R.F. & Ball, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: Butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity

Series 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers. 2012. Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality Coastal Setback Lines (Draft

Report_v4 April 2012). Prepared on behalf of the Environmental Management Sub-Directorate of Nelson

Mandela Bay Municipality by Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers SA (Pty) Ltd.

Matcher, G.F., Dorrington, R.A. Henninger, T.O. and Froneman, P.W. 2011. Insights into the bacterial diversity in a

freshwater-deprived permanently open Eastern Cape estuary, using 16S rRNA pyrosequencing analysis. Water

SA Vol. 37 No. 3.

Mouton, E. 2004. Albany Coast Situation Assessment Study. Groundwater Resource. Prepared by WSM Leshika for

the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Report No. P WMA 15/000/00/0408.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, C. and Powries, I.W. EDITORS. 2005. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.

1 000 000 SCALE SHEET MAPS. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, M. C. and Powrie, L. W. (Eds.) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.


88

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (Eds). 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia

19. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria. Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen,

C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N.,

Downsborough, L. And Nienaber, S. 2011. Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority

Areas project. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Ndlambe SDF. 2012. The Ndlambe Spatial Development Framework. Prepared by Metroplan. Port Elizabeth.

Nel, J.L., Smith-Adao, L., Roux, D.J., Adams, J., Cambray, J.A., de Moor, F.C., Kleynhans, C.J., Kotze, I., Maree, G.,

J, M., Schonegevel, L.Y., Smith, R.J., Thirion, C., 2006. Conservation Planning for River and Estuarine

Biodiversity in the Fish-to-Tsitsikamma Water Management Area. Water Research Commission, Pretoria,

South Africa. Water Research Commission Report K5/1486: 106 pp.

Orr, K.K. 2007. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Metals in the Sediment and Water of Selected Eastern Cape

Estuaries, South Africa. MSc Thesis. Rhodes University. Grahamstown.

Richardson, R., Whitfield, A.K. and Paterson, A.W. 2006. The influence of selected environmental parameters

on the distribution of the dominant demersal fishes in the Kariega Estuary channel, South Africa. African

Zoology Vol. 41, No. 1.

SANBI. 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa.

Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National

Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

Turpie, J.K., Adams, JB., Joubert, A., Harrison, TD., Colloty. BM., Maree, EC., Whitfield, AK., Wooldridge, TH.,

Lamberth, SJ., Taljaard, S. and Van Niekerk, L. 2002. Assessment of the conservation priority of status of

South African estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water SA Vol. 28 NO. 2.

Turpie JK, Wilson G and Van Niekerk L. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: National Estuary

Biodiversity Plan for South Africa. Anchor Environmental Consulting, Cape Town.

van Ginkel C.E., Glen R.P., Gordon-Gray K.D., Muasya M., and van Deventer P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some

South African wetland plants. Water Research Commission.

Van Niekerk, L. and Turpie, J.K. (eds) 2012. South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical

Report. Volume 3: Estuary Component. CSIR Report Number CSIR/NRE/ECOS/ER/2011/0045/B. Council for

Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch.

Vlok, J.H.J. and Euston-Brown, D.I.W. 2002. The patterns within, and the ecological processes that sustain, the

Subtropical Thicket Vegetation in the planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning

(STEP) Project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit. University of Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth.

Vorwerk, P.D. 2000. Ichthyofaunal community structures in different types of Eastern Cape estuaries. Rhodes

University MSc Thesis, Grahamstown.

Vorwerk, P.D. 2006. Preliminary examination of selected biological links between four Eastern Cape Estuaries

and the inshore marine environment. Rhodes University Phd Thesis, Grahamstwn.

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Ndlambe

Municipality. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and

Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Addo Elephant National Park Mainstreaming

Biodiversity Project. South African National Parks. Port Elizabeth. South Africa.


89

Whitfield, A.K. 2000. Available scientific information on individual South African estuarine systems. Water

Research Commission Report No. 577/3/00.

project location - cssgis.co.za d_ecological speciali… · study methodology ... loss/hydrological...

Documents