APPENDIX F Biodiversity Impact Assessment
REPORT Application for EA, AEL and GA for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban: Biodiversity Impact Assessment Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
Submitted to: Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
Submitted by: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd P.O. Box 6001 Halfway House, 1685 Building 1, Maxwell Office Park Magwa Crescent West Waterfall City Midrand, 1685 South Africa +27 11 254 4800
1791874-324751-8
October 2019
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Distribution List 1 x electronic copy Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
1 x electronic copy Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions South Africa (Pty) Ltd
1 x electronic copy Golder project folder
1 x electronic copy e-projects library [email protected]
i
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Abbreviation/Acronym Explanation
ADU Animal Demographic Unit
BODATSA Botanical Database of Southern Africa
CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of 1983)
CBA Critical Biodiversity Area
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
C-Plan KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Plan
DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa
D’MOSS Durban Metropolitan Open Space System
ECO Environmental control officer
EFZ Estuarine functional zone
EHS Environmental, Health, and Safety
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Ecological importance and sensitivity
ESS Environmental and Social Sustainability
ESSS Environmental and Social Safeguard Standards
Golder Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMO International Maritime Organisation
JET A1 Jet Aviation Grade Kerosene
Lanele Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd
MFO Marine fuel oil
MGO Marine gas oil
MPP Multi Product Pipeline (previously known as the New Multi Product Pipeline)
NEM: BA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004)
NFA National Forests Act (Act No. 84 of 1998)
NOOA Terminal NOOA Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal
ii
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Abbreviation/Acronym Explanation
PES Present ecological status
Project Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1)” project
SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute
SHEQ Safety, Health, Environmental and Quality
Thyssenkrupp Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions South Africa (Pty) Ltd
ULP 95 Unleaded Petrol 95 octane
ULSD Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel
iii
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...... 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1
3.1 Location ...... 1
3.2 Facility Details ...... 4
4.0 BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION ...... 5
4.1 Aim ...... 5
4.2 Approach and Structure of Report ...... 5
4.3 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework ...... 5
5.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 6
5.1 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora and Fauna) ...... 6
5.1.1 Literature Review ...... 6
5.1.2 Field Survey ...... 6
5.2 Wetland Ecology ...... 7
5.3 Estuarine Ecology ...... 7
5.4 Assessment of Biodiversity Value ...... 8
5.4.1 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 8
5.4.2 Likelihood of Occurrence ...... 8
6.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ...... 9
6.1 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt ...... 9
6.2 Statutory Conservation Considerations ...... 12
6.3 Landscape Context and General Characteristics of the Site ...... 15
6.4 Flora Assessment ...... 17
6.4.1 On-Site Vegetation ...... 17
6.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern ...... 18
6.4.3 Listed Alien Invasive Plant Species ...... 20 6.4.3.1 Applicable Legislation ...... 20 6.4.3.2 Listed Alien Species Recorded On-Site ...... 21
6.5 Land Cover Classification ...... 22
iv
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
6.6 Faunal Assessment ...... 23
6.6.1 Mammals ...... 23
6.6.2 Birds ...... 23
6.6.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians) ...... 23
6.6.4 Arthropods ...... 23
7.0 WETLAND ECOLOGY ...... 29
7.1 Historical Wetland Context...... 29
7.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation ...... 30
7.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator ...... 30
7.2.2 Vegetation Indicator ...... 32
7.2.3 Soil Wetness Indictor ...... 33
7.3 Wetland Classification ...... 35
7.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) ...... 36
8.0 ESTUARINE ECOLOGY ...... 38
8.1 Estuaries – An Introduction ...... 38
8.2 Durban Bay Estuary ...... 39
8.2.1 General Characterisation ...... 39
8.2.2 Physical Attributes ...... 40
8.2.3 Biological Communities ...... 40
8.2.4 Existing Threats to Durban Bay Estuary ...... 41
8.3 Durban Bay Estuary in Relation to the Project Site ...... 41
9.0 SCREENING OF IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ...... 43
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 47
10.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance ...... 47
10.2 Project Phases ...... 49
10.3 Detailed Description of Potential Impacts During All Phases of the Proposed Project ...... 49
10.3.1 Loss of Habitat ...... 49
10.3.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Water Resources ...... 50
10.3.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna ...... 51
10.3.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species ...... 51
10.4 Impact Assessment Summary ...... 51
v
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
11.0 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54
11.1 Key Objectives ...... 54
11.2 Environmental Management and Mitigation Measures Identified ...... 54
11.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts Identified ...... 54
11.4 Summary of Mitigation and Management Measures for the Operational, Decommissioning and Closure Phases ...... 54
11.4.1 Loss of Habitat ...... 54
11.4.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Soil and Water Resources ...... 55
11.4.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna ...... 55
11.4.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species ...... 55
11.5 Recommended Monitoring Framework ...... 56
12.0 CONCLUSION ...... 58
13.0 SPECIALISTS ...... 58
14.0 REFERENCES ...... 59
TABLES Table 1: Plant species of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area ...... 18 Table 2: CARA and NEM:BA listed alien invasive species recorded on-site ...... 21 Table 3: Mammals of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area ...... 25 Table 4: Birds of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area ...... 26 Table 5: Herpetofauna of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area ...... 28 Table 6: List of dominant plant species identified in the sampled area during the wetland field visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species (Eco-Pulse 2019) ...... 32 Table 7: Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ...... 36 Table 8: Common provisioning and regulating ecosystem services associated with estuaries ...... 38 Table 9: Screening of important biodiversity (species and ecosystems) features ...... 43 Table 10: Impact assessment factors ...... 47 Table 11: Impact assessment scoring methodology ...... 47 Table 12: Significance of impact based on point allocation ...... 48 Table 13: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation ...... 52 Table 14: Proposed monitoring framework ...... 57 Table 15: Qualifications and experience of the specialists ...... 58
FIGURES
vi
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 1: Regional locality map ...... 2 Figure 2: Layout of the proposed Project ...... 3 Figure 3: Regional vegetation types, as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006) ...... 10 Figure 4: Study area in relation to the Scott-Shaw-Escott (2011) provincial vegetation delineations ...... 11 Figure 5: Project site in relation to the KZN Conservation Plan delineation of CBAs...... 13 Figure 6: The Project site in relation to the D’MOSS ...... 14 Figure 7: Time sequence of the Project site from 1968 to 2016 (Images from CD”NGI Historical Imagery) ..... 16 Figure 8: View across the northern portion of the Project site ...... 18 Figure 9: View across the southern portion of the Project site ...... 18 Figure 10: Dense and extensive stands of Ricinus communis and Tithonia diversifolia, amongst others, characterise most of the Project site ...... 18 Figure 11: Ring-barked Melia azedarach (Syringa) tree ...... 18 Figure 12: Avicennia marina (White Mangrove) ...... 20 Figure 13: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1937 (Eco-Pulse)...... 29 Figure 14: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1944 (Eco-Pulse, 2019)...... 30 Figure 15: Focal points of the wetland ddelineation and mapping study within a 500 m radius of the Project site...... 31 Figure 16: Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sample (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ...... 34 Figure 17: Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at various locations (Eco-Pulse, 2019) ...... 34 Figure 18: Typical ‘temporary’ wetland soil sampled at the western focal site (Eco-Pulse, 2019)...... 34 Figure 19: Delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within a 500 m radius of the Project site ...... 37 Figure 20: Project site in relation to the Durban Bay and Estuary Functional Zone ...... 42
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Specialist Wetland Verification and Delineation Study (2019) – Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
APPENDIX B Flora species recorded in the Project site during the field visit
APPENDIX C List of mammals potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX D List of birds potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX E List of herpetofauna potentially present in Project site
APPENDIX F Specialist CVs
APPENDIX G
vii
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Lanele Group (Pty) Ltd (Lanele) is a privately-owned South African company with a track record in the downstream oil, gas and energy sector. Lanele forms part of the Lanele Group of entities, which was founded in 2005 to focus on the energy and commodities sector. Using in-house expertise honed within the oil refining, gas, and coal to the petrochemical industry, the company has made in-roads into the downstream segment of the energy production value chain. Ventures have been within the biofuels sector, with a bio-refinery that will produce bio-ethanol and power. The company aims to become a fully integrated energy and commodities trading company. This includes interests throughout the energy value chain, comprised of crude oil, fuels, lubricants and power and extending to industry-related commodities such as steel, copper, and aluminium.
Lanele is proposing to develop and operate a liquid fuel blending and storage terminal at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban to be known as the “Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1)” project (the ‘Project’). The portion of land is approximately 7 hectares and has been leased from Transnet Properties for 30 years. The first phase of the proposed Project is funded by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA).
The proposed Project is intended for the receipt, storage, blending and issuing of refined products. It will import petrol, diesel and blending components via the Port of Durban. The distribution of product will take place via the multi products pipeline (MPP), previously known as the new multi products pipeline to Gauteng and via road and/or rail, by Lanele and storage tenants at the facility. Lanele also has the intention of importing low sulphur fuel oil and supplying it to the port via the facility. 2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Lanele commissioned engineering company, Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Thyssenkrupp) to complete the pre-feasibility study and bankable feasibility study. Lanele now requires the necessary Environmental Authorisation undertaken though an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before construction and operations may commence. Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder), as the Environmental Assessment Practitioner, has been commissioned to undertake the EIA process. The scope of the EIA only relates to the inside battery limits portion of the proposed Project. While some aspects of the outside battery limits portion of the project will be discussed, the outside areas of the proposed Project do not form part of the scope of this EIA.
The proposed Project will be developed in phases over the first few years to reach a total liquid fuels storage capacity of 225 000 m3. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location The proposed Project is located in Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban (Figure 1). The parcel of land is approximately 7 ha in extent, on a portion of the Kings Royal Flats No. 16576 and the remainder of ERF 10019. Ambrose Park is currently being proposed for tank farm development projects. The proposed Project is located immediately north of the proposed NOOA Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal (NOOA Terminal).
1
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 1: Regional locality map
2
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 2: Layout of the proposed Project
3
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
3.2 Facility Details The operation of the proposed Project (Figure 2) is primarily pipeline driven with limited gantry loading and, therefore, will be operated as follows: Single shift operation; 8-hour working day; 5-day working week; 21 working days per month; and Ship receipts or pipeline injections after hours can be managed on an overtime basis with minimal staff. The proposed Project will store mostly diesel 50 parts per million as ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD), special diesel products and blends, unleaded petrol 95 octane (ULP 95), high octane blend stock, low octane ULP, aviation grade turbine kerosene (JET A1), in addition to blending components such as reformate, naphtha, biofuels, marine gas oil (MGO) and marine fuel oil (MFO) 500 ppm according to the International Marine Organisation (IMO) 2020 specification.
ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will be received from Berths 6 and 9 (and also possibly Berth 2) in the Cutler Complex via common user infrastructure. The details of the receipt of low octane petrol, high octane blend stock and special diesel blend stock is based on the following assumptions: Low octane product is received from a destination approximately 5000 m away via pipeline at a rate of 600 m3/hr. Properties for calculation purposes have been assumed to be the same as ULP 95; High octane blend stock is assumed to be reformate. It is assumed to be received from Berth 2 at a rate of 800 m3/hr at maximum parcel size of 10 000 m3; Low octane product is blended with high octane blend stock in a ratio of 4:1; and Diesel blend stock is received from a destination approximately 5000 m away via pipeline at a rate of 600 m3/hr. Properties for calculation purposes have been assumed to be the same as ULSD.
ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will be dispatched to Gauteng via the MPP. ULSD, ULP 95 and JET A1 will also be dispatched via road tankers. MGO will be received from Berth 2. MGO will be dispatched via pipeline to the storage within the port – located along side Berth 10.
The proposed Project will have the ability to: Blend (in-line) low octane unleaded petrol with high octane blend stock (e.g. toluene or reformate) to create ULP 95; Blend (in-tank) ULSD with blend stock to create special diesel products; Add colorant (in-line) to imported ULP 95; and Add conductivity additive (in-line) to imported ULSD product.
4
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
4.0 BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION 4.1 Aim This report presents the findings of the biodiversity impact assessment that was conducted for the proposed Project. The principle aim of the assessment was to characterise the biodiversity of the Project site and associated environs, and to assess potential impacts that may result from the proposed Project. 4.2 Approach and Structure of Report The biodiversity assessment focused on three main biodiversity components, viz. terrestrial ecology (fauna and flora), wetland ecology and estuarine ecology. Golder conducted the terrestrial and estuarine ecology components. The wetland study was conducted by Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services.
Baseline descriptions for these components are presently separately in Section 6.0, Section 7.0, and 8.0 of the report. However, considering the degree of overlap of impacts across the three study disciplines, one integrated impact assessment was performed, and used to develop mitigation and management measures. These are presented in Section 10.0 and Section 11.0 of this report. 4.3 Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework The specialist study has been undertaken in accordance with the following legal and administrative framework documents: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2014 (published under Government Notice R982 of Government Gazette 38282 of 4 December 2014, as amended); National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004, as amended (NEM:BA); National Environmental Management: Coastal Management Act 24 of 2008; Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (CARA), as amended; National Forests Act 84 of 1998 (NFA), as amended; KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance 15 of 1974, as amended; International Finance Corporation (IFC) documents: . Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (ESS) (2012);
. General Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines (2007);
. EHS Guidelines for Ports, Harbours and Terminals (2007); and
. EHS Guidelines for Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Terminals (2007). DBSA Environmental and Social Safeguards Standards (ESSS). Of particularly relevance to this study is Performance Standard 6 of the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012). Performance Standard 6 concerns Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. By establishing the biodiversity context, specifically the presence of natural, modified and potential critical habitats, as defined by Performance Standard 6, within a defined area of analysis, the study set out to identify important biodiversity that may potentially constrain future project activities. Such constraints may include: Biodiversity features that qualify as critical habitat; Natural and modified habitats that support high biodiversity values; and
5
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Ecosystems that may support potentially irreplaceable and/or vulnerable species, habitats and ecosystem services. 5.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 5.1 Terrestrial Ecology (Flora and Fauna) The terrestrial ecology study consisted of a literature review and targeted field survey. The tasks associated with these components are discussed below. 5.1.1 Literature Review A description of the prevailing regional vegetation types was based on Mucina and Rutherford's (2006) delineation and description of South Africa's vegetation and Scott Shaw and Escott's (2011) provincial delineations; NEM:BA Threatened Ecosystems (2011) and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife's provincial conservation plan were assessed to determine ecosystem threat status and identify Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA's) relevant to the study area. The Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (D'MOSS) was also consulted to determine sites of importance with respect to municipal conservation planning; A list of plant species potentially occurring on site was obtained from the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) online Botanical Database of Southern Africa1 (ref. BODATSA, 2016); Lists of mammals, birds, herpetofauna and arthropods (focus on spiders and butterflies) for the 2930DD and 2931DD Quarter Degree Squares were obtained from the Animal Demographic Unit’s (ADU) South African Bird Atlas Project 2 (ADU - SABAP2, 2011) and the ADU - Virtual Museum's (2015) MammalMAP, ReptileMAP, Frog MAP, LepiMAP and SpiderMAP databases; The flora and fauna specialist study report (Styles, 2017) for the adjacent NOOA Terminal was also reviewed to determine general habitat condition and potential species assemblages; Flora and fauna lists were cross-referenced against the relevant Red Lists to determine the potential presence of species of conservation concern, i.e. threatened and near-threatened species. Other statutory guidelines also used in this regard include:
. NEM:BA Lists of species that are threatened or protected (Draft NEM:BA ToPS List, 2013);
. Schedule 2, 3, 7, 9 12 of the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (Act No. 15 of 1974), concerning Specially Protected and Protected flora and fauna; and
. National Forests Act, (1998) list of protected trees. The status of alien plants was determined based on: . National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) 2016 listing (NEMBA Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2016); and
. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of 1983) (CARA). 5.1.2 Field Survey The terrestrial ecology field survey was conducted on the 20th November 2018 and focused on the Project site only. The primary objective of the field survey was to assess the character of on-site habitat, with respect to:
1 Successor of SANBI’s POSA Database
6
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
General species composition; Type and extent of disturbances; and Habitat suitability for flora and fauna of conservation concern. The field survey thus focused on vegetation sampling, with habitat condition being used, inter alia, to evaluate the likelihood of occurrence of species of conservation concern.
The timed meander search procedure was used to sample vegetation in the Project site. This method relies on using terrain observations to orientate the course of a meander to account for habitat variation and to yield new species populations within a field unit (Goff et al., 1982).
Several reference works were used to identify flora observed in the field, including Van Wyk and Malan (1998), Pooley (2003), Pooley (2005), Bromilow (2010) and Glen and Van Wyk (2016). Flora nomenclature is in line with Germishuizen et al., (2006), although more recent name changes were used where applicable. 5.2 Wetland Ecology The aim of the wetland study was to: Verify the presence of wetland habitat occurring in the Project site; and Determine the likelihood of the proposed Project impacting wetlands and surrounding watercourses. Tasks associated with the wetland study are summarised below. For a detailed description of study methods, refer to the full wetland verification report in APPENDIX A. Infield field verification of the outer boundary of key ‘focal area’ wetlands (where water use is likely to be triggered) according to the methods and techniques contained in DWAF (2005). In line with the DWAF (2005) guidelines, three indicators were used to verify wetlands, namely terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator. For the soil wetness indicator, the upper most 50 cm of the soil profile was sampled using a standard Dutch-type auger. The Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma, as well as degree of mottling in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soil;; Desktop identification, delineation and mapping of water courses (rivers, riparian areas and wetlands) within a 500 m radius of the Project site; and Based on collected and reviewed data, an impact/risk likelihood screening assessment was conducted of all water courses within a 500 m radius of the Project site, which was used to inform recommendations concerning WULA requirements. 5.3 Estuarine Ecology There is a considerable amount of existing information on Durban Bay Estuary. Based on an assessment of these data and considering the location of the Project site, it was determined that no additional estuarine fieldwork was necessary, and that existing information could be used as the basis for the estuarine study.
The estuarine study was thus based on a desktop collation and review of available literature. Amongst others, the publication by Forbes and Demetriades (2008) 2 presents information on Durban Bay Estuary’s physical and biological characteristics, while the Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan (2015) was also particularly germane to this study.
2 Published for Environmental Management Department of the eThekwini Municipality.
7
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
5.4 Assessment of Biodiversity Value Habitats were preliminarily defined as being either natural or modified, based on the IFC approach to assigning value to biodiversity. Key natural/modified habitat determinants outlined in Performance Standard 6 include the level of human-induced disturbance, with the following factors being considered: Presence of invasive species; Level of pollution; Extent of habitat fragmentation; Viability of existing naturally-occurring species assemblages; Resemblance of existing ecosystem functionality and structure to reference conditions; Degree of other types of habitat degradation; The biodiversity values of the site (e.g., threatened species and ecosystems); Culturally important biodiversity features; and Ecological processes necessary for maintaining nearby critical habitats. 5.4.1 Species of Conservation Concern Although all species occurring within an area of interest form a component of the overall biodiversity and ecological value, it is neither practical nor necessary to assess potential effects of a project on every species that might be affected. Therefore, species of concern are defined as plant or animal species that require special conservation consideration based on certain characteristics, or species that may be particularly sensitive to project effects. For this study, the following selection criteria were principally used to identify species of concern for screening, and are in line with Performance Standard 6: a) Threatened and restricted-range/endemic species (Criteria 1 and 2); b) Statutory species (protected by national/international legislation, agreements, conventions) (Criteria 1, 2 and 3); and c) Migratory species (Criterion 3) (as recognised under Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ((CMS, 2012). 5.4.2 Likelihood of Occurrence The screening process assessed all species and ecosystems of concern identified in the preliminary lists, as well as all other potential triggers of critical habitat. The probability of the critical habitat triggers occurring on- site was determined based on a probability analysis that was informed by a review of species life histories and habitat preferences, and where required, in consultation with relevant experts. Three levels of probability were used: a) Probable: the species is likely to occur in the Project site due to suitable habitat and resources being present, and/or known records from the area; b) Possible: the species may occur in the Project site or move through the Project site (in the case of migratory and highly mobile species); and c) Unlikely: the trigger will not likely occur in the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and resources.
8
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Only those species with a possible and probable likelihood of occurrence in the Project site were filtered against Performance Standard 6 criteria 1 to 5. A precautionary approach was adopted where there was uncertainty that a species could potentially occur in the Project site, or where uncertainty existed regarding extent of occurrence. 6.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY In this section, we present information relating to terrestrial fauna and flora associated with the Project site and the Greater Durban area. 6.1 KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt The Project site is located in the Northern Coastal Grasslands of the broader KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) – shown in Figure 3. This vegetation type forms part of the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt regional vegetation complex, which has climatic, biogeographic and ecological peculiarities that render it a distinct biome (often termed Subtropical Coastal Forest Biome) within the context of South Africa’s vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). It covers a broad coastal strip from Mtunzini in the north to Port Edward in the south (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Important Plant Taxa Important taxa in the KwaZulu-Natal Coastal Belt vegetation type, as per Mucina and Rutherford (2006), are: Trees: Bridelia micrantha, Phoenix reclinata, Syzygium cordatum, Vachellia natalitia, Albizia adianthifolia and Antidesma venosum; Shrubs: Clutia pulchella, Gnidia kraussiana, Phyllanthus glaucophyllus and Tephrosia polystachya; Graminoides: Digitaria eriantha, Aristida junciformis, Themeda triandra, Alloteropsis semialata, Cymbopogon caesius, Eragrostis curvula, Hyparrhenia filipendula, Melinis repens and Panicum maximum; Herbs: Berkheya speciosa, Cyanotis speciosa, Senecio glaberrimus, Alepidea longiflora, Centella glabrata, Cephalaria oblongifolia, Chamaecrista mimosoides, Conostomium natalense, Helichrysum cymosum, H. pallidum, Hibiscus pedunculatus, Hybanthus capensis and Senecio albanensis; and Endemic Taxa: Vernonia africana, Kniphofia pauciflora and Barleria natalensis.
9
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 3: Regional vegetation types, as per Mucina & Rutherford (2006)
10
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 4: Study area in relation to the Scott-Shaw-Escott (2011) provincial vegetation delineations
11
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
6.2 Statutory Conservation Considerations Northern Coastal Grasslands are classified as Critically Endangered at a national level (NEM:BA Threatened Ecosystems, 2011). Of an original extent of approximately 24 000 ha, only about 12 % remains, of which less than 1% is conserved in formal protected areas. As a consequence of this level of threat, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife designate the Project site, as well other small fragmented patches in and around the harbour precinct, as CBA: Irreplaceable in the KwaZulu-Natal Conservation Plan3 (C-Plan) – refer Figure 5.
Significantly, the Project site is not recognised at all under the D’MOSS (see Figure 6). The D’MOSS is a municipality-developed spatial layer that identifies several open areas across the city that contain important biodiversity features that are considered crucial to achieving both provincial and national conservation targets.
Given the highly modified and degraded nature of the Project site (refer to sections 6.3 and 6.4) and other undeveloped land within the harbour precinct, the KZN C-Plan designation is ostensibly predicated on the overall irreplaceability of Northern Coastal Grassland at a regional level (Styles, 2017). The D’MOSS designation on the other hand, recognises and is commensurate with the Project site’s actual ecological condition and is therefore a more accurate representation of its conservation value.
3 Formal and systematic mapping of KwaZulu-Natal’s CBAs
12
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 5: Project site in relation to the KZN Conservation Plan delineation of CBAs
13
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 6: The Project site in relation to the D’MOSS
14
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
6.3 Landscape Context and General Characteristics of the Site Landscape Context The Project site is located within the Durban harbour precinct (Bayhead), which is dominated by industrial built infrastructure and facilities associated with port operations. Areas of vegetation in the precinct are generally confined to small, fragmented patches of natural and/or modified habitat.
The Project site is elongated in shape and is bounded on all sides by Transnet rail infrastructure. Parallel concrete canals (130 m in length) bisect the northern portion of the Project site and enter into a larger canal that runs parallel to the railway line, on the eastern edge of the site. This feeds into the Bayhead Canal of the harbour to the south-east of the Project site. Other drainage features in the immediate landscape include the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers. These flow to the south of the site, before converging and draining via a concrete canal, into the harbour.
Beyond the railway infrastructure, the surrounding land is characterised by various harbour and industrial facilities, warehouses and roads. Small landscaped areas are present in between the railway lines that lie adjacent to the site – visible in Figure 6. The Project site thus constitutes a small (10.3 ha) and isolated vegetated patch, sited within a highly developed and transformed landscape matrix. General Characteristics A study of historic aerial imagery indicates that, as a terrestrial landscape4, the Project site has been subjected to considerable anthropogenic disturbances and modification. In an image from 1969 (Plate 1 of Figure 7) the majority of the site appears to have been disturbed, with little apparent woody/shrub vegetation present. In 2002 (Plate 2) the site still appears to be fairly open, but by 2009 (see Plates 3) woody/shrub vegetation was establishing across portions of the site. The most recent NGI image available (2016 – Plate 4), indicates that the majority of the site was dominated by woody/shrub vegetation.
However, the most recent Google Earth imagery (July 2018) (not shown in report) of the site indicates that it had been subjected to new disturbances, with vehicle tracks and vegetation clearing evident (not shown).
A soil survey indicates that the first metre of the site’s soil profile comprises imported fill material, and not natural, undisturbed soils. This suggests that the site’s entire landform is anthropogenic, with potentially altered hydrological patterns (Pers. Comm. I Snyman).
4 Refer to discussion on wetland habitat (specifically Section 7.1) for historic imagery and discussion of the site, prior to its transformation to a terrestrial landscape.
15
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Plate 1: 1968 Plate 2: 2002 Plate 3: 2009 Plate 4: 2016
Figure 7: Time sequence of the Project site from 1968 to 2016 (Images from CD”NGI Historical Imagery)
16
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
6.4 Flora Assessment 6.4.1 On-Site Vegetation The entire Project site is highly degraded and characterised by a complete dominance of alien vegetation, including several invasive species listed under the NEM:BA and CARA. Vegetation structure generally grades from short, open to semi-closed scrub, although small pockets of thicket/taller trees and scattered individual trees are also present.
In terms of general composition, 91 plant species were recorded on-site during the field survey (refer to APPENDIX B), of which 53 (58%) are alien species. Several alien taxa are locally dominant including inter alia; the creepers Ipomoea purpurea and Cardiospermum grandiflorum, and various shrubs and large herbs such as Commelina benghalensis, Helianthus annuus, Ricinus communis, Tecoma stans, Tithonia diversifolia and Urtica urens.
Most taller woody plants are also alien taxa, with Melia azedarach, Morus alba, Schinus terebinthifolius and Syzygium cuminii common. Interestingly, ring-barking of numerous Melia azedarach trees was evident throughout the site – suggesting that alien invasive species control, of at least this species, has been attempted.
Other frequently observed alien species include, amongst others, the tall reed/grasses Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum, as well as various forbs/herbs and woody shrubs such as Bidens spp., Canna indica, Lantana camara, Melilotus albus, Rivina humilis, Solanum mauritianum and Verbena spp.
Compared to alien vegetation, the cover and richness of indigenous flora is depauperate. The most frequently recorded indigenous taxa are the woody species; Brachylaena discolor, Strelitzia nicolai and Trema orientalis; the grasses; Chloris gayana, Digitaria eriantha, Panicum maximum and Sporobolus africanus; and various forbs such as Abutilon spp. and Asystasia gangetica. Figure 8 to Figure 11 show photographs of the Project site.
17
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 8: View across the northern portion of the Figure 9: View across the southern portion of the Project site Project site
Figure 10: Dense and extensive stands of Ricinus Figure 11: Ring-barked Melia azedarach (Syringa) tree communis and Tithonia diversifolia, amongst others, characterise most of the Project site 6.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern According to the distribution records in Botanical Database of Southern Africa (BODATSA, 2016), Golder (2017) and Styles (2017), an additional 14 plant species of conservation concern potentially occur in the broader Bayhead area. These comprise nine Red List species, one nationally protected tree, and six specially protected plants under the provincial conservation ordinance - Table 1.
Table 1: Plant species of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area
Family Species name National Red KZN Specially National List Status Protected Protected (2017.1) Species (1974) Tree List (2017)
AMARYLLIDACEAE Crinum macowanii Declining Specially - Protected
AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophone disticha - Specially - Protected
18
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Species name National Red KZN Specially National List Status Protected Protected (2017.1) Species (1974) Tree List (2017)
AMARYLLIDACEAE Scadoxus puniceus - Specially - Protected
ANACARDIACEAE Searsia harveyi Near Threatened - -
APOCYNACEAE Mondia whitei Endangered - -
ARECACEAE Raphia australis Vulnerable - -
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe linearifolia Near Threatened - -
ASPHODELACEAE Aloe thraskii Near Threatened - -
ASPHODELACEAE Kniphofia pauciflora Critically - - Endangered
ASTERACEAE Cineraria atriplicifolia Vulnerable - -
IRIDACEAE Crocosmia aurea - Specially - Protected
ORCHIDACEAE Zeuxine africana Endangered Specially - Protected
ORCHIDACEAE Eulophia speciosa - Specially - Protected
SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme - - Protected
Sources: BODATSA (2016), Golder (2017) and Styles (2017)
Five small-sized Avicennia marina (White Mangrove) trees were recorded growing in the artificial canal on-site – shown in Figure 12. Although this species is listed as Least Concern on the national Red List (SANBI, 2017) and therefore not formally a species of conservation concern, it is, like other mangrove species, under threat from over-exploitation in parts of its range (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001).
19
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 12: Avicennia marina (White Mangrove) 6.4.3 Listed Alien Invasive Plant Species 6.4.3.1 Applicable Legislation South African legislation concerning alien invasive species includes the NEM: BA and CARA. Both sets of regulations have been developed to control the spread of alien invasive species. The NEM: BA and CARA regulations are briefly summarised below. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983 The 2001 revision of the CARA recognises three categories of invasive plant; Category 1 - declared weeds, Category 2 - declared invader plants with a commercial or utility value, and Category 3 - ornamental plants. The regulations pertaining to each category are summarised below.
CARA Category 1: Declared Weeds
Category 1 listed plants have no economic value and possess characteristics harmful to humans, animals or the environment. These species tend to produce high volumes of seed, are wind or bird dispersed, or have efficient vegetative reproduction, and are thus highly invasive causing substantial environmental degradation. Category 1 listed plants may not be planted or propagated in rural and urban areas, and trade in their seeds, cuttings and other propagatory material is prohibited. Moreover, it is required that active measures be taken to control and eradicate populations of these species (Agricultural Research Council, 2010).
CARA Category 2: Declared Invader Plants with Commercial or Utility Value
Although Category 2 listed plants are invasive species, they do have beneficial properties and general utility. They are permitted in demarcated areas (as granted by the Executive Officer) under controlled conditions, and in bio control reserves. Seed and propagative material may only be sold to and acquired by land users of areas demarcated for that particular species (as determined by the Executive Officer). Category 2 plants may not occur within 30 m of the 1:50 year flood line of a watercourse or wetland, except under authorisation in terms of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (Agricultural Research Council, 2010).
CARA Category 3: Mostly Ornamental Plants
20
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Category 3 plants are generally popular ornamental and garden species that show a high invasive potential and frequently encroach into natural areas. No further planting or trade in propagative material of these species is permitted. However, existing plants may remain provided they do not occur within 30 m from the 1:50 year flood line of a water course or wetland, and provided all reasonable steps are taken to limit the further spread of that species (Agricultural Research Council, 2010). National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 According to the NEM:BA, exotic species can be listed into one of four categories; 1a, 1b, 2 and 3. Species may be listed under more than one category, depending on the region in which they are found (Van Oudtshoorn, 2015). The regulations relating to each category are discussed below.
Category 1a and 1b
Category 1a listed species are considered emerging invasive species. These species require immediate control by all landowners. Category 1b species are established invasive species. Coherent control programmes need to be implemented to control Category 1a and 1b species and existing programmes must be maintained (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015).
Category 2
Category 2 listed species are those that have economic or aesthetic value, yet which can become invasive and have negative ecological consequences. Provision has thus been made to control these species and provide mechanisms to continue to derive benefit from them (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015).
Category 3
Category 3 species are subject to exemption, however they do have the potential to become invasive and must be managed and contained accordingly (Invasive Species South Africa, 2015). They are prohibited in riparian areas (Van Oudtshoorn, 2015). 6.4.3.2 Listed Alien Species Recorded On-Site Of the 51 alien species recorded on-site, 26 are listed under CARA and/or NEM: BA as recognised invader species. These are listed in Table 2 along with their respective categories.
Table 2: CARA and NEM:BA listed alien invasive species recorded on-site
Family Scientific Name Common Name CARA NEM:BA Category Category
ANACARDIACEAE Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Tree 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Ageratum conyzoides Invading Ageratum - 1b
ASTERACEAE Chromolaena odorata Triffid Weed 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Flaveria bidentis Smelter’s Bush - 1b
ASTERACEAE Parthenium hysterophorus Famine Weed 1 1b
ASTERACEAE Tithonia diversifolia Mexican Sunflower 1 1b
BASELLACEAE Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine 1 1b
BIGNONIACEAE Tecoma stans Yellow Bells 1 1b
21
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name CARA NEM:BA Category Category
CACTACEAE Pereskia aculeata Pereskia 1 1b
CANNACEAE Canna indica Indian Shot 1 1b
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea purpurea Morning Glory 3 1b
EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis Castor-oil Plant 2 2
FABACEAE Leucaena leucocephala Leucaena 2 2
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya Peanut butter Cassia 3 1b
MELIACEAE Melia azedarach Syringa 3 1b
MORACEAE Morus alba White Mulberry 3 3
MYRTACEAE Syzygium cuminii Jambolan 3 1b
PHYTOLACCACEAE Rivina humilis Bloodberry 1 1b
POCEAE Arundo donax Spanish Reed 1 1b
POCEAE Pennisetum purpurea Elephant/Napier Grass X2 2
ROSACEAE Rubus fruticosus European Blackberry 2 2
SAPINDACAE Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon Vine 1 1b
SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum Bugweed 1 1b
VERBENACEAE Lantana camara Lantana 1 1b
VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis Wild Verbena - 1b
VERBENACEAE Verbena brasiliensis Brazilian Verbena - 1b
6.5 Land Cover Classification In line with IFC (2012) Performance Standard 6, the extent of natural and modified habitats must be established in order to determine the significance of potential impacts. The categorisation of natural and modified habitats on-site for this study was predicated on field observations and aerial imagery.
IFC (2012) Performance Standard 6, recognises that natural and modified habitats exist on a continuum that ranges from largely untouched, pristine natural habitat to intensively managed transformed habitats. To designate an ecosystem as ‘modified habitat’, it is necessary to determine how human-derived activities have altered ecological structure and function, and naturally occurring biodiversity. Moreover, it is also important to consider the character of the broader landscape with regard to anthropogenic disturbances.
For this study, and in line with IFC (2012), Performance Standard 6, we defined modified habitat as areas that have been significantly altered by human activity, contain large portions of non-native plants (i.e. alien plants),
22
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
and are likely to remain in a disturbed, or indeed ‘modified’ state, over the medium- to long-term (i.e. unlikely to return to a natural state).
We note that the Project site is an anthropogenic landform that is dominated by alien invasive vegetation, with no viable naturally-occurring species assemblages. It is located within a highly developed industrial landscape and is largely isolated from other natural vegetation patches. Moreover, the site is unlikely to return to a natural state without active intervention. Pursuant to these traits, the entire site is classified as ‘modified’ habitat.
Notwithstanding the above rationale, as a patch of undeveloped vegetated land, the site does have a potential role in local ecological processes that is worth highlighting. Most cities comprise a network of habitat patches or fragments. The functionality and integrity of patches varies considerably. Some patches are stable ‘source’ habitats, while others act as transient habitats and are used mostly as ‘stepping stone’ or dispersal corridors (Angold et al., 2006). As a collective network, these habitat fragments provide the necessary resource base to meet the life-history requirements of various wildlife populations, allowing them to persist in otherwise hostile urban environments. Within this dynamic, we recognise that despite its evident degradation, the Project site may have value as a ‘stepping stone’ habitat patch within the broader landscape matrix. 6.6 Faunal Assessment Considering the degree of degradation and isolation, the site does not comprise important or indeed viable source habitat for most indigenous fauna. In this section, we thus provide a high-level faunal screening assessment, focused specifically on the possible presence of species of conservation concern (threatened and protected species) predicated by habitat suitability. 6.6.1 Mammals Literature indicates that up to 70 mammal species occur, or potentially occur, in the broader Durban area (FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, 2019; Stuart and Stuart, 2007) – refer to list in APPENDIX C. Of these 10 are considered species of concern – refer Table 3. Nine taxa are listed as threatened on the national Red List (EWT, 2016), while four taxa are listed as protected either national or provincially. No mammals were recorded on-site during the field visit. 6.6.2 Birds Records from the South African Bird Atlas Project 2 (ADU - SABAP2, 2011) indicate that 358 bird species have been recorded in and around the Durban harbour area -– refer to list in APPENDIX D. Of these, 21 are species of conservation concern - Table 4. Twenty species are listed as threatened on the national Red List (BirdLife South Africa, 2015), five taxa listed on the NEM:BA ToPS List (2013) and six are listed as specially protected provincially. 6.6.3 Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians) Based on the ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) records, 54 reptile5 and 30 amphibian species have been recorded in the Quarter Degree Squares in which the study area is located – refer to lists in APPENDIX E. These include six reptile and four amphibians are of conservation concern (Table 5). 6.6.4 Arthropods A search of the ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) database indicates that 401 butterfly and 35 spider species have been recorded in the relevant Quarter Degree Squares. Of these, one Red List butterfly species is reported, namely Durbania amakosa flavida (Endangered).
5 Only terrestrial reptile species are considered as part of this assessment
23
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
The favoured habitat of this subspecies includes lichen/alga covered rocks in montane grassland (Henning et al., 2009) – habitats absent from the site. It is therefore unlikely that Durbania amakosa flavida is present.
Three baboon spiders (Family Theraphosidae) have also been reported; Harpactira curator, Harpactira sp. and Brachionopus sp. Although not formally listed, baboon spiders are considered species of conservation value. Considering the degree of disturbance, it is unlikely that any of these taxa are present on-site.
24
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table 3: Mammals of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence Red List (2016) - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Regional Status (2013) Species (1974)
Bovidae Philantomba monticola Blue Duiker Vulnerable Vulnerable Protected Unlikely
Cephalophus natalensis Red Duiker Near Threatened Protected Protected Unlikely
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck - Protected - Unlikely
Felideae Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Muridae Dasymys incomtus Water Rat Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter Near Threatened Protected - Possible
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Soricidae Myosorex cafer Dark-footed Forest Shrew Vulnerable - - Possible
Vespertilionidae Scotoecus albofuscus Thomas’ House Bat Near Threatened - - Possible
Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta’s Pipistrelle Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Source: ADU - Virtual Museum (2015) – MammalMAP
25
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table 4: Birds of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence Red List Status NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Accipitridae Stephanoaetus coronatus African Crowned Eagle Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Polemaetus bellicosus Martial Eagle Endangered Vulnerable - Unlikely
Aquila verreauxii Verreaux's Eagle Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Alcedinidae Alcedo semitorquata Half-collared Kingfisher Near Threatened - - Possible
Bucerotidae Bucorvus leadbeateri Southern Ground- Endangered Vulnerable Specially Unlikely hornbill Protected
Calyptomenidae Smithornis capensis African Broadbill Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Ciconiidae Ciconia nigra Black Stork Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Ciconia ciconia White Stork - - Specially Unlikely Protected
Coraciidae Coracias garrulus European Roller Near Threatened - - Unlikely
Falconidae Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon Vulnerable - - Possible
Heliornithidae Podica senegalensis African Finfoot Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Jacanidae Microparra capensis Lesser Jacana Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Laridae Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Vulnerable Protected - Unlikely
26
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence Red List Status NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Locustellidae Bradypterus sylvaticus Knysna Warbler Vulnerable - - Possible
Mycteria ibis Mycteria ibis Yellow-billed Stork Endangered - Specially Unlikely Protected
Pelecanidae Pelecanus onocrotalus Great White Pelican Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Pelecanus rufescens Pink-backed Pelican Vulnerable - Specially Unlikely Protected
Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus ruber Greater Flamingo Near Threatened Protected Specially Unlikely Protected
Sulidae Morus capensis Cape Gannet Vulnerable - - Unlikely
Sylviidae Lioptilus nigricapillus Bush Blackcap Vulnerable - - Possible
Threskiornithidae Geronticus calvus Southern Bald Ibis Vulnerable Vulnerable Specially Unlikely Protected
Source: ADU - SABAP2 (2011)
27
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table 5: Herpetofauna of conservation concern previously recorded in the Durban area
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status Likelihood of Occurrence Red List – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Status (2013) Species (1974)
Reptiles
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion KwaZulu Dwarf Chameleon Vulnerable Vulnerable - Unlikely melanocephalum
Cordylidae Chammaesaura macrolepis Large-scaled Grass Lizard Near Threatened Protected - Unlikely
Lamprophiidae Macrelaps microlepidotus KwaZulu-Natal Black Near Threatened - - Possible Snake
Pythonidae Python natalensis South African Python - Protected Protected Unlikely
Scincidae Scelotes inornatus Durban Dwarf Burrowing Critically Endangered - - Unlikely Skink
Varanidae Varanus niloticus Water Monitor - - Protected Possible
Amphibians
Hemisotidae Hemisus guttatus Spotted Shovel-nosed Frog Vulnerable - - Possible
Hyperoliidae Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Leaf-folding Frog Vulnerable - - Unlikel y
Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill’s Reed Frog Endangered - - Unlikely
Pyxicephalidae Natalobatrachus bonebergi Kloof Frog Endangered - - Unlikely
Source: ADU - Virtual Museum (2015)
28
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
7.0 WETLAND ECOLOGY Information in this section is taken from Eco-Pulse (2019) – refer to APPENDIX A for the full report and is specific to site(s) investigated as possible wetland habitat. 7.1 Historical Wetland Context Orthophoto’s taken in 1937 (Figure 13) suggest that the Project site was once a functional estuarine or intertidal swamp forest or mangrove forest comprised of typical sub-tropical coastal estuarine swamp forest/mangrove species such as Avicennia marina, Brugiuera gymnorrhiza, Barringtonia racemosa, Rhizophora mucronata and Hibiscus tiliaceus (Eco-Pulse, 2019). However, by 1944 the lower Umbilo River had been canalized and diverted to join the artificially realigned, straightened and canalized Mhlatuzana River (Figure 14). The Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers were likely altered to facilitate the development of the Durban Harbour and other associated infrastructure and industries.
Estimated location of Project site
Figure 13: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1937 (Eco-Pulse).
Diverted flows and the canalization of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers in the 1940’s had altered vital fluvial processes necessary to support a functioning estuarine or intertidal wetland system (Eco-Pulse, 2019). Furthermore, pressure from development and urbanisation led to the removal of natural swamp forest/mangrove vegetation from the area. As a result, the area surrounding the Project site no longer functions as a tidally-influenced wetland system or a wetland system linked to the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers, and there are no visible signs of remnant estuarine/swamp/mangrove forest vegetation communities.
29
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Estimated location of Project site
Figure 14: Imagery of the study area and its vicinity taken in 1944 (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
7.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation The methods outlined in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005) were used to verify and delineate wetlands on the Project site (Eco-Pulse, 2019). Three specific wetland indicators were used: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator. 7.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator Available 2 m interval elevation contours of the study area highlighted two obvious depressions in the landscape to the south (Focal Point 1) and west (Focal Point 2) of the Project site – shown in Figure 15. Given the high level of disturbance in the area, these depressions are likely to be anthropogenic. Depressions can be, but are not always, associated with wetland habitat as these areas are ideal settings for the collection of water at low points in the landscape. Given the potential likelihood of wetlands forming in low-lying areas such as depressions, the area to the south and west of the Project became focal points for the wetland verification exercise. Furthermore, during the field survey, a wetland area was identified adjacent to the hardened gravel platform (Focal Point 3).
30
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 15: Focal points of the wetland ddelineation and mapping study within a 500 m radius of the Project site.
31
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
7.2.2 Vegetation Indicator Vegetation is usually the principle indicator of wetland habitat, with the presence of wetland plants or ‘hydrophytes’ typically suggesting the presence of water-saturated soils (for at least a period of 2 weeks of the year) and generally associated with wetlands. Wetland field surveys of the vegetation were undertaken by Eco-Pulse in January 2019 (south) and March 2019 (west).
The field assessment of Focal Point 1 (south) revealed that the entire area was disturbed and dominated by dense alien vegetation, resembling an invaded coastal bushland community comprising mixed woody and herbaceous invasive alien and indigenous pioneers and weed species of plants. Signs of historic infilling were apparent, with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling. Whilst some of the species sampled were typical ‘facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial environments) such as Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum and Commelina benghalensis, these were found to be mainly invasive alien plants that are known to invade terrestrial forest/bushlands and wetland environments, and as such their presence cannot be assumed to indicate wetland presence (these are poor wetland indicator species). The indigenous species occurring at the site, such as Strelitzia nicolai and Brachylaena discolour, are typical of pioneer coastal forest/coastal bush (terrestrial habitat) and do not typically occur in wetland habitat.
The field assessment of Focal Point 2 (west) revealed that the depression area is dominated by the Common Reed, Phragmites australis, an indigenous ‘obligate’ wetland plant species. Several other ‘facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial environments) were noted at the site. Many of these are known invasive alien species. Common plants recorded in sampled focal areas are presented in Table 6 (Eco-Pulse 2019).
Table 6: List of dominant plant species identified in the sampled area during the wetland field visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species (Eco-Pulse 2019)
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status
Tithonia diversifolia* Mexican Sunflower Fd
Ricinus communis* Castor-Oil Plant D
Pennisetum purpureum* Napier Grass F
Morus alba* Mulberry Tree Fd
Lantana camara* Common Lantana Fd
Chromolaena odorata* Triffid Weed D
Commelina benghalensis* Bhengal Wandering Jew F
Urtica urens* Stinging Nettle F
Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian Pepper Tree Fd
Melia azedarach* Syringa Tree Fd
Ipomoea purpurea* Common Morning Glory D
Ipomoea indica* Indigo flower D
Ipomoea alba* Moonflower D
32
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status
Solanum chrysotrichum* Devil’s Fig Fd
Canna indica* Indian Shot F
Conyza sp* Fleabane Fd
Commelina africana Yellow Commelina D
Commelina erecta Forest Commelina D
Ficus sur Cluster Fig F
Senecio tamoides Canary Creeper Fd
Strelitzia nicolai Natal Wild Banana D
Brachylaena discolor Coastal Silver Oak D
Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd
Source: Eco-Plus (2019)
7.2.3 Soil Wetness Indictor Whilst vegetation is the generally the primary indicator of wetland habitat, in practice the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important because vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts (which is the case for much of the site sampled); whereas soil morphological indicators are far more permanent and will retain signs of frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed (DWAF, 2005).
Soils sampled across Focal Point 1 were generally brown in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 6 and Chroma of 4) with a high sand content (Figure 16). The sandy brown soils did not display signs of wetness, indicating that these are terrestrial or dryland soils (non-wetland). Soils were relatively homogenous across the southern focal site. Signs of historic excavations and infilling were also apparent across the site sampled, with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling.
Across most of Focal Point 1, a layer of dark black/slate coloured material was observed overlying the sandy layer of sediment, up to a depth of between 10 – 50 cm (Figure 17). At first glance, this dark soil horizon could be mistaken for being a typical gleyed ‘wetland soil’. However, upon closer inspection this layer was identified as a layer of burnt organic material resembling a type of ash. This is likely to have been an organic layer that built up under the former estuarine environment that once probably characterised the site, and which then desiccated (dried up) during the construction of the Durban harbour and Bayhead area. Under the terrestrialised and desiccated conditions, the organic layer then burnt over time (historic fires possibly associated with ‘slash and burn’ management of the vegetation at the site) to create an ashy, burnt organic soil horizon. Essentially, the soils at Focal Point 1 displayed no visible signs of wetness and the site is determined to be terrestrial and not indicative of wetland habitat.
Soils sampled at Focal Point 2 were generally grey in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 5 and Chroma of 1) and had a sandy texture (Figure 18). Faint orange mottles were present in the soil profile. The grey soil matrix and the presence of mottles in the soil profile are a result of the soil profile being sufficiently saturated
33
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
such that anaerobic conditions prevail, which leads to the reduction of iron from its oxidised state, which is soluble in water. The soils at Focal Point 2 can be considered typical of ‘temporary’ wetland soils, and combined with the vegetation indicator, confirmed that wetland habitat is present west of the existing railway line west of the proposed development site.
Figure 16: Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sample Figure 17: Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at (Eco-Pulse, 2019) various locations (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
Figure 18: Typical ‘temporary’ wetland soil sampled at the western focal site (Eco-Pulse, 2019).
34
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
7.3 Wetland Classification Classification System for Wetlands and other Aquatic Ecosystems and other Aquatic Ecosystems in South Africa (Ollis et al., 2013).
In their present state, both Wetland Unit 1 (at Focal Point 2) and Wetland Unit 2 (at Focal Point 3) can be classified as ‘artificial’ wetlands6 and resemble depressions that have formed as a result of stormwater runoff concentrating on the platform developed to the south of the site and within a low-lying area between the railway lines located west of the development site.
In order to determine whether the wetlands assessed are artificial or a natural feature of the landscape, the following needs to be taken into account: The historical reference state of the watercourse, which has been established as far as possible through historical imagery/photography; On-site evidence of wetland habitat established through soil and vegetation sampling; and The onsite impacts that have altered the template, nature and functioning of the watercourse. From a legal perspective, wetlands are covered specifically in National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, with the definition of a wetland taken from the National Water Act 36 of 1998 referring to “…land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil”. Here an important distinction needs to be made to land which under “normal circumstances” would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (i.e. wetland/aquatic vegetation or hydrophytes) and where conditions or circumstances are ‘not normal’ or ‘artificially’ created or modified due to human activities or actions. Here one’s interpretation of the definition of ‘wetland’ in the National Water Act 36 of 1998 is critical, and the wetland ecologist from Eco-Pulse has interpreted this to mean that if circumstances are ‘not normal’ at a site (for example, due to runoff from a road or hardened platform leading to increased saturation of soils or standing water where wetland plants have become established artificially) then the definition would not apply and the ‘wetland’ would be deemed to be artificial in nature (i.e. not resulting from a ‘natural’ process of formation).
It has been deduced based on the on-site investigations and assessment undertaken by Eco-Pulse Consulting, that under ‘normal circumstances’ the wetlands would likely have been wooded mangrove habitat forming part of the broader estuary at Durban Bay, which has since been infilled and modified completely. Freshwater wetland habitat would have been absent. The resulting modified area is thus a hardened gravel platform to the south of the Project site where Wetland Unit 2 is located, and a modified/infilled low-lying area between the two railway lines located west of the site where Wetland Unit 1 is located (Figure 19).
Where a ‘natural’ salt water mangrove/marsh was likely present at the Project site in the past (which historical accounts and photography suggests), this is no longer evident at the site, based on the sampling undertaken, with the vegetation having seen significant modification and adaptation to the new site conditions. Circumstances now are no longer ‘normal’ (as per the definition of a wetland in terms of the NWA, 1998) due to modifications associated with infilling, topographical changes, channel diversions and storm water runoff from hardened surfaces.
6 The term ‘natural’ when applied to ecosystems such as wetlands, generally refers to an ecosystem that exists in or is derived from a natural process or processes and is not man- made or caused by human/anthropogenic act ions. ‘Artificial’ thus refers to a system that has been produced by humans or human actions rather than naturally occurring.
35
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
The ‘remaining’ extent of seepage wetland found at the southern edge of the property also appears to be a recent feature of the landscape that resulted from the deposition of soils transported and deposited downstream from the upstream eroded watercourse and adjacent unstable banks. Whether this habitat is entirely artificial or simply has become a more permanent feature of the landscape superimposed onto an existing wetland surface) remains uncertain, and cannot be easily established without having access to baseline data for the study area prior to the level of modification of the catchment and bay area over the last 50 years. 7.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES) and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) Only wetlands perceived to be ‘natural’ in terms of their origin can be assessed in terms of Present Ecological Status (PES) using established assessment methods. These rely on there being a ‘reference’ state’ from which to compare deviations. Since the ‘artificial’ wetlands identified for the study area do not have a natural ‘reference state’, the PES of both wetland units (i.e. Wetlands Units 1 and 2) could not be formally established.
The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Wetland Units 1 and 2 was rated using the Wetland EIS tool developed by Eco-Pulse (2017). For both units, a relatively low EIS rating was assigned, which can be attributed to the artificial nature of both wetland units, their small size, limited functioning and biodiversity value and their generally disturbed state (Table 7). Importantly, Eco-Pulse (2019) found that these two artificial wetlands were hydrologically disconnected from the project site.
Table 7: Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit (Eco-Pulse, 2019)
Wetland Unit Hydro Ecological Ecological EIS Score EIS Rating geomorphic importance sensitivity (0-4) type (0-4) (0-4)
Wetland Unit 1 Artificial wetland 0.85 0.41 0.85 Low
Wetland Unit 2 Artificial wetland 0.50 0.50 0.50 Very low
36
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 19: Delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within a 500 m radius of the Project site
37
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
8.0 ESTUARINE ECOLOGY The Project site is located within the Estuarine Functional Zone of the Durban Bay Estuary. In this section we outline the ecological character of estuaries, and present a description of the Durban Bay Estuary, based on Forbes and Demetriades (2008). 8.1 Estuaries – An Introduction Estuaries are located where river systems meet and interact with the sea. They are essentially transition zones, defined by semi-enclosed water bodies, that contain both land and sea elements. They receive variable contributions of freshwater runoff from contributing rivers, which mixes and interacts with salt water from the adjoining sea (based on the tidal or salt intrusion limit) (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Because of this mixing of disparate inputs, estuaries are highly dynamic and complex systems, each characterised by the interplay of particular chemical, biological and physical influences (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
One of the consequence of this complexity is that estuaries are highly productive ecosystems, supporting a remarkable diversity and faunal biomass (National Estuarine Management Protocol, 2013). This productivity extends across many trophic levels, and accordingly, estuaries compromise exceptionally important biodiversity habitats, supporting multiple biological communities and ecological processes (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). For example, estuaries are critically important breeding and nursery habitats for fish species, as well as providing feeding habitat and migratory corridors for various coastal and marine species, including several threatened bird species (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Another prominent feature of estuaries is their role in rendering ecosystem services to human societies. Throughout history, they have been critically important repositories of inter alia, various foods to coastal communities (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Indeed, throughout the world human communities have established themselves around estuaries for the explicit purpose of accessing the associated ecosystems services (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
At a fundamental level, ecosystems services are classified into four main categories. These are provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Those associated with estuaries are both abundant and manifold, with some of the more common types listed in Table 8.
Table 8: Common provisioning and regulating ecosystem services associated with estuaries
Category Service
Provisioning Commercial and subsistence fishing
Fuel wood
Salt production
Traditional medicine and pharmaceutical products
Building material, including biological (e.g. timber) and non-biological products (e.g. building sand)
Regulating Water quality and quantity maintenance and regulation
Protection of shoreline from floods and wave
Climate regulation
38
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Category Service
Waste treatment
Cultural Tourism and recreation
Religious and spiritual
Intrinsic value
Supporting Nutrient cycling
Habitat for both terrestrial and marine fauna
Source: Summarised from Forbes and Demetriades (2008)
South Africa has between 291 and 300 estuaries (Cilliers and Adams, 2016; National Estuarine Management Protocol, 2013), with a combined estuarine functional zone of approximately 171 046 ha (Cilliers and Adams, 2016). Anthropogenic development and activity along most of the South African coastline has placed increasing pressure on the country’s estuarine systems, and they are currently one most of the threatened habitat-types in South Africa (Cilliers and Adams, 2016). 8.2 Durban Bay Estuary 8.2.1 General Characterisation The city of Durban, as defined by the eThekwini municipal boundary, has 16 estuaries (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). These comprise four estuarine types, namely 1) river mouths, 2) permanently open, 3) temporally open, and 4) estuarine bays (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The Project site is located adjacent to the Durban Bay Estuary, which is classified as an estuarine bay (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Unlike other estuary types, estuarine bays are characterised by a dominance of marine influences rather than freshwater influences (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). They are the rarest form of estuary in South Africa.
The city of Durban originally developed around Durban Bay, which has an estimated catchment of 26 400 ha. It is fed by three main rivers; the uMbilo, uMhlatuzana and the aManzimnyama (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Over the last one and a half centuries, the Bay has gradually been transformed from its natural state into a large industrial-harbour complex that is of considerable regional economic importance (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Most of the original bay area has been lost or critically modified (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Dredging and land reclamation (infilling) for harbour development purposes have been amongst the primary drivers of modification, with only an estimated 13.5 km2 out of an original extent of 35 km2 remaining (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015).
Harbour development has had severe negative consequences for the Bay’s natural habitat (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). Forbes and Demetriades (2008) indicate that few land-water interfaces have not been converted to concrete harbour infrastructure, and little remains of the wetland, reedbed, inter tidal reaches and mangroves habitats that were once prevalent. Estimates suggest that out of an original extent of approximately 440 ha, only about 15 ha (3.4%) of mangrove habitat is still present (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Similarly, only 14% of the original tidal flats and 4% of the natural shoreline habitat
39
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
remains (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). It is also noted that all the rivers draining into the Bay have been canalised, with the loss of associated riparian habitat. 8.2.2 Physical Attributes In a natural state, the depth of Durban Bay rarely exceeds two metres at spring tide (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Historically, the Bay’s bottom sediments comprised muddy estuarine silts.
However, long-term dredging, increased tidal exchange and the activities of sand prawns have altered these characteristics, with a sandy courser sediment now the most dominant (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Water quality in the Bay is compromised and has been for many years. This is a consequence of the frequent input of contaminants, coupled with, and accentuated by, poor water circulation (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Water quality testing has indicated that the level of organic waste and nitrogenous and phosphate compounds entering the Bay is often at hazardous levels, and this causes the deoxygenisation and algal blooms that have been linked to fish die-offs (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Both the uMbilo and uMhlatuzana rivers are major contributors of pollution into the Bay, as are the up to 50 storm water drains that discharge into it. Contaminated surface water originating in urban and industrial areas flows into these drainage features, and ultimately into the Bay. The poor configuration of harbour infrastructure results in limited circulation and reduced water exchange. This allows pollutants to aggregate at the canal discharge points into the Bay, where it only slowly dilutes and disperses (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Testing for faecal coliform bacteria at various points in the Bay has revealed alarming levels of pollution that are well-above acceptable human health levels. The most polluted areas include the silt canal before the Bluff Yacht Club and the Esplanade sand banks (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). 8.2.3 Biological Communities From a biological perspective, micro-algae comprise the largest plant community in the Durban Bay Estuary, with diatoms the most abundant (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). These small, single-celled organisms are highly important primary producers, forming the base-component of the Bay’s trophic cascade. Micro-algae occur as phytoplankton and microphytobenthos, with populations proliferating into noticeable ‘blooms’ in response favourable conditions. Other common plant forms in the Bay’s waters include marco-algae - commonly referred to as ‘sea weed’, and mangrove trees (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The zoobenthos community of the Bay is dominated by a small sand prawn called Callianassa kraussi (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). This species favours intertidal sandbanks and, through its continual bioturbation of sediments, has a major influence on the structure and composition of benthic communities, as well as fish and bird populations (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Owing to its abundance, Callianassa kraussi is also an important source of bait for local fishermen (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
The fish community of the Bay is generally dominated by bottom-feeding estuarine species, although marine species become more dominant in waters closer to the harbour mouth (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Fish surveys indicate that between 32 and 36 species are frequently sampled in the Bay, comprising mostly benthic feeders (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). According to Forbes and Demetriades (2008), this highlights the importance of inter-tidal and shallow sub-tidal sandbanks habitats for fish, especially juvenile migrant species.
The loss of tidal flats and natural shoreline habitats has negatively affected waterbird populations in Durban Bay Estuary. Records suggest that between 1965 and 1999 the abundance of water birds plummeted by 70%, while that of Paleartic waders dropped by as much as 81% (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). In contradistinction to other areas in South Africa, this decline appears particular to Durban (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
40
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
During a 1999 study, 119 bird species were recorded in the Bay, of which, 36 were non-breeding migrants. Subsequent, bird counts highlighted the importance of different areas of the Bay for bird populations (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). The most important area is Centre Bank, which supports 40% of the Bay’s birds and is favoured by numerous Paleartic waders, gulls and terns. The Bayhead area, in which the Project site is located, is the second most important area for birds (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
Alongside other sub-tropical systems, like Richards Bay, St Lucia and Kosi Bay, Durban Bay ranks amongst the most diverse estuaries in KwaZulu-Natal. Forbes and Demetriades (2008) further note that it is the only large estuarine system in the province that possesses sheltered, marine-dominated and permanently tidal sandbank habitat. Such habitat plays a significant role in the functioning of the estuary and maintaining its associated biodiversity, which is ranked the highest among the province’s estuaries. 8.2.4 Existing Threats to Durban Bay Estuary Forbes and Demetriades (2008) highlight the perilous condition of all eThekwini’s estuaries. The health status of Durban Bay Estuary is rated Highly Degraded and projections suggest that a continual decline in status is likely (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008).
A rank ordering of anthropogenic impacts on South Africa’s estuaries lists nine major threats, of which, the most critical at a national level largely correspond to those facing Durban Bay. Those having a high impact on Durban Bay in order of national rank, include habitat loss, eutrophication, sewage, chemical contamination and litter (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). Despite its degraded status, Durban Bay Estuary is recognised as being highly important at both national and local level (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan, 2015). 8.3 Durban Bay Estuary in Relation to the Project Site The proposed Project site is located within the estuarine functional zone (EFZ) of the Durban Bay Estuary (shown in Figure 20), with the closest boundary situated about 400m from the nearest open water of the Bayhead Canal. The site is however, located outside of the EFZ, as presented in the Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan (2015).
41
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Figure 20: Project site in relation to the Durban Bay and Estuary Functional Zone
42
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
9.0 SCREENING OF IMPORTANT BIODIVERSITY FEATURES Important biodiversity features that may trigger potential critical habitat in terms of IFC PS6 (2012) are summarised in Table 9. Note: for IFC purposes, screening for criterion one considers the ‘global’ IUCN Red List status.
Table 9: Screening of important biodiversity (species and ecosystems) features
Criteria Biodiversity Red List Status Details of Occurrence Feature – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Species
Criterion 1: Mondia whitei Endangered Grows in dense bush in woodland and forest Globally (White’s Ginger) habitats (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). Considering Endangered or the high degree of disturbance and Critically degradation, it is unlikely to occur on-site. Endangered Species Kniphofia Critically Kniphofia pauciflora occurs in marshy pauciflora (Dainty Endangered grassland. It is known from only one confirmed Poker) locality - a grassland between urban areas in Durban (SANBI, 2017). Considering the highly disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely to be present.
Zeuxine africana Endangered Known from only one locality in the Durban Port (Orchid) – a site that has been subsequently cleared (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). It favours dampish sandy, disturbed areas, and is thought to have been accidentally introduced into the area (PlantzAfrica.com, 2001). Considering its proclivity for disturbed habitats, it is possible (low) that this species is present on-site.
Durban Dwarf Critically A fossorial species, occurring in Berea red Burrowing Skink Endangered sands of coastal forests, within 4 km of the (Scelotes ocean (Bates et al., 2014). The site’s soil inornatus) comprises imported fill material, and not natural soils. It is unlikely to be present on-site.
Pickersgill’s Reed Endangered Pickersgill’s Reed Frog is a habitat specialist, Frog (Hyperolius favouring well-vegetated perennial wetlands in pickersgilli) coastal bushveld and grassland (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Considering the degree of on-site disturbance, it is unlikely that this species is present.
Kloof Frog Endangered The Kloof Frog occurs in kloofs and rocky (Natalobatrachus stream beds in closed-canopy forests (du Preez bonebergi) and Carruthers, 2009). These habitats are not
43
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Criteria Biodiversity Red List Status Details of Occurrence Feature – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Species
present on-site, and it is therefore unlikely that this species is present.
Criterion 2: Durban Dwarf Critically See above account. Endemic or Burrowing Skink Endangered Range (Scelotes Restricted inornatus) Species Pickersgill’s Reed Endangered See above account. Frog (Hyperolius pickersgilli)
Kloof Frog Endangered See above account. (Natalobatrachus bonebergi)
Criterion 3: Large-eared - Recorded from a variety of habitats, including Migratory and/or Free-tailed Bat urban environments, and over a broad range of Congregatory (Otomops southern Africa (Monadjem et al., 2001). It is Species martiensseni) possible that Large-eared Free-tailed Bat occur in on-site.
European Roller Near Threatened European Rollers migrate to the southern Africa (Coracias during the summer months, where they occur in garrulus) dry woodland and savannas (IUCN, 2018). It is also adept at foraging in agricultural landscapes (IUCN, 2018). It is therefore unlikely to occur on-site.
White Stork - A Palearctic migrant (CMS7 Appendix II) that (Ciconia ciconia) favours grassland, fields and shallows wetlands (Sinclair et al., 2011). These habitats are not present on-site and the White Stork is unlikely to be present.
Black Stork Vulnerable A migrant species (CMS Appendix II) favouring (Ciconia nigra) habitats associated with lakes, rivers and marshes. In South Africa, it frequents the estuaries of tidal rivers (IUCN, 2018). Despite the proximity of the harbour and the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana rivers, it is unlikely that this species is an occasional or temporary visitor.
7 Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
44
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Criteria Biodiversity Red List Status Details of Occurrence Feature – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Species
Lanner Falcon Vulnerable Lanner Falcon can be resident or nomadic. (Falco biarmicus) They have a wide habitat tolerance (IUCN, 2018). It is possible that this species is an occasional visitor to the site.
Yellow-billed Endangered Yellow-billed Storks are irregular migrants that Stork (Mycteria occur in a range of wetland-type habitats ibis) (IUCN, 2018). It is unlikely that this species visits the site.
Great White Vulnerable A migrant (CMS Appendix II) that is found in Pelican lakes, estuaries and sheltered coastal bays (Pelecanus (Sinclair et al., 2011). It is unlikely that this onocrotalus) species visits the site.
Greater Flamingo Near Threatened Intra-African migrant occurring in lakes, (Phoenicopterus saltpans and estuaries (Sinclair et al., 2011). It ruber) is unlikely that this species visits the site.
45
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Criteria Biodiversity Red List Status Details of Occurrence Feature – IUCN 2018-2 (Global)
Species
Ecosystems
Criterion 4: Highly Threatened or KwaZulu-Natal Northern Coastal Grassland is a Critically Unique Ecosystems Coastal Belt Endangered vegetation type (NEM:BA The IFC GN6 (2012) indicates that Grassland; and Threatened Ecosystems, 2011) – read section highly threatened or unique 6.2. ecosystems include: Durban Bay Despite the site occurring within this vegetation Those that are at risk of Estuary type, on-site habitat is significantly degraded significantly decreasing in area and is considered modified (section 6.5), in or quality; accordance with (IFC PS6, 2012). Those with a small spatial Durban Bay Estuary is an estuarine bay, which extent; and/or is the rarest form of estuary in South Africa Those containing unique (Forbes and Demetriades, 2008). It is assemblages of species, recognised as being highly important at both including assemblages or national and local level and is under threat from concentrations of biome- a range impacts (Draft Durban Bay Estuarine restricted species. Managment Plan, 2015).
Criterion 5: Areas associated with NA NA Key Evolutionary Processes Areas associated with key evolutionary processes are defined by: The physical attributes of a landscape that might be associated with particular evolutionary processes; and/or Subpopulations of species that are phylogenetically or morphologically distinct and may be of special conservation concern given their distinct evolutionary history.
46
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance The impact assessment was undertaken using a matrix selection process, the most commonly used methodology, for determining the significance of potential environmental impacts/risks. This methodology incorporates two aspects for assessing the potential significance of impacts, namely occurrence and severity, which are further sub-divided as follows (Table 10)
Table 10: Impact assessment factors
Occurrence Severity
Probability of occurrence Duration of occurrence Scale/extent of impact Magnitude of impact
To assess these factors for each impact, the following four ranking scales are used (Table 11):
Table 11: Impact assessment scoring methodology
Value Description
Magnitude
10 Very high/unknown
8 High
6 Moderate
4 Low
2 Minor
Duration
5 Permanent (Impact continues post-closure)
4 Long term (Impact ceases after decommissioning and closure)
3 Medium-term (Impact ceases after the operational phase)
2 Short-term (Impact ceases after the construction phase)
1 Immediate
Scale
5 International
4 National
3 Regional
2 Local
47
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Value Description
1 Site Only
0 None
Probability
5 Definite/Unknown (impact will definitely occur)
4 Highly Probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance)
3 Medium Probability (40% to 60% chance)
2 Low Probability (5% to 40% chance)
1 Improbable (less than 5% chance)
0 None
Significance Points= (Magnitude + Duration + Scale) x Probability.
Table 12: Significance of impact based on point allocation
Points Significance Description
SP>60 High An impact which could influence the decision about whether or not to environmental proceed with the project regardless of any possible mitigation. significance
SP 30 - 60 Moderate An impact or benefit which is sufficiently important to require environmental management, and which could have an influence on the decision unless significance it is mitigated.
SP<30 Low Impacts with little real effect and which will not have an influence on or environmental require modification of the project design. significance
+ Positive impact An impact that is likely to result in positive consequences/effects.
For the methodology outlined above, the following definitions were used: Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high; Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as site, local, regional, national, or international;
48
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. immediate/transient, short-term, medium term, long-term, or permanent; and Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40% to 60% chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely occur). 10.2 Project Phases The environmental impacts of the project were assessed for the: Construction phase; Operational phase; and Closure (and rehabilitation) phase. 10.3 Detailed Description of Potential Impacts During All Phases of the Proposed Project Four negative biodiversity impacts have been identified for the proposed project, namely: Loss of habitat; Chemical leaks/spill causing contamination of water resources; Killing and disturbance of fauna; and Spread of alien invasive plant species. A general impact characterisation is presented in the box-inserts below. This is followed by a discussion on the impact in relation to the proposed project. 10.3.1 Loss of Habitat Impact Characterisation Habitat loss refers to the direct removal of natural habitat. This occurs primarily through the clearing of indigenous vegetation coupled with earthworks (e.g. soil/sediment removal, excavations, infilling). The immediate impact is typically characterised by the destruction of individual plants and some faunal species within development footprints. If remaining habitat is insufficient in size and heterogeneity to sustain ecological processes, broader-scale ecosystem integrity and functioning can be impaired, which may result in losses in biodiversity.
Habitat degradation occurs when disturbances drive compositional and structural changes to the biophysical character of ecosystems. Common degradation syndromes in terrestrial and wetland systems can include inter alia, soil erosion, overgrazing, bush encroachment and alien species invasion(Scholes, 2009). In extreme cases of habitat degradation, the mix of functional species-types is altered and ecosystem functioning is impaired, which may also lead to losses in biodiversity (Scholes, 2009).
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project The Project site is an isolated and highly degraded anthropogenic landform. It is currently characterised by a preponderance of alien invasive vegetation. Accordingly, the entire site is classified as ‘modified’ habitat, in line with IFC PS6 (2012) and IFC GN6 (2012).
49
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Notwithstanding the highly transformed and developed character of the surrounding landscape matrix, the site does constitute an ‘island’ of undeveloped vegetated habitat, and thus potentially acts as a ‘stepping stone’ patch for faunal dispersal and movement, increasing overall habitat connectivity across the immediate landscape.
Development of infrastructure thus cannot be considered an impact of negligible significance apropos habitat loss. On-site habitat loss associated with vegetation clearing and earth works will be permanent, and is difficult to mitigate. It is rated an impact of moderate significance both before and after mitigation. 10.3.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Water Resources Impact Characterisation
Water resources can be contaminated by inter alia: Leaks and spills of fuel (e.g. petrol, diesel) and lubricants from construction vehicles and other machinery and equipment; and Spillages of chemicals from poorly sealed storage units or containers. The consequences of contamination are manifold, and may include inter alia, mass die-off of terrestrial and estuarine plants, fish die-offs, and reduction in general animal health and fecundity. Impact in Relation to Proposed Project Considering the presence of the stormwater canals on- and immediately adjacent to the Project site, there is potential for contaminated water and sediment originating on-site to be conveyed into the Durban Bay Estuary. This could have severe negative consequences on estuarine habitat and biological communities.
This impact can occur throughout all phases of the proposed Project, but is most likely to occur through: 1) spills and leaks from machinery and equipment during the construction phase, and 2) poorly sealed/maintained fuel storage containers/tanks during the operational phase. This impact is rated high before the implementation of mitigation during both the construction and operational phases. However, it can be effectively mitigated by, inter alia: The correct design and maintenance of fuel storage units and containment bunds, as well as stormwater infrastructure; and Through the correct implementation of on-site operating procedures, including those related to vehicle and machinery maintenance, waste disposal and storage, and chemical storage.
It is therefore rated with a post mitigation impact of low significance.
50
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
10.3.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna Impact Characterisation Small and/or less mobile species can be trapped, injured and killed during vegetation clearing and earthworks. Fauna that are of particular concern in this regard include: Fossorial8 mammals (e.g. moles, rodents); Nesting birds; ground and tree nests; and Reptiles and amphibians. Other particularly common cause of injury or death is vehicle-wildlife collisions along access roads, and wildlife becoming caught/trapped in project facilities during the operational phase.
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project Considering the degree of degradation, the study area is unlikely to contain noteworthy faunal populations. This impact is thus rated as having low significance both before and after mitigation. 10.3.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species Impact Characterisation
Disturbances caused by vegetation clearing and earthworks can create conditions conducive to the establishment and rapid colonisation of alien invasive species. If left uncontrolled, alien species can spread exponentially, suppressing or replacing indigenous vegetation. This may lead to a breakdown in ecosystem functioning and a loss of biodiversity.
Impact in Relation to Proposed Project The Project site is already almost completely dominated by alien vegetation, with many species (n=25) listed under the NEM: BA and the CARA as recognised invasive species. Additional disturbances are thus unlikely to result in an increase in the number of different alien invasive plants or overall cover. Conversely, it is likely that site clearing will result in the removal of these plants from the development footprint.
However, as per the requirements of the NEM: BA, it is important that measures are implemented to control and eradicate alien invasive plants that occur along the disturbed periphery of the development footprint. The implementation of an alien invasive species control programme, as part of landscaping initiatives, can manage this impact at a low significance. 10.4 Impact Assessment Summary The predicted environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project activities are listed in Table 13 along with their significance ratings before and after mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures are discussed in section 11.4.
8 Organism adapted to digging and life underground.
51
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table 13: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation Category Activity Potential Impact Assessment Probability Significance Impact Assessment Probability Significance Impact/ Factors without Factors with Risk mitigation mitigation
Pre-Construction and Construction Phases
Biodiversity Vegetation Loss of habitat Magnitude: Low Definite Moderate Magnitude: Low Definite Moderate clearing and earthworks Duration: Permanent Duration: Permanent
Scale: Site only Scale: Site only
Biodiversity Vegetation Killing and Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low clearing and disturbance of earthworks fauna Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Biodiversity Storage and Chemical Magnitude: High High Moderate Magnitude: Moderate Low Low use of leaks/spills hazardous causing Duration: Medium Duration: Medium construction contamination substances of water Scale: Regional Scale: Regional and resources materials. (estuary).
Biodiversity All forms of Spread of alien Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low ongoing invasive plant disturbance. species. Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Operational Phase
Biodiversity Storage and Chemical Magnitude: High Highly Moderate Magnitude: Medium Highly Moderate use of leaks/spills Duration: Medium Duration: Medium
52
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Category Activity Potential Impact Assessment Probability Significance Impact Assessment Probability Significance Impact/ Factors without Factors with Risk mitigation mitigation
hazardous causing Scale: Regional Scale: Regional construction contamination substances of water and resources materials. (estuary).
Biodiversity All forms of Spread of alien Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low ongoing invasive plant disturbance. species. Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
Decommissioning and Closure Phases
Biodiversity Site Soil Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Minor Low Low clearance contamination and Duration: Short term Duration: Short term construction activities Scale: Site only Scale: Site only
Biodiversity All forms of Spread of alien Magnitude: Low Medium Low Magnitude: Low Low Low ongoing invasive plant disturbance. species. Duration: Short Duration: Short
Scale: Local Scale: Site only
53
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
11.0 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed measures aimed at mitigating and managing potential impacts on terrestrial ecology during the construction, operational and closure phases are presented in this section. 11.1 Key Objectives Avoiding the contamination of water and soil resources (sediment); Improving the ecological integrity of adjacent, undeveloped land; and Rehabilitating the site during the closure phase. 11.2 Environmental Management and Mitigation Measures Identified A summary of mitigation measures should be presented: For negative impacts (either/or): . Avoid;
. Minimize;
. Rehabilitate/Repair; or
. Compensate. For positive impacts: . Enhance. 11.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts Identified Several developments are currently planned for undeveloped sites in the harbour precinct, including the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 project, the NOOA Terminal (south of the Project site) and other similar projects.
The cumulative impact of habitat loss associated with these various developments, may adversely affect the functional dynamic of the broader terrestrial habitat network (discussed in section 6.5), and this may negatively impact local plant and animal populations. From an estuarine perspective, additional contaminated water entering the Durban Bay Estuary will further exacerbate pollution levels in this already critically stressed system. 11.4 Summary of Mitigation and Management Measures for the Operational, Decommissioning and Closure Phases Management measures to mitigate potential ecological impacts are recommended below: 11.4.1 Loss of Habitat Minimisation: Earthworks should be restricted to the proposed development footprints only, with no disturbance permitted outside of these areas; and Areas to be disturbed should be clearly demarcated to prevent unnecessary clearing outside of these sites.
54
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Rehabilitate A landscaping plan, based on the using indigenous grass and trees for revegetation, should be developed and implemented in non-built areas during the operational phase. 11.4.2 Chemical Leaks/Spills Causing Contamination of Soil and Water Resources Avoidance and Minimisation Construction vehicles and machinery should be regularly maintained to limit potential fuel leaks; All materials, fuels and chemical used/stored on-site during the construction phase should be stored in the correct containers/storage units, which should be handled according to the required specifications; The proposed bulk fuel storage facilities should be correctly designed, with appropriate containment bunds (110% of tank volume) and leakage detection equipment. These should be regularly inspected and maintained as required; Appropriately designed stormwater infrastructure should be constructed on-site to prevent the mixing of clean and dirty water, and the egress of dirty/contaminated water into adjacent water canals; A water quality monitoring programme should be developed to assess potential impacts on water resources originating from site; and A Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan should also be developed and implemented on-site during all phases of the proposed project. 11.4.3 Killing and Disturbance of Fauna Avoidance and Minimisation An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should be on-site during vegetation clearing to monitor for, and manage, any wildlife-human interactions. The ECO should be trained, inter alia, in snake handling; A low speed limited (recommended 20 - 40 km/h) should be enforced on site to reduce wildlife-collisions; and The handling, poisoning and killing of on-site fauna by construction workers and contractors must be strictly prohibited. 11.4.4 Spread of Alien Invasive Plant Species Minimisation An alien invasive species control programme must be developed and implemented on-site during all phases of the proposed project. It is recommended that the programme include:
. A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods;
. Periodic follow-up treatments, informed by regular monitoring; and
. Monitoring should take place in all areas that are not under development throughout the site. Rehabilitation A rehabilitation plan, based on the using indigenous grass and trees for revegetation, should be developed and implemented in non-built areas during the construction and operational phase, and throughout the entire site during the closure phase.
55
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
11.5 Recommended Monitoring Framework Mechanisms for monitoring compliance with, and performance assessment against, the environmental management programme and reporting thereof, include: Monitoring of impact management actions; Monitoring and reporting frequency; Responsible persons; Time period for implementing impact management actions; and Mechanisms for monitoring compliance. A recommended monitoring framework for biodiversity is presented in Table 14.
56
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Table 14: Proposed monitoring framework
Source Activity Impacts requiring Functional requirements for Roles and responsibilities Monitoring and reporting monitoring programmes monitoring (for the execution of the frequency and time periods monitoring programme) for implementing impact management actions
Construction activities. Post habitat loss rehabilitation. Assess the effectiveness of Safety, Health, Environmental Post-construction - monitoring rehabilitation and inform and Quality (SHEQ) Manager. of rehabilitation for 2 growing- adjustments to the season cycles. rehabilitation procedures. Post closure - monitoring of rehabilitation for 5 growing- season cycles.
Storage and use of fuels and Contamination of water As per recommendations of SHEQ Manager. As per recommendations of hazardous materials/ quality. surface- and ground water surface- and ground water chemicals on-site. monitoring studies. monitoring studies.
Earth works and vegetation Killing and injuring of fauna. Record all incidents of fauna SHEQ Manager. As required, throughout all clearing during construction. death/injury in an incidents project phases. report. General project activities during operations.
NA Alien invasive species Assess the effectiveness of SHEQ Manager. Annual monitoring and colonisation implemented control reporting throughout all treatments. phases. Findings of monitoring used Recommendations implemented during following control cycle.
57
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
12.0 CONCLUSION The Project site is highly disturbed, having been subjected to considerable historic degradation including both the importation of fill material (first 1 metre of soil) and vegetation clearing. Floristically, the site is almost wholly dominated by alien invasive flora, with several CARA and NEM: BA listed species prevalent. In line with IFC PS6 (2012), the site is thus classified as modified habitat. Furthermore, considering the degree of disturbance and isolation, it is unlikely that the site, in and of itself, constitutes important life-cycle habitat for species of conservation concern. We note however, that considering the highly built-up and developed character of the city landscape, undeveloped areas, even if they are very disturbed, do play a potential role as ‘stepping stone’ habitats for remaining local biological communities. The wetland verification study indicated that there are no wetlands in the Project site, and that the site is located away from any watercourses and is hydrologically isolated (Eco-Pulse 2019). Concrete storm water canals do however, traverse across the site and drain into the Durban Bay Estuary at the Bayhead Canal. Durban Bay Estuary is an important estuarine system.
Habitat loss associated with the proposed Project has been identified as a negative project-related impact, with a moderate significance rating prior to mitigation. With effective management, this impact can be reduced to low significance.
Considering the location of storm water canals draining into the Durban Bay Estuary, potential water contamination is another significantly negative project-related impact. This impact can also be mitigated through the correct design of tank facilities and supporting infrastructure (e.g. storm water drains) and through the implementation of appropriate facility maintenance and operational procedures. With mitigation, this impact reduced to a low significance.
One of the other key recommended management interventions for the site and immediately adjacent undeveloped areas is the control of alien invasive species. The control of alien invasive plants coupled with rehabilitation (including active revegetation) can significantly improve the ecological integrity of vegetated areas. This represents a potential ‘value-gain’ for biodiversity conservation in the Bayhead area. Pursuant to this, it is recommended that Lanele investigate collaborating with adjacent land users/owners and stakeholders (e.g. eThekwini Municipality) to develop and implement a joint and co-ordinated alien invasive species control programme for the entire Bayhead area of the harbour precinct. 13.0 SPECIALISTS This Biodiversity Impact Assessment report was prepared by Andrew Zinn, and the report reviewed by Warren Aken, of Golder. The details of the specialist’ qualifications and experience are provided in Table 15 below:
Table 15: Qualifications and experience of the specialists
Role Name Qualifications and Experience
Environmental Andrew Zinn MSc. Resource Conservation Biology, University of the Scientist Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2013; BSc. Hons. Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2005; BSc. Zoology and Grassland Science, University of KwaZulu- Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2004;
58
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Role Name Qualifications and Experience
Registered with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist, 2015; and Andrew has more than 10 years’ experience in terrestrial ecology studies.
Senior Aquatic Warren Aken B.Sc (Aquatic Health), University of Johannesburg, Biologist Johannesburg, South Africa, 2013; B.Sc Honours (Ichthyology and Fisheries Science), Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2004; B.Sc (Ichthyology Zoology) , Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2003; Warren has over 12 years’ experience in aquatic biology focusing on ichthyofauna, aquatic macroinvertebrates and ecosystem functioning.
Neither Golder nor the specialists that prepared this report has any vested interest in the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) project other than fair remuneration for professional services rendered. The findings presented in this specialist report are those of the specialists, without influence from any other parties. 14.0 REFERENCES ADU - SABAP2 (2011) The Southern Africa Bird Atlas Project 2, Animal Demographic Unit. Available from: http://sabap2.adu.org.za [Accessed 6 November 2018]. Agricultural Research Council (2010) Legal obligations regarding invasive alien plants in South Africa. Available from: www.arc.agric.za/home.asp?pod=1031 [Accessed 1 December 2011]. Angold, P. G., Sadler, J. P., Hill, M. O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K., et al. (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches, Science of the Total Environment, 360 (1–3), pp. 196–204. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.035. Bates, M., Branch, W., Bauer, A., Burger, M., Marais, J., Alexander, G. and De Villiers, M. (eds.) (2014) Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Suricata 1, South African Biodiversity Institute. BirdLife South Africa (2015) The 2015 Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BODATSA (2016) Plants of Southern Africa, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) - Botanical Database of Southern Africa. Available from: http://newposa.sanbi.org/ [Accessed 18 March 2019].
Bromilow, C. (2010) Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Third Edit. Pretoria: Briza Publications. Cilliers, G. J. and Adams, J. B. (2016) Development and implementation of a monitoring programme for South African estuaries, Water SA, 42 (2), pp. 279–290. DOI:10.4314/wsa.v42i2.12. CMS (2012) Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals ( CMS ), (February), pp. 1–10.
59
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Draft Durban Bay Estuarine Managment Plan Department of Environmental Affairs (2015). South Africa.
Draft NEMBA ToPS List National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) - Lists of critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected species. (2013). South Africa. du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. (2009) A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik Nature. EWT (2016) Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Endangered Wildlife Trust.
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019) Virtual Museum - MammalMAP, ReptileMAP, FrogMAP, SpiderMAP, ScorpionMAP and LepiMAP, Animal Demographic Unit. Available from: http://vmus.adu.org.za [Accessed 2 October 2018]. Forbes, A. and Demetriades, N. (2008) Estuaries of Durban, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Durban. Germishuizen, N., Meyer, N., Steenkamp, Y. and Keith, M. (2006) A Checklist of South African Plants. Pretoria: Southern African Botanical Divesity Network (SABONET) Report No. 41. Glen, H. and Van Wyk, B. (2016) Guide to Trees Introduced into Southern Africa. Pretoria: Struik Nature. Goff, F. G., Dawson, G. A. and Rochow, J. J. (1982) Site examination for threatened and endangered plant species, Environmental Management, 6 (4), pp. 307–316. DOI:10.1007/BF01875062. Golder (2017) Vegetation Assessment of the Proposed Above-ground Pipeline Between The Bay 3 and Quarry 1 Tank Terminals. Midrand. Report No. 1781731-315098-1. Henning, G., Terblanche, R. and Ball, J. (eds.) (2009) South African Red Data Book: Butterflies. Pretoria: Biodiversity Series 13, South African National Biodiversity Institute. IFC GN6 (2012) Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources, in: World Bank Group - Intenational Finance Corporation,. IFC PS6 (2012) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. World Bank Group - International Finance Corporation.
Invasive Species South Africa (2015) Invasive Species Legislation. Available from: http://www.invasives.org.za/ [Accessed IUCN (2018) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2018-2. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 3.RLTS.T22719744A94642482.en. Monadjem, A., Taylor, P., Cotterill, F. and Schoeman, M. (2001) Bats of Southern and Central Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Reprint 2011, Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). National Estuarine Management Protocol National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of 2008) (2013). South Africa. NEMBA Threatened Ecosystems National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) - National list of threatened terrestrial ecosystems for South Africa (2011). South Africa. PlantzAfrica.com (2001) PlantzAfrica.com, South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Available from: www.pza.sanbi.org [Accessed 1 January 2017]. Pooley, E. (2003) The Complete Field Guide to Trees of Natal, Zululand and Transkei. Fourth Edi. Durban: Natal Flora Publications Trust. Pooley, E. (2005) A Field Guide to Wild Flowers of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Region. Durban: The Flora Publications Trust.
SANBI (2017) Red List of South African Plants, South African National Biodiversity Institute. Available from:
60
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
http://redlist.sanbi.org/ [Accessed 2 January 2018].
Scholes, R. (2009) Syndromes of dryland degradation in southern Africa, African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 26 (3), pp. 113–125. Scott Shaw, C. and Escott, B. (2011) KwaZulu-Natal Vegetation Type Description Document for Vegetation Map 2011, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife - Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division. Sinclair, I., Hockey, P., Tarboton, W. and Ryan, P. (2011) Birds of Southern Africa. Fourth Edi. Cape Town: Struik Nature. Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. (2007) Field Guide to Mammals of Southern Africa. Fourth Edi. Cape Town: Struik Nature. Styles, D. (2017) Floral and Faunal Biodiversity Impact Assessment for the Proposed Fuel Storage Facility at Bayhead, Durban. Durban. Van Oudtshoorn, F. (2015) Veld Management - Principles and Practices. Pretoria: Briza Publications. Van Wyk, B. and Malan, S. (1998) Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of the Highveld. Second Edi. Cape Town: Struik Publishers.
61
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Signature Page
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd
Andrew Zinn Warren Aken Ecologist Biodiversity Group - Lead
AZ/WA/jep
Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, SC Naidoo, GYW Ngoma
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
g:\projects\1791874 – eia thyssenkrupp durban\6.1 deliverables\eia phase\feiar\appendices\appendix f_biodiversity\1791874-324751-8_rep_biodiversity_rep_final_20190923.docx
62
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX A Specialist Wetland Verification and Delineation Study (2019) – Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Bayhead Industrial eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal
Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study
Version 1.2
Rev. 1
Date: 8th April 2019
Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Report No : EP419-01
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Prepared for: Golder Contact person: Natalie Kohler Email: [email protected] Tel: 011 254 4800 Mobile: 089 316 0920
Prepared by: Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services 26 Mallory Road, Hilton, 3245, South Africa Contact person: Adam Teixeira-Leite Pr.Sci.Nat. Email: [email protected] Tel: (+27) 31 2666 700 Mobile: (+27) 82 310 6769
Suggested report citation: Eco-Pulse Consulting, 2019. Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study . Unpublished report for Golder. Report No. EP419-01. Version 1.2 (Rev1). 10th April 2019.
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
SPECIALIST WETLAND VERIFICATION & DELINEATION REPORT DETAILS AND DECLARATION
Document Title: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study: Bayhead Industrial Site
Report No. EP419-01
Version 1.2
Revision No. 1
Date: 10th April 2019
Mr Shaun McNamara Report prepared by: Junior Scientist (Wetland & Aquatic Ecology)
Mr Adam Teixeira-Leite Internally Reviewed & Professional Natural Scientist ( Pr. Sci. Nat.) (Ecological Science) signed off by: Senior Scientist: Wetland & Aquatic Ecologist
Client: Golder & Associates
I, Adam Teixeira-Leite hereby declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the DEA or DWS.
Signed: Date: 10 th April 2019
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES ii DEFINITION OF TERMS iii ABBREVIATIONS USED iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study...... 1 1.3 Scope of Work ...... 2
2. METHODS 3
2.1 Wetland Verification and Delineation ...... 3 2.2 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) A ssessment...... 5 2.3 Desktop Mapping and ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening ...... 5 2.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 7
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 8
3.1 Background Information ...... 8 3.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation ...... 9 3.2.1Terrain Unit Indicator 10 3.2.2Vegetation Indicator 11 3.2.3Soil Wetness Indicator 14 3.3 Classification of Wetlands ...... 16 3.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES)...... 17 3.5 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) A ssessment...... 18
4. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NEMA 18
5. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NWA AND WATER USE LICENSING 18
5.1 Identification & Mapping of Watercourses ...... 19 5.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’, Risk and Water Use Screening...... 19
6. CONCLUSION 21
7. REFERENCES 22
i
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map showing the location of study site (outlined in ‘red’) in relation to the Durban Harbour and the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals...... 1
Figure 2 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (source: DWAF, 2005)...... 4
Figure 3 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1937...... 8
Figure 4 Historical imagery (aerial photography) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1944...... 9
Figure 5 Map showing the ‘artificial’ wetland habitat located to the south (Wetland 01) and west (Wetland 02) of the proposed development property...... 10
Figure 6 Map of the study area with 2m elevation contours highlighting the presence of a depression in the landscape to the south (01) and west (02) of the proposed development site...... 11
Figure 7 Map showing the location of soil sampling undertaken at the site in the vicinity of focal assessment areas 01 and 02 to the south and west of the development site...... 14
Figure 8 Map showing delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within the DWS regulated area for Section 21 c & i water use (i.e. within a 500m radius of the proposed development site)...... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from Macfarlane et al., 2008 and DWAF, 2005)...... 3
Table 2. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF, 2005)...... 4
Table 3. Rating table used to rate EIS (Eco-Pulse, 2017)...... 5
Table 4. Qualitative ‘likelihood of impact’ ratings and descriptions...... 6
Table 5. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 01 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text...... 12
Table 6. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 02 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text...... 13
Table 7. Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit...... 18
ii
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The wide variety of plant and animal species occurring in their natural environment (habitats). The term encompasses different ecosystems, landscapes, communities, Biodiversity populations and genes as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes that allow these elements of biodiversity to persist over time. The area where water from atmospheric precipitation becomes concentrated and Catchment drains downslope into a river, lake or wetland. The term includes all land surface, streams, rivers and lakes between the source and where the water enters the ocean. The safeguarding of biodiversity and its processes (often referred to as Biodiversity Conservation Conservation). Refers to the technique of establishing the boundary of a resource such as a wetland Delineation or riparian area. In the context of wetlands, refers to a natural or artificial feature such as a ditch or Drain trench created for the purpose of removing surface and sub-surface water from an area (commonly used in agriculture). An ecosystem is essentially a working natural system, maintained by internal ecological processes, relationships and interactions between the biotic (plants & animals) and the Ecosystem non-living or abiotic environment (e.g. soil, atmosphere). Ecosystems can operate at different scales, from v ery small (e.g. a small wetland pan) to large landscapes (e.g. an entire water catchment area). Erosion is the process by which soil and rock are removed from the Earth's surface by natural processes such as wind or water flow, and then transported and deposited in Erosion (gulley) other locations. While erosion is a natural process, human activities have dramatically increased the rate at which erosion is occurring globally. Erosion gullies are erosiv e channels formed by the action of concentrated surface runoff. The general features of an area inhabited by animal or plant which are essential to its Habitat survival (i.e. the natural “home” of a plant or animal species). Indigenous Naturally occurring or “native” to a broad area, such as South Africa in this context. Invasive alien species means any non-indigenous plant or animal species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural range threatens natural ecosystems, Invasive alien species habitats or other species or has the potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species. Limnetic >2m maximum inundation depth at low water Littoral <2m maximum inundation depth at low water Red Data Book or Red Provides information on the status of threatened species: endangered species are List most at risk of extinction, followed by rare and vulnerable species An approach to conservation that prioritises actions by setting quantitative targets for biodiversity features such as broad habitat units or vegetation types. It is premised on Systematic conservation conserving a representative sample of biodiv ersity pattern, including species and plan habitats (the principle of representation), as well as the ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain biodiversity over time (the principle of persistence). In the context of this document, refers to Critically Endangered, Endangered and Threatened ecosystem Vulnerable ecosystems. Threat status (of a species or community type) is a simple but highly integrated indicator of vulnerability. It contains information about past loss (of numbers and / or habitat), the number and intensity of threats, and current prospects as indicated by Threat Status recent population growth or decline. Any one of these metrics could be used to measure vulnerability. One much used example of a threat status classification system is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (BBOP, 2009). Refers to the destruction and clearing an area of its indigenous vegetation, resulting in Transformation (habitat loss of natural habitat. In many instances, this can and has led to the partial or loss) complete breakdown of natural ecological processes. Means a river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently: a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows: und any Water course collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks (National Water Act, 1998). Refers to land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically cov ered with Wetland shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (NWA, 1998). Wetland Type This is a combination between wetland vegetation group and Level 4 of the National
iii
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Wetland Classification System, which describes the Landform of the wetland. Broad wetland v egetation groupings reflect differences in regional context such as Wetland Vegetation geology, soils and climate, which in turn affect the ecological characteristics and Group functionality of wetlands.
ABBREVIATIONS USED
CARA Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983 CR Critically Endangered (threat status) DEARD Department of Env ironment, Agriculture and Rural Dev elopment DEAT Department of Env ironmental Affairs & T ourism (now DEA) DWA Department of Water Affairs (formerly DWAF) Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife: as defined in Act 9 of 1997 to be the KZN Nature EKZNW Conservation Service EN Endangered (threat status) FEPA Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area FSCP Freshwater Systematic Conservation Plan Facultative wetland species - usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but FW occasionally found in non-wetland areas GIS Geographical Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System HGM Hydro-Geomorphic (unit) IAPs Invasive Alien Plants KZN Province of KwaZulu-Natal LT Least Threatened (threat status) NEMA National Environmental Management Act No.107 of 1998 NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No.10 of 2004 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, identified to meet national freshwater NFEPA conservation targets (CSIR, 2011) NT Near Threatened (threat status) NWA National Water Act No.36 of 1998 Ow Obligate wetland species Present Ecological State, referring to the current state or condition of an environmental PES resource in terms of its characteristics and reflecting change from its reference condition. SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute TSCP Terrestrial systematic conservation plan VU Vulnerable (threat status)
iv
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
A new industrial development has been proposed in the Bayhead area of eThekwini Municipality, in the vicinity of the Durban Harbour. The proposed development is west of the Durban harbour and north of the confluence of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals (Figure 1, below). Golder are preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the planned development and sub-contracted Eco-Pulse Consulting to investigate any potential wetland habitat and triggers for the EIA and to determine whether there are any Water Use Licensing (WUL) requirements associated with the planned development.
Durban Harbour Development Site
Umbilo canal
Mhlatuzana canal
Figure 1 Map showing the location of study site (outlined in ‘red’) in relation to the Durban Harbour and the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana canals.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Eco-Pulse undertook a freshwater wetland/aquatic assessment in 2017 to inform and EIA and WULA for another development project (NAPOT) in the Bayhead area. As part of this assessment, potential wetland areas within a 500m radius of the development site in 2017 were flagged as part of a desktop screening exercise. This study and exercise identified potential wetland habitat in an area to the south of the development site (shown as a ‘blue’ marker on the map in Figure 1), however the potential ‘wetland’ was never verified in the field as there
1
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 was no risk of impact or triggering water use for the NAPOT development project assessed by Eco-Pulse had identified an area of wetland habitat to the south of the proposed development footprint at a desktop level.
Golder subsequently approached Eco-Pulse in January 2019 on behalf of the client/developer, to ground-truth and verify whether the potential ‘wetland’ identified by Eco-Pulse is indeed a wetland or not, and to delineate the extent of the wetland habitat, if it were present at the site. This exercise was undertaken and reported on by Eco-Pulse in January 2019. Golder then approached Eco-Pulse to revisit the site to undertake a second wetland verification and ground-truthing exercise to confirm the presence and nature of potential ‘wetland’ habitat to the west of the site and existing railway line and to the south (off site) to further inform EIA and WULA requirements.
This report presents the finding of both the initial and follow-up wetland verification and delineation assessments, as well as the results of an Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) assessment that was carried out on each delineated wetland unit (no PES undertaken as wetland habitat was confirmed to be ‘artificial’ in nature). A screening exercise was also undertaken by Eco-Pulse to assess the likelihood of the new planned industrial development impacting on surrounding watercourses and to inform the need for a Water Use License Application (WULA) for the development project.
1.3 Scope of Work
The aim of the specialist wetland verification and delineation study was to verify the presence of any wetlands at site, to delineate the boundary of any wetlands encountered and to undertake a ‘impact/risk likelihood screening assessment of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and wetlands) within the DWS ‘regulated area’ for Section 21 (c) and (i) wetland water use licensing (i.e. within a 500m radius of the development site). This was done according to the follow scope of work:
1. Infield field verification of the outer boundary of key ‘focal area’ wetlands (where water use is likely to be triggered) according to the methods and techniques contained in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005). 2. Desktop identification, delineation/mapping of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and wetlands) within a DWS 500m radius of the property (i.e. regulated area for wetland water use). 3. Undertaking an assessment of the present Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the delineated watercourse units. 4. ‘Impact/risk likelihood’ screening assessment of all watercourses (includes rivers, riparian areas and wetlands) within the DWS ‘regulated area’ for Section 21 (c) and (i) wetland water use licensing (i.e. within a 500m radius of the development site). 5. Discussion of environmental authorisation processes and licensing/permitting requirements in terms of WULA guidelines and the likely implications for development. 6. Description any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge, as well as Identifying the need for any future specialist inputs should these be deemed relevant to the project. 7. Reporting: Compilation of a brief Wetland V erification & Delineation Study Report with initial recommendations.
2
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
2. METHODS
A summary of the methods used in this wetland verification and delineation study has been included below.
2.1 Wetland Verification and Delineation
The methods outlined in ‘A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ ( DWAF, 2005) were used to verify and delineate wetlands on site. Three specific wetland indicators were used: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator.
2.1.1 Terrain Unit Indicator
A practical index used for identifying those parts of the landscape where wetlands are likely to occur based on the general topography of the area (primarily at low points in the landscape where water collects).
2.1.2 Vegetation Indicator
Vegetation in an untransformed state is a useful guide in finding the boundary of a wetland as plant communities generally undergo distinct changes in species composition as one proceeds along the wetness gradient from the centre of a wetland towards adjacent terrestrial areas. An example of criteria used to classify wetland vegetation and inform the delineation of wetlands is provided in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Criteria used to inform the delineation of wetland habitat based on wetland vegetation (adapted from Macfarlane et al., 2008 and DWAF, 2005).
SYMBOL HYDRIC STATUS 1 DESCRIPTION/OCCURRENCE Ow Obligate wetland species Almost always grow in wetlands (>90% occurrence)
Usually grow in wetlands (67-99% occurrence) but occasionally Fw (or F+) Facultative wetland species found in non-wetland areas
Equally likely to grow in wetlands (34-66% occurrence) and non- F Facultative species wetland areas
Usually grow in non-wetland areas but sometimes grow in Fd (or F-) Facultative dry-land species wetlands (1-34% occurrence)
D Dryland species Almost always grow in drylands
2.1.3 Soil Wetness Indicator
According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act (NWA, 1998), vegetation is the primary indicator which must be present under normal circumstances. However, in practice the soil wetness indicator (informed by investigating the top 50cm of wetland topsoil) tends to be the most important, and the other three indicators are used to refine the assessment. The reason for this is that vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts, whereas soil morphological indicators are
1 Hydric status: A classification of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil conditions. 3
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 far more permanent and will retain signs of frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed/drained (DWAF, 2005).
Thus, the on-site assessment of wetland indicators focused largely on using soil wetness indicators, determined through soil sampling with a Dutch soil auger. Vegetation and topography were used as secondary wetland indicators.
A Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma as well as degree of mottling in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soils. Soil sampling points were recorded using a GPS (Global Positioning System) and captured using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for further processing. An example of soil criteria used to assess the presence of wetland soils is provided below in Table 2, while Figure 2 provides a conceptual overview of soil and vegetation characteristics across the different wetness zones.
Table 2. Soil criteria used to inform wetland delineation using soil wetness as an indicator (after DWAF, 2005).
Soil depth Temporary wetness zone Seasonal wetness zone Permanent wetness zone Matrix chroma : 1- 3 Matrix chroma : 0- 2 Matrix chroma : 0- 1 (Grey matrix <10%) (Grey matrix >10%) (Prominent grey matrix)
Mottles : Few/None high chroma Mottles : Many low chroma Mottles : Few/None high chroma 0 – 10cm mottles mottles mottles
Organic Matter : Low Organic Matter : Medium Organic Matter : High
Sulphidic : No Sulphidic : Seldom Sulphidic : Often Matrix chroma : 0 – 2 A s Above As Above 30 – 50cm
Mottles : Few/Many
Figure 2 Diagram representing the different zones of wetness found within a wetland (source: DWAF, 2005). 4
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
2.2 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) Assessment
"Ecological importance" of a water resource is an expression of its importance to the maintenance of ecological diversity and functioning on local and wider scales (Duthie, 1999). Therefore, ecological importance encompasses the role water resources play in maintaining biodiversity as well as the importance of regulating and supporting functions / services for maintaining and buffering freshwater ecosystems. "Ecological sensitivity" refers to the system’s ability to resist disturbance and its capability to recover from disturbance once it has occurred (Duthie, 1999). As an overarching measure of the importance of an ecosystem, EIS provides a guideline for determination of the Ecological Management Class (EMC) (Duthie, 1999).
The ecological importance and sensitivity of wetland ecosystems was assessed using a Wetland EIS (Ecological Importance and Sensitivity ) assessment tool developed by Eco-Pulse Consulting (2017). The Eco-Pulse Wetland EIS tool includes an assessment of the following components:
• Biodiversity maintenance supply (informed by biodiversity noteworthiness and ecological viability of the habitat);
• Biodiversity maintenance demand (at a regional/national scale); and
• Sensitivity of the water resource (i.e. Biota, floods, low flows, sediment, water quality , erosion risk and edge disturbances).
The maximum score for these components was taken as the importance rating for the wetland which is rated using Table 3, below.
Table 3. Rating table used to rate EIS (Eco-Pulse, 2017).
EIS Score EIS Rating >3.4 Very High 3.0 - 3.4 High 2.5 - 2.9 Moderately-High 1.6 - 2.4 Moderate 1.1 - 1.5 Moderately-Low 0.6 - 1.0 Low <0.6 Very Low
2.3 Desktop Mapping and ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening
Following the infield wetland verification and delineation exercise a desktop ‘likelihood of impact’ screening assessment for all watercourses within 500m of the proposed development was undertaken. This was done in order to confirm if any watercourses were likely to be negatively affected by the proposed development (at risk). This assessment involved the desktop mapping of all watercourse units within 500m (this pertains to then DWS ‘Regulated Area’ for Section 21 c & i Water Use) of the proposed development activities and assigning a likelihood of impact rating to each of these watercourse units (as per Table 3).
5
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
2.3.1 Desktop Mapping
The desktop delineation of all watercourses (rivers / riparian zones and wetlands) within 500m of the proposed development / activities was undertaken by analysing available digital elevation contours and colour aerial photography supplemented by Google Earth TM imagery where more up to date imagery was needed. Digitization and mapping were undertaken using QGIS 2.10 GIS software. All mapped watercourses were then broadly subdivided into distinct resource units (i.e. classified as either riverine or wetland systems/habitat). This was undertaken based on aerial photographic analysis and professional experience in working in the region.
2.3.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’ Screening Assessment
Following the desktop identification and mapping exercise, watercourses were assigned preliminary ‘likelihood of impact’ ratings based on the likelihood that activities associated with the proposed development will result in measurable direct or indirect changes to the mapped watercourse units within 500m of the proposed development. Each watercourse unit was ascribed a qualitative rating according to the ratings and descriptions provided in Table 3, below.
Table 4. Qualitative ‘likelihood of impact’ ratings and descriptions.
Likelihood of Description of Rating Guidelines Impact These resources are likely to require impact assessment and a Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons: resources located within the footprint of the proposed development activity and will definitely be impacted by the project; and/or resources located within 15m upstream and/or upslope of the proposed development activity and trigger requirements for Environmental Authorisation according to the NEMA: EIA regulations; and/or Likely resources located within 15m or downslope of the development and trigger requirements for Environmental Authorisation according to the NEMA: EIA regulations; and/or resources located downstream within the following parameters: o within 15m downstream of a low risk development; o within 50m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or o within 100m downstream of a high-risk development e.g. mining, large industrial land uses. These resources may require impact assessment and a Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons: resources located within 32m but greater than 15m upstream, upslope or downslope of the proposed development; and/or resources located within a range at which they are likely to incur indirect impacts associated with the development (such as water pollution, sedimentation and erosion) based on development land use intensity and development area. This is generally resources located downstream within the following Possible parameters: o within 32m downstream of a low risk development; o within 100m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or o within 500m downstream of a high-risk development (note that the extent of the affected area downstream could be greater than 500m for high risk developments or developments that have extensive water quality and flow impacts e.g. dams / abstraction and treatment plants); These resources are unlikely to require impact assessment or Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons: resources located a distance upstream, upslope or downslope (>32m) of the proposed development Unlikely and which are unlikely to be impacted by the development project; and/or resources located downstream but well beyond the range at which they are likely to incur impacts associated with the development (such as water pollution, sedimentation and erosion). This is generally 6
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Likelihood of Description of Rating Guidelines Impact resources located downstream within the following parameters: o greater than 32m downstream of a low risk development; o greater than 100m downstream of a moderate risk development; and/or o greater than 500m downstream of a high-risk development (note that the extent of the affected area downstream could be greater than 500m for high risk developments or developments that have extensive water quality and flow impacts e.g. dams / abstraction and treatment plants); These resources will not require impact assessment or a Water Use License in terms of Section 21 (c) & (i) of the National Water Act for the following reasons: None resources located within another adjacent sub-catchment and which will not be impacted by the development in any way, shape or form.
2.4 Assumptions and Limitations
The following limitations and assumptions apply to the studies undertaken for this report:
• This report deals exclusively with a defined area and the extent and nature of wetlands/aquatic ecosystems in that area. • The field delineation and wetland assessment were undertaken in summer (January & March 2018) and therefore does not cover the seasonal variation in conditions at the site. Most wetland plants were flowering at the time of the assessment however, and wetland soils are not seasonally dependent, hence the seasonality of the assessment has little influence on the outcomes of the delineation study, if any. • With ecology being dynamic and complex, there is the likelihood that some aspects (some of which may be important) may have been overlooked. • Sampling by its nature, means that generally not all aspects of ecosystems can be assessed and identified.
7
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
3.1 Background Information
A review of historic orthophoto’s taken in 1937 and 1944 (see Figures 3 & 4, below) suggests that the site of the proposed industrial development and ‘potential wetland’ identified by Eco-Pulse in 2017 was once a functional estuarine or intertidal swamp forest or mangrove forest comprised of typical sub-tropical coastal estuarine swamp forest/mangrove species such as Avicennia marina , Brugiuera gymnorrhiza , Barringtonia racemosa , Rhizophora mucronata and Hibiscus t iliaceus . In the 1937 photo (Figure 3), the Mhlatuzana and Umbilo River were flowing naturally. However, by 1944 (Figure 4) the lower Umbilo River had been canalized and diverted to join the artificially realigned, straightened and canalized Mhlatuzana River. The Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers were likely altered to facilitate the development of the Durban Harbour and other associated infrastructure and industries.
1937
Estimated location of proposed development
Figure 3 Historical imagery (aerial photography ) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1937 .
Diverted flows and the canalization of the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers in the 1940’s had altered vital fluvial processes necessary to support a functioning estuarine or intertidal wetland system. Added to this, pressure from development and urbanization led to the removal natural swamp forest/mangrove vegetation from the area. As a result, the area surrounding the proposed industrial development no longer functions as a tidally- influenced wetland system or a wetland system linked to the Umbilo and Mhlatuzana Rivers with not visible signs of remnant estuarine / swamp / mangrove forest vegetation communities.
8
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Estimated location of proposed development
1944
Figure 4 Historical imagery (aerial photography ) of the study area in the vicinity of the development site taken in 1944.
3.2 Wetland Verification and Delineation
Wetlands and rivers on the property were identified and delineated in the field according to the Department of Water Affairs wetland delineation manual ‘ A Practical Field Procedure for Identification and Delineation of Wetland and Riparian Areas’ (DWAF, 2005). Three specific wetland indicators were used to verify the presence of wetland habitat, including: terrain unit indicator, vegetation indicator and soil wetness indicator (these wetland indicators are described in detail in the ‘Methods’ found in Chapter 2 of this report). Detail for each of the three indicators is provided below.
The wetland verification and delineation assessment ultimately confirmed the presence of one (1) ‘artificial’ wetland to the west of the proposed development property (Figure 5).
A second ‘artificial’ wetland exists to the south of the site (Figure 5). This wetland was identified and delineated by Eco-Pulse in 2017 as part of work done for another development project (NAPOT) in the Bayhead area. Although this unit was not included in the rigorous field verification process in 2017, it was re- visited in March 2019 to confirm its status and EIS (Ecological Importance & Sensitivity).
9
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Figure 5 Map showing the ‘artificial’ wetland habitat located to the south (Wetland 01) and west (Wetland 02) of the proposed development property.
3.2.1 Terrain Unit Indicator
Available 2m interval elevation contours of the study area highlighted a two (2) obvious depression in the landscape to the south and west of the proposed development footprint (see map in Figure 6). Given the high level of disturbance in the area these depressions are likely to be of anthropogenic origin. Depressions can be, but are not always, associated with wetland habitat as these areas are ideal settings for the collection of water at low points in the landscape. Given the potential likelihood of wetlands forming in low-lying areas such as depressions , the area to the south (Focal Site 01) and west (Focal Site 02) of the proposed development became focal sites for the wetland verification exercise (see Figure 6).
10
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Site 02
Subtle Depressions
Site 01
Figure 6 Map of the study area with 2m elevation contours highlighting the presence of a depression in the landscape to the south (01) and west (02) of the proposed development site.
3.2.2 Vegetation Indicator
Vegetation is usually a principle indicator of wetland habitat, with the presence of wetland plants or ‘hydrophytes’ typically suggesting the presence of water-saturated soils (for at least a period of 2 weeks of the year) and generally associated with wetlands. Field surveys of the vegetation were undertaken by Eco-Pulse in January 2019 (Site 01) and March 2019 (Site 02).
Focal Site 01
The field assessment of Focal Site 01 revealed that the entire area (development footprint and area to the south) was disturbed and dominated by dense alien vegetation (see photo ‘a’, below), resembling an invaded coastal bushland community comprising mixed woody and herbaceous invasive alien and indigenous pioneers and weed species of plants. Signs of historic infilling were apparent, with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling.
Whilst some of the species sampled were typical ‘Facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial environments) such as Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum and Commelina benghalensis , these were found to be mainly invasive alien plants that are known to invade terrestrial forest/bushlands and wetland environments, and as such there presence cannot be assumed to indicate 11
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 wetland presence (these are poor wetland indicator species). The indigenous species occurring at the site, such as Strelitzia nicolai and Brachylaena discolour , are typical of pioneer coastal forest / coastal bush (terrestrial habitat) and do not typically occurr in wetland habitat. A list of the dominant plant species noted at Site 01 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric status’ of each species, is presented in Table 4.
Photo (a): Typical alien bushland vegetation community at Site 01.
Table 5. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 01 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text.
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status 2 Tit honia diversifolia Mexican Sunflower Fd Ricinus communis Castor-Oil Plant D Pennisetum purpureum Napier Grass F Morus alba Mulberry Tree Fd Lantana camara Common Lantana Fd Chromolaena odorata Triffid Weed D Commelina benghalensis Bhengal Wandering Jew F Urtica urens Stinging Nettle F Schinus t erebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Tree Fd Melia azedarach Syringa Tree Fd Ipomoea purpurea Common Morning Glory D Ipomoea indica Indigo flower D Ipomoea alba Moonflower D Solanum chrysot richum Devil’s Fig Fd Canna indica Indian Shot F Conyza sp Fleabane Fd Commelina africana Yellow Commelina D Commelina erecta Forest Commelina D Ficus sur Cluster Fig F Senecio tamoides Canary Creeper Fd
2 Hydric status: A classification of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil conditions.
12
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status 2 Strelit zia nicolai Natal Wild Banana D Brachylaena discolour Coastal Silver Oak D Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd
Focal Site 02
The field assessment of Site 02 revealed that the depression area is dominated by the Common Reed, Phragmites australis , an indigenous ‘Obligate’ wetland plant species (see photo ‘b’). Several other ‘Facultative’ plant species (i.e. equally likely to be present in wetlands and terrestrial environments) were noted at the site. Many of these are known invasive alien species. A list of the dominant plant species noted at Site 02 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric status’ of each species, is presented in Table 6.
Photo (b): Phragmites australis dominated ’reedland’ vegetation community at Site 02.
Table 6. List of dominant plant species identified at Site 02 during the site visit, including the estimated ‘hydric’ status of each species. Exotic/alien species are shown in ‘red’ text.
Species Name Common Name Hydric Status 3 Lantana camara Common Lantana Fd Commelina benghalensis Bhengal Wandering Jew F Urtica urens Stinging Nettle F Ipomoea purpurea Common Morning Glory D Ipomoea indica Indigo flower D Ipomoea alba Moonflower D Canna indica Indian Shot F Arundo donax Spanish Reed F Panicum maximum Guinea Grass Fd Phragmit es australis Common Reed O Cyclosorus interruptus Marsh Fern F
3 Hydric status: A classification of plants according to occurrence in wetlands and can be useful in determining whether the habitat at a site is wetland/riparian based on the status of dominant species occurring in terms of species affinity for wet or dry soil conditions.
13
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
3.2.3 Soil Wetness Indicator
According to the wetland definition used in the National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA, 1998), whilst vegetation is the primary indicator of wetland habitat which must be present under normal circumstances, in practice the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important because vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture and may be transformed by local impacts (which is the case for much of the site sampled); whereas soil morphological indicators are far more permanent and will retain the signs of frequent saturation (wetland conditions) long after a wetland has been transformed (DWAF, 2005).
The upper most 50cm of the soil profile was sampled at various locations around Focal Sites 01 and 02 (Figure 7). Samples were obtained using a standard Dutch-type auger. A Munsell Soil Colour Chart was used to ascertain soil colour values including hue, colour value and matrix chroma as well as degree of mottling in order to inform the identification of wetland (hydric) soils.
Site 02
Site 01
Figure 7 Map showing the location of soil sampling undertaken at the site in the vicinity of focal assessment areas 01 and 02 to the south and west of the development site.
Results of Soil Sampling to inform the Wetland Delineation at Focal Site 01
Soils sampled across at Site 01 were generally brown in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 6 and Chroma of 4) with a high sand content (Photo ‘c’). The sandy brown soils did not display signs of wetness, indicating that these are terrestrial or dryland soils (non-wetland). Soils were relatively homogenous across Site 01. Signs of
14
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 historic excavations and infilling were also apparent across the site sampled, with fill material encountered at various depths during sampling.
Across most of the sampled area at Site 01, a layer of dark black/slate coloured material was observed overlying the sandy layer of sediment, up to a depth of between 10 – 50cm (Photo ‘d’). At first glance, this dark soil horizon could be mistaken for being a typical gleyed ‘wetland soil’. However, upon closer inspection this layer was identified as a layer of burnt organic material resembling a type of ash. This is likely to have been an organic layer that built up under the former estuarine environment that once probably characterised the site which became desiccated (dried up) with the construction of the Durban harbour and Bayhead area as the site was disconnected from the former estuarine functional zone. Under the terrestrialised and desiccated conditions, the organic layer then burnt over time (historic fires possibly associated with ‘slash and burn’ management of the vegetation at the site) to create an ashy, burnt organic soil horizon. Essentially, the soils at Site 01 displayed no visible signs of wetness and the site is determined to be terrestrial and not indicative of wetland habitat.
Photo (c): Typical sandy brown terrestrial soil sampled. Photo (d): Dark grey/black burnt soil horizon noted at various locations.
Results of Soil Sampling to inform the Wetland Delineation at Focal Site 02
Soils sampled at Site 02 were generally grey in colour (Munsell: Hue of 7.5Y/R, Value of 5 and Chroma of 1) and had a sandy texture (Photo ‘e’). Faint orange mottles were present in the soil profile. The grey soil matrix and the presence of mottles in the soil profile are a result of the soil profile being sufficiently saturated such that anaerobic conditions prevail, which leads to the reduction of iron from its oxidised state, which is soluble in water. The soils at Site 02 can be considered typical of ‘temporary’ wetland soils, and combined with the vegetation indicator, confirmed that wetland habitat is present west of the existing railway line west of the proposed development site.
15
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
Photo (e): Typical ‘temporary’ wetland soil sampled at Site 02.
3.3 Classification of Wetlands
Wetlands identified and delineated within the vicinity of the proposed development site were classified in accordance with the National Wetland Classification Guidelines (Ollis et al., 2013). In their present state, both wetlands 01 and 02 can be classified as ‘artificial’ wetlands 4 and resemble depressions that have formed as a result of storm water runoff concentrating on the platform developed to the south of the site and within a low-lying area between the railway lines located west of the development site.
In order to determine whether the wetlands assessed are artificial or a natural feature of the landscape, the following needs to be taken into account:
1. The historical reference state of the watercourse which has been established as far as possible through historical imagery/photography;
2. On-site evidence of wetland habitat established through soil and vegetation sampling; and
3. The onsite impacts that have altered the template, nature and functioning of the watercourse.
From a legal perspective, wetlands are covered specifically in National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA) and the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), with the definition of a wetland taken from the NWA of 1998 referring to “…land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation t ypically adapted to life in saturated soil“. Here an important distinction needs to be made to land which under “normal circumstances ” would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil (i.e. wetland/aquatic vegetation or hydrophytes)
4 The term ‘natural’ when applied to ecosystems such as wetlands, generally refers to an ecosystem that exists in or is deriv ed from a natural process or processes and is not man-made or caused by human/anthropogenic actions. ‘Artificial’ thus refers to a system that has been produced by humans or human actions rather than naturally occurring. 16
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 and where conditions or circumstances are ‘not normal’ or ‘artificially’ created or modified due to human activities or actions. Here one’s interpretation of the definition of ‘wetland’ in the National Water Act (1998) is critical, and the wetland ecologist from Eco-Pulse has interpreted this to mean that if circumstances are ‘not normal’ at a site (for example, due to runoff from a road or hardened platform leading to increased saturation of soils or standing water where wetland plants have become established artificially) then the definition would not apply and the ‘wetland’ would be deemed to be artificial in nature (i.e. not resulting from a ‘natural’ process of formation).
It has been deduced based on the on-site investigations and assessment undertaken by Eco-Pulse Consulting, that under ‘normal circumstances’ the wetlands would likely have been wooded mangrove habitat forming part of the broader estuary at Durban Bay, which has since been infilled and modified completely. Freshwater wetland habitat would have been absent. The resulting modified area is thus a hardened gravel platform to the south of the development site where wetland 01 is located, and a modified/infilled low-lying area between the two railway lines located west of the site where wetland 02 is located.
Where a ‘natural’ salt water mangrove/marsh was likely present at the site in the past (which historical accounts and photography suggests), this is no longer evident at the site based on the sampling undertaken, with the vegetation having seen significant modification and adaptation to the new site conditions. Circumstances now are no longer ‘normal’ (as per the definition of a wetland in terms of the NWA, 1998) due to modifications associated with infilling, topographical changes, channel diversions and storm water runoff from hardened surfaces.
The ‘remaining’ extent of seepage wetland found to occur at the southern edge of the property also appears to be a recent feature of the landscape and resulting from the deposition of soils transported and deposited downstream from the upstream eroded watercourse and adjacent unstable banks. Whether this habitat is entirely artificial or simply has become a more permanent feature of the landscape superimposed onto an existing wetland surface) remains uncertain and cannot be easily established without having access to baseline data for the study area prior to the level of modification of the catchment and bay area over the last 50+ years.
Note that in terms of the definition of a ‘ watercourse ’, this is found also in the National Water Act of 1998, which refers to “a river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently: a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows: and any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks”. Here no distinction is made between artificial or natural wetlands.
3.4 Wetland Present Ecological State (PES)
It is important to note that only wetlands perceived to be ‘natural’ in terms of their origin can be assessed in terms of PES using established assessment methods which rely on there being a ‘reference’ state’ from which to compare deviations from. Since the ‘artificial’ wetlands identified for the area of study do not have a natural ‘reference state’, the PES of both wetland units could not be formally established.
17
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
3.5 Wetland Ecological Importance & Sensitivity (EIS) Assessment
The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of Wetland Units W01 and W02 was rated using the Wetland EIS tool developed by Eco-Pulse (2017). For both units, a relatively low EIS rating was assigned which can be attributed to the artificial nature of both wetland units, their small size, limited functioning or biodiversity value and their generally disturbed state (Table 7, below).
Table 7. Summary of EIS scores and overall EIS rating for each wetland unit.
Ecological Ecological EIS Score Unit ID HGM Type EIS Rating Importance (0 – 4) Sensitivity (0 – 4) (0 – 4)
W01 Artificial Wetland 0.50 0.50 0.5 Very Low W02 Artificial Wetland 0.85 0.41 0.85 Low
4. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NEMA
The latest applicable National Environmental Management Act (NEMA): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations of 2014 (as per Government Notice No. 38282 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4 December 2014) (as amended in 2017 in terms of Government Notice No. 40772 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 7 April 2017) were reviewed in order to ascertain potential triggers for wetland impacts in terms of the Listed Activities outlined in the regulations. Where development triggers a ‘Listed Activity’, this will generally indicate that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Basic Assessment will need to be undertaken and environmental authorisation will be required from the relevant environmental authority/department before development on the property may commence.
Due to the development footprint not directly or indirectly impacting on wetlands (no infilling or extraction) and with wetland being located more than 32m from the boundary of the site based on the site investigation and wetland verification undertaken by Eco-Pulse, no listed activities are associated with the development and wetland ecosystems. Note that EIA listed activities in terms of vegetation transformation, etc., were not assessed, with the focus being purely on wetlands.
5. IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NWA AND WATER USE LICENSING
Chapter 4 and Section 21 of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) lists certain activities for which water uses must be licensed, unless its use is excluded. There are several reasons why water users are required to register and license their water uses with the Department of Water & Sanitation (DWS). The most important reasons being: (i) to manage and control water resources for planning and development; (ii) to protect water resources against over-use, damage and impacts and (iii) to ensure fair allocation of water among users.
To inform the water use licensing requirements for the development project, a mapping and screening exercise was undertaken for watercourses occurring within a 500m radius of the proposed development [i.e. within the DWS regulated area for Section 21 (c) and/or (i) water uses] to determine whether watercourses (wetlands,
18
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019 rivers) stand to be measurably impacted by the development project or stand to trigger Section 21 (c) and/or (i) water use.
5.1 Identification & Mapping of Watercourses
All watercourses occurring within a 500m radius of the proposed development [i.e. within the DWS regulated area for Section 21 (c) and/or (i) water uses] were mapped at a desktop level, verified in the field and classified in terms of their Hydro Geomorphic (HGM) type in accordance with the national wetland/river classification define by Ollis et al. (2013). This was done using a GIS (Geographical Information Systems) software through analysis of available aerial images (Google Earth TM and historic aerial photography ), elevation contours and existing wetland and river coverages for the area.
5.2 ‘Likelihood of Impact’, Risk and Water Use Screening
Two (2) artificial wetlands and the Durban Bay area (modified estuary) were identified within a 500m radius of the proposed development activity (shown mapped in Figure 8).
Figure 8 Map showing delineated, mapped and classified watercourses within the DWS regulated area for Section 21 c & i water use (i.e. within a 500m radius of the proposed development site).
19
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
The risk of impacting adjacent and downstream wetlands was considered in terms of:
1. Potential risk of incurring direct impacts on watercourses: potentially associated with crossing or infilling wetland habitat and disturbance of wetland soils or impeding/diverting flows of water; and
2. Potential risk of incurring indirect impacts on watercourses: potentially associated with polluting watercourses, affecting surface water runoff to wetlands and resulting in potential soil erosion.
The potential risk of impact was assessed qualitatively based on a number of factors, including:
1) Topographical location of wetlands in the landscape relative to the infrastructure planned and the position, orientation and nature of potential surface runoff flow paths towards wetland areas; and
2) Potential impact mitigation and management controls that could eliminate the risk of indirectly affecting wetland characteristics.
DIRECT IMPACT POTENTIAL: In terms of direct impacts, since there are no wetlands located within the development area or footprint, there is no risk of direct impacts to artificial wetland habitat and vegetation/soils occurring.
INDIRECT IMPACT POTENTIAL: In terms of indirect impacts, risk posed by storm water runoff and potential pollution sources was assessed qualitatively. The site of the proposed development has been disconnected (hydrologically) from the catchment area of the Durban Harbor / Bay (which is essentially a modified estuary) as well as the artificial wetlands to the west and south of the site (i.e. wetland units W01 & W02). Although the wetland to the west of the site (W02) is within relatively close-proximity to the western boundary of the proposed development (>35m away), an elevated railway line embankment exists between the wetland unit and the property in question and this embankment is currently acting as an impeding feature, such that the development property area and the artificial wetland are in fact not hydrologically linked. Therefore, there is no risk of impacting wetlands hydrologically as storm water will be contained within the development site and likely discharged in a controlled fashion into the artificial canal east of the property leading towards the Durban Bay area / harbor. The risk of indirectly contaminating wetlands with potential pollutants stored and handled at the development site during its construction and operation (e.g. oils and fuels) is also expected to be negligible so far as best- practice controls are implemented and the site is lined with a suitable containment barrier / hard layer to prevent the migration of any contaminated runoff to the adjacent aquatic environment or ground water.
It can be concluded that there is no risk of the development impacting on the artificial wetlands in the study area and also that 21 (c) and (i) water uses are not triggered by the proposed development as there is will be no impeding/diverting of flows or alterations/modifications that could affect watercourse characteristics. This is however based on the following conditions being met by the developer:
1. Existing access roads will be used by vehicles and labour and no new services/roads infrastructure will be planned across or close to wetlands mapped;
20
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
2. Any temporary construction site camps / equipment or machinery storage or lay-down areas will not be located near wetland areas;
3. The development will be underlain by a suitable impermeable layer that will prevent the migration of any pollutants/contaminants into the ground water aquifer at the site and surrounds; and
4. Storm water runoff will not be directed into the wetlands delineated.
Wetland W01 is located more than 300m from the development site whilst the distance from the development boundary to wetland W02 is at least 35m. This is generally considered to be a suitable distance and buffer zone to reduce risk of impact to both wetlands, with a recommended wetland buffer width of 20-30m typically recommended for the project.
6. CONCLUSION
Two (2) ‘artificial’ depression-type wetlands were identified in the vicinity of the proposed development property, one located immediately west of the railway lines to the west of the development site and a second located a considerable distance south of the site on an existing gravel platform. PES could not be established for the artificial wetlands due to their being no ‘reference’ state, with wetland EIS considered to be low.
Eco-Pulse concluded that there is no risk of directly impacting the wetlands and where carefully managed and avoided during construction and operation, both wetlands are unlikely to be impacted indirectly. Due to the location of the wetlands being outside of the planned development footprint and being hydrologically isolated, there is no risk of triggering a Section 21 c water use as flows will not be impeded or diverted by the development planned. Furthermore, where storm water runoff is directed away from the wetlands, there is no Section 21 (i) water use associated with the development as the bed, banks and characteristics of both artificial wetlands will not be modified.
It is therefore the opinion of Eco-Pulse that the planned development will not result in impacts to wetlands and that there is no risk of water use associated with the artificial wetland assessed. Therefore, the DWS should consider exempting the development from water use licensing in terms of Section 21 c and i water use, subject to the development conditions described under Chapter 5 of this report.
Should you have any queries or comments, please contact Eco-Pulse Consulting directly.
Yours faithfully ,
Adam Teixeira-Leite Pr.Sci.Nat. (Ecological Science) Senior Scientist & Wetland Specialist: Eco-Pulse Environmental Consulting Services
Email: [email protected] | Mobile: 082 310 6769
21
Bayhead Industrial Site: Specialist Wetland Verification & Delineation Study April 2019
7. REFERENCES
Bromilow, C., 2010. Problem Plants and Alien Weeds of South Africa. Third Edition. Briza Publications, Pretoria, South Africa.
CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research). 2010. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA). Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J. and Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. XXXX. June 2011.
DWAF (Department of Water affairs and Forestry). 2005. A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetland and riparian areas. Edition 1, September 2005. DWAF, Pretoria.
Eco-Pulse Consulting. 2017. NOOA Petroleum Fuel Storage and Handling Terminal at Ambrose Park, Durban Harbour, eThekwini Municipality , KwaZulu-Natal: Freshwater Habitat Impact Assessment Report. Unpublished report prepared for Kantey & Templer Consulting Engineers. Report No. EP331-01. Version 0.1 (draft). 22 November 2017.
Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecological Management,17:71–84.
Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. & Goge, C. 2008. WET- Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health, Version 2.
Munsell Soil Colour Chart (year 2000 edition).
National Water Act No. 36 of 1998.
Pooley, E., 2005. A field guide to Wildflowers of KZN and the Eastern Region. First Edition, second impression. Natal Flora Publications Trust.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010. Wise use of wetlands: Concepts and approaches for the wise use of wetlands. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, vol. 1. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Ollis, D., Snaddon, K., Job. N. and Mbona. N. 2013. Classification system for wetland and other aquatic ecosystems in South Africa. User manual: inland systems. SANBI biodiversity series 22. SANBI Pretoria.
Scott-Shaw, C.R and Escott, B.J. (Eds), 2011. KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Pre-Transformation Vegetation Type Map – 2011. Unpublished GIS Coverage [kznveg05v2_1_11_wll.zip], Biodiversity Conservation Planning Division, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P. O. Box 13053, Cascades, Pietermaritzburg, 3202.
Van Ginkel, C.E., Glen, R.P., Gordan-Gray, K.D., Cilliers, C.J., Muasya and van Deventer, P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African Wetland Plants (Grasses, Resticios, Sedges, Rushes, Bulrushes, Eriocaulons and Yellow-eyed grasses). WRC Report No. TT 459/10.
Van Oudtshoorn, F., 2006. Guide to grasses of Southern Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.
22
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX B Flora species recorded in the Project site during the field visit
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
ACANTHACEAE Asystasia gangetica
AMARANTHACEAE Achyranthes aspera var. aspera*
AMARANTHACEAE Alternanthera pungens*
AMARANTHACEAE Amaranthus viridis*
AMARANTHACEAE Gomphrena celosioides*
ANACARDIACEAE Rhus pyroides var. integrifolia
ANACARDIACEAE Schinus terebinthifolius*
ARALIACEAE Washingtonia filifera*
ASCLEPIADACEAE Gomphocarpus physocarpus
ASTERACEAE Ageratum conyzoides*
ASTERACEAE Berkheya bipinnatifida
ASTERACEAE Berkheya sp.
ASTERACEAE Bidens bipinnata*
ASTERACEAE Bidens pilosa*
ASTERACEAE Brachylaena discolor
ASTERACEAE Chromolaena odorata*
ASTERACEAE Conyza bonariensis*
ASTERACEAE Conyza canadensis*
ASTERACEAE Flaveria bidentis*
ASTERACEAE Galinsoga parviflora*
ASTERACEAE Helianthus annuus
ASTERACEAE Lactuca serriola*
ASTERACEAE Parthenium hysterophorus*
ASTERACEAE Senecio deltoideus
ASTERACEAE Senecio madagascariensis
ASTERACEAE Senecio tamoides
ASTERACEAE Sonchus sp. *
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
ASTERACEAE Tagetes minuta*
ASTERACEAE Taraxacum officinale*
ASTERACEAE Tithonia diversifolia*
ASTERACEAE Tridax decumbens*
BASELLACEAE Anredera cordifolia*
BIGNONIACEAE Tecoma stans*
BRASSICACEAE Lepidium bonariense*
CACTACEAE Pereskia aculeata*
CANNACEAE Canna indica*
CHENOPODIACEAE Chenopodium album*
COMMELINACEAE Commelina afra
COMMELINACEAE Commelina benghalensis
COMMELINACEAE Commelina erecta
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea purpurea*
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea alba*
CONVOLVULACEAE Ipomoea indica*
CUCURBITACEAE Kedrostis foetidissima
CUCURBITACEAE Lagenaria sphaerica
CYPERACEAE Cyperus rotundus subsp. rotundus
EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia cyathophora*
EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis*
FABACEAE Vachellia natalitia
FABACEAE Leucaena leucocephala*
FABACEAE Melilotus albus*
FABACEAE Senna didymobotrya*
LAMIACEAE Ocimum sp.
MALAVACEAE Abutilon cf sonneratianum
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
MALAVACEAE Abutilon sp.
MELIACEAE Melia azedarach*
MORACEAE Ficus sur
MORACEAE Morus nigra*
MYRTACEAE Syzygium cuminii*
PHYTOLACCACEAE Rivina humilis*
PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata*
POACEAE Chloris gayana
POACEAE Cynodon dactylon
POACEAE Eragrostis sp.
POACEAE Imperata cylindrica
POACEAE Panicum deustum
POACEAE Pennisetum clandestinum
POACEAE Pennisetum purpureum*
POACEAE Phragmites australis
POACEAE Sorghum bicolor
POACEAE Sorghum cf halepense
POACEAE Stenotaphrum secundatum
POACEAE Tragus berteronianus
POCEAE Arundo donax*
POCEAE Chloris virgata
POCEAE Digitaria eriantha
POCEAE Melinis repens
POCEAE Panicum maximum
POCEAE Sporobolus africanus
ROSACEAE Rubus fruticosus*
RUBIACEAE Canthium cf mundianum
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name (*denotes alien species)
RUBIACEAE Canthium inerme
SAPINDACAE Cardiospermum grandiflorum*
SOLANACEAE Solanum mauritianum*
SOLANACEAE Solanum chrysotrichum
SOLANACEAE Solanum nodiflorum
SOLANACEAE Solanum lycopersicum*
STRELITZIACEAE Strelitzia natalitia
ULMACEAE Trema orientalis
URTICACEAE Urtica urens*
VERBENACEAE Avicennia marina
VERBENACEAE Lantana camara*
VERBENACEAE Verbena bonariensis*
VERBENACEAE Verbena brasiliensis*
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX C List of mammals potentially present in Project site
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected Species (1974)
Bathyerigidae Georychus capensis Cape-Mole-rat - -
Bovidae Cephalopus monticola Blue Duiker Vulnerable Vulnerable Protected
Cephalopus natalensis Red Duiker Near Threatened Protected Protected
Sylvicapra grimmia Common Duiker - -
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck - Protected
Canidae Canis mesomelas Black-backed Jackal -
Chrysochloridae Amblysomus hottentotus Hottentot Golden Mole - -
Chrysospalax villosus Rough-haired Golden Mole Vulnerable Critically Endangered
Emballonuridae Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian Tomb Bat - -
Erinaceidae Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog Near Threatened Protected
Felideae Felis sylvestris African wild Cat - -
Leptailurus serval Serval Near Threatened - -
Herpestidae Atilax paludinosus Water Mongoose - - -
Galerella sanguinea Slender Mongoose - - -
Herpestes icheumon Large-Grey Mongoose - - -
Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected Species (1974)
Mungos mungo Banded Mongoose - - -
Galagidae Otolemur crassicaudatus Thick-tailed Galago - - -
Hipposideridae Hipposideros caffer Sundevall’s leaf-nosed Bat - - -
Hystricidae Hystrix africaeaustralis Porcupine - - -
Leporidae Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare - - -
Molossidae Chaerephon ansorgei Ansorge’s Free-tailed Bat - - -
Chaerephon pumila Little Free-tailed Bat - - -
Mops condylurus Angola Free-tailed Bat - - -
Otomops martiensseni Large-eared Free-tailed Bat - - -
Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat - - -
Muridae Aethomys chrysophilus Red Veld Rat - - -
Dasymys incomtus Water Rat Near Threatened - -
Dendromus melanotis Grey Climbing Mouse - - -
Dendromus mesomelas Brant’s Climbing Mouse - - -
Dendromus mystacalis Chestnut Climbing Mouse - - -
Grammomys dolichurus Woodland Thicket Rat - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected Species (1974)
Lemniscomys rosalia Single-striped Grass Mouse - - -
Mastomys sp. Multimammate Mouse - - -
Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse - - -
Mus musculus House Mouse - - -
Otomys angoniensis Angoni Vlei Rat - - -
Otomys irroratus Vlei Rat -
Otomys laminatus Laminate Vlei Rat Near Threatened - -
Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat - - -
Rattus rattus House Rat - - -
Rhabdomys pumilio Striped Mouse - - -
Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter Near Threatened Protected -
Ictonyx striatus Striped Polecat - - -
Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel Near Threatened - -
Myoxidae Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse - - -
Nycteridae Nycteris hispida Hairy Slit-faced Bat - - -
Nycteris thebaica Eqyptian Slit-faced Bat - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected Species (1974)
Pteropodidae Epomophorus wahlbergi Wahlberg’s Epauletted Fruit-bat - - -
Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit-bat - - -
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat - - -
Rhinolophus darlingi Darling’s Horseshoe Bat - - -
Rhinolophus swinnyi Swinny’s Horseshoe Bat Vulnerable - -
Soricidae Crocidura cyanea Reddish-grey Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura hirta Lesser Red Musk Shrew - - -
Crocidura mariquensis Swamp Musk Shrew Near Threatened - -
Myosorex cafer Dark-footed Forest Shrew Vulnerable - -
Myosorex sclateri Sclater’s Forest Shrew Vulnerable - -
Myosorex varius Forest Shrew - - -
Suncus infintesimus Least Dwarf Shrew - - -
Thryonomyidae Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane-rat - - -
Potamochoerus procus Bush Pig - - -
Vespertilionidae Glauconycteris variegata Butterfly Bat - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List (2016) - Regional Status NEMBA TOPS List (2013) KZN Protected Species (1974)
Hypsugo anchietae Anchieta’s Pipistrelle Near Threatened - -
Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered Bat - - -
Myotis tricolor Temminck’s Hairy Bat - - -
Neoromicia capensis Cape Serotine Bat - - -
Neoromicia nana Banana Bat - - -
Pipistrellus hesperidus African Pipistrelle - - -
Scotophilus dinganii Yellow House Bat - - -
Scotoecus albofuscus Thomas’ House Bat Near Threatened - -
Viverridae Genetta tigrina South African Large-spotted Genet - - -
Sources: Distributions = Stuart & Stuart (2007)/ADU MammalMAP; Conservation Status = EWT (2016), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX D List of birds potentially present in Project site
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Apalis thoracica Apalis, Bar-throated - - -
Apalis flavida Apalis, Yellow-breasted - - -
Lybius torquatus Barbet, Black-collared - - -
Trachyphonus vaillantii Barbet, Crested - - -
Stactolaema leucotis Barbet, White-eared - - -
Batis capensis Batis, Cape - - -
Batis molitor Batis, Chinspot - - -
Merops pusillus Bee-eater, Little - - -
Euplectes orix Bishop, Southern Red - - -
Ixobrychus minutus Bittern, Little - - -
Lioptilus nigricapillus Blackcap, Bush Vulnerable - -
Telophorus zeylonus Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie - - -
Laniarius ferrugineus Boubou, Southern - - -
Smithornis capensis Broadbill, African Vulnerable - -
Phyllastrephus terrestris Brownbul, Terrestrial - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Nilaus afer Brubru, Brubru - - -
Pycnonotus tricolor Bulbul, Dark-capped - - -
Emberiza flaviventris Bunting, Golden-breasted - - -
Telophorus quadricolor Bush-shrike, Gorgeous - - -
Malaconotus blanchoti Bush-shrike, Grey-headed - - -
Telophorus olivaceus Bush-shrike, Olive - - -
Telophorus sulfureopectus Bush-shrike, Orange-breasted - - -
Turnix sylvaticus Buttonquail, Kurrichane - - -
Buteo rufofuscus Buzzard, Jackal - - -
Kaupifalco monogrammicus Buzzard, Lizard - - -
Buteo vulpinus Buzzard, Steppe - - -
Camaroptera brachyura Camaroptera, Green-backed - - -
Crithagra sulphuratus Canary, Brimstone - - -
Serinus canicollis Canary, Cape - - -
Crithagra scotops Canary, Forest - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Crithagra mozambicus Canary, Yellow-fronted - - -
Cercomela familiaris Chat, Familiar - - -
Cisticola natalensis Cisticola, Croaking - - -
Cisticola aberrans Cisticola, Lazy - - -
Cisticola tinniens Cisticola, Levaillant's - - -
Cisticola cinnamomeus Cisticola, Pale-crowned - - -
Cisticola chiniana Cisticola, Rattling - - -
Cisticola erythrops Cisticola, Red-faced - - -
Cisticola galactotes Cisticola, Rufous-winged - - -
Cisticola lais Cisticola, Wailing - - -
Cisticola ayresii Cisticola, Wing-snapping - - -
Cisticola juncidis Cisticola, Zitting - - -
Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Cliff-chat, Mocking - - -
Fulica cristata Coot, Red-knobbed - - -
Phalacrocorax africanus Cormorant, Reed - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant, White-breasted - - -
Centropus burchellii Coucal, Burchell's - - -
Amaurornis flavirostris Crake, Black - - -
Balearica regulorum Crane, Grey Crowned - - -
Trochocercus cyanomelas Crested-flycatcher, Blue-mantled - - -
Sylvietta rufescens Crombec, Long-billed - - -
Corvus capensis Crow, Cape - - -
Corvus splendens Crow, House - - -
Corvus albus Crow, Pied - - -
Chrysococcyx cupreus Cuckoo, African Emerald - - -
Cuculus clamosus Cuckoo, Black - - -
Chrysococcyx caprius Cuckoo, Diderick - - -
Clamator glandarius Cuckoo, Great Spotted - - -
Clamator jacobinus Cuckoo, Jacobin - - -
Chrysococcyx klaas Cuckoo, Klaas's - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Cuculus solitarius Cuckoo, Red-chested - - -
Campephaga flava Cuckoo-shrike, Black - - -
Coracina caesia Cuckoo-shrike, Grey - - -
Anhinga rufa Darter, African - - -
Streptopelia senegalensis Dove, Laughing - - -
Aplopelia larvata Dove, Lemon - - -
Oena capensis Dove, Namaqua - - -
Streptopelia semitorquata Dove, Red-eyed - - -
Columba livia Dove, Rock - - -
Turtur tympanistria Dove, Tambourine - - -
Dicrurus adsimilis Drongo, Fork-tailed - - -
Dicrurus ludwigii Drongo, Square-tailed - - -
Anas sparsa Duck, African Black - - -
Anas platyrhynchos Duck, Domestic - - -
Dendrocygna bicolor Duck, Fulvous - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Anas platyrhynchos Duck, Mallard - - -
Thalassornis leuconotus Duck, White-backed - - -
Dendrocygna viduata Duck, White-faced - - -
Anas undulata Duck, Yellow-billed - - -
Stephanoaetus coronatus Eagle, African Crowned Vulnerable - -
Aquila pennatus Eagle, Booted - - -
Lophaetus occipitalis Eagle, Long-crested - - -
Polemaetus bellicosus Eagle, Martial Endangered Vulnerable -
Aquila verreauxii Eagle, Verreaux's Vulnerable - -
Aquila wahlbergi Eagle, Wahlberg's - - -
Bubo africanus Eagle-owl, Spotted - - -
Bubulcus ibis Egret, Cattle - - -
Egretta alba Egret, Great - - -
Egretta garzetta Egret, Little - - -
Egretta intermedia Egret, Yellow-billed - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Falco biarmicus Falcon, Lanner Vulnerable - -
Falco peregrinus Falcon, Peregrine - - -
Falco concolor Falcon, Sooty - - -
Amadina erythrocephala Finch, Red-headed - - -
Podica senegalensis Finfoot, African Vulnerable - -
Lagonosticta rubricata Firefinch, African - - -
Lagonosticta senegala Firefinch, Red-billed - - -
Lanius collaris Fiscal, Common (Southern) - - -
Haliaeetus vocifer Fish-eagle, African - - -
Phoenicopterus ruber Flamingo, Greater Near Threatened Protected Specially Protected
Sarothrura elegans Flufftail, Buff-spotted - - -
Sarothrura rufa Flufftail, Red-chested - - -
Muscicapa adusta Flycatcher, African Dusky - - -
Muscicapa caerulescens Flycatcher, Ashy - - -
Sigelus silens Flycatcher, Fiscal - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Melaenornis pammelaina Flycatcher, Southern Black - - -
Muscicapa striata Flycatcher, Spotted - - -
Scleroptila levaillantii Francolin, Red-winged - - -
Scleroptila shelleyi Francolin, Shelley's - - -
Porphyrio alleni Gallinule, Allen's - - -
Morus capensis Gannet, Cape Vulnerable - -
Anser anser Goose, Domestic - - -
Alopochen aegyptiacus Goose, Egyptian - - -
Plectropterus gambensis Goose, Spur-winged - - -
Accipiter tachiro Goshawk, African - - -
Melierax gabar Goshawk, Gabar - - -
Sphenoeacus afer Grassbird, Cape - - -
Tachybaptus ruficollis Grebe, Little - - -
Andropadus importunus Greenbul, Sombre - - -
Chlorocichla flaviventris Greenbul, Yellow-bellied - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Treron calvus Green-pigeon, African - - -
Tringa nebularia Greenshank, Common - - -
Bucorvus leadbeateri Ground-hornbill, Southern Endangered Vulnerable Specially Protected
Zoothera guttata Ground-thrush, Spotted - - -
Numida meleagris Guineafowl, Helmeted - - -
Larus cirrocephalus Gull, Grey-headed - - -
Larus dominicanus Gull, Kelp - - -
Scopus umbretta Hamerkop, Hamerkop - - -
Polyboroides typus Harrier-Hawk, African - - -
Egretta ardesiaca Heron, Black - - -
Ardea melanocephala Heron, Black-headed - - -
Ardea goliath Heron, Goliath - - -
Butorides striata Heron, Green-backed - - -
Ardea cinerea Heron, Grey - - -
Ardea purpurea Heron, Purple - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Ardeola ralloides Heron, Squacco - - -
Prodotiscus regulus Honeybird, Brown-backed - - -
Pernis apivorus Honey-buzzard, European - - -
Indicator indicator Honeyguide, Greater - - -
Indicator minor Honeyguide, Lesser - - -
Indicator variegatus Honeyguide, Scaly-throated - - -
Upupa africana Hoopoe, African - - -
Tockus alboterminatus Hornbill, Crowned - - -
Bycanistes bucinator Hornbill, Trumpeter - - -
Delichon urbicum House-martin, Common - - -
Threskiornis aethiopicus Ibis, African Sacred - - -
Plegadis falcinellus Ibis, Glossy - - -
Bostrychia hagedash Ibis, Hadeda - - -
Geronticus calvus Ibis, Southern Bald Vulnerable v
Vidua funerea Indigobird, Dusky - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Vidua chalybeata Indigobird, Village - - -
Actophilornis africanus Jacana, African - - -
Microparra capensis Jacana, Lesser Vulnerable - -
Halcyon albiventris Kingfisher, Brown-hooded - - -
Megaceryle maximus Kingfisher, Giant - - -
Alcedo semitorquata Kingfisher, Half-collared Near Threatened
Alcedo cristata Kingfisher, Malachite - - -
Halcyon senegaloides Kingfisher, Mangrove - - -
Ceryle rudis Kingfisher, Pied - - -
Milvus migrans Kite, Black - - -
Elanus caeruleus Kite, Black-shouldered - - -
Milvus aegyptius Kite, Yellow-billed - - -
Vanellus armatus Lapwing, Blacksmith - - -
Vanellus melanopterus Lapwing, Black-winged - - -
Vanellus coronatus Lapwing, Crowned - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Calandrella cinerea Lark, Red-capped - - -
Mirafra africana Lark, Rufous-naped - - -
Macronyx capensis Longclaw, Cape - - -
Macronyx croceus Longclaw, Yellow-throated - - -
Ceuthmochares australis Malkoha, Green - - -
Spermestes cucullatus Mannikin, Bronze - - -
Spermestes fringilloides Mannikin, Magpie - - -
Spermestes nigriceps Mannikin, Red-backed - - -
Circus ranivorus Marsh-harrier, African - - -
Riparia paludicola Martin, Brown-throated - - -
Hirundo fuligula Martin, Rock - - -
Riparia riparia Martin, Sand - - -
Ploceus intermedius Masked-weaver, Lesser - - -
Ploceus velatus Masked-weaver, Southern - - -
Gallinula chloropus Moorhen, Common - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Urocolius indicus Mousebird, Red-faced - - -
Colius striatus Mousebird, Speckled - - -
Acridotheres tristis Myna, Common - - -
Cisticola fulvicapilla Neddicky, Neddicky - - -
Nycticorax nycticorax Night-Heron, Black-crowned - - -
Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar, European - - -
Caprimulgus pectoralis Nightjar, Fiery-necked - - -
Caprimulgus tristigma Nightjar, Freckled - - -
Columba arquatrix Olive-pigeon, African - - -
Anastomus lamelligerus Openbill, African - - -
Oriolus larvatus Oriole, Black-headed - - -
Oriolus oriolus Oriole, Eurasian Golden - - -
Pandion haliaetus Osprey, Osprey - - -
Tyto alba Owl, Barn - - -
Rostratula benghalensis Painted-snipe, Greater - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Cypsiurus parvus Palm-swift, African - - -
Terpsiphone viridis Paradise-flycatcher, African - - -
Psittacula krameri Parakeet, Rose-ringed - - -
Pavo cristatus Peacock, Common - - -
Pelecanus onocrotalus Pelican, Great White Vulnerable - -
Pelecanus rufescens Pelican, Pink-backed Vulnerable Specially Protected
Petronia superciliaris Petronia, Yellow-throated - - -
Columba guinea Pigeon, Speckled - - -
Anthus cinnamomeus Pipit, African - - -
Anthus leucophrys Pipit, Plain-backed - - -
Anthus lineiventris Pipit, Striped - - -
Charadrius hiaticula Plover, Common Ringed - - -
Pluvialis squatarola Plover, Grey - - -
Charadrius pecuarius Plover, Kittlitz's - - -
Charadrius tricollaris Plover, Three-banded - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Charadrius marginatus Plover, White-fronted - - -
Netta erythrophthalma Pochard, Southern - - -
Prinia subflava Prinia, Tawny-flanked - - -
Dryoscopus cubla Puffback, Black-backed - - -
Nettapus auritus Pygmy-Goose, African - - -
Ispidina picta Pygmy-Kingfisher, African - - -
Coturnix coturnix Quail, Common - - -
Ortygospiza atricollis Quailfinch, African - - -
Quelea quelea Quelea, Red-billed - - -
Rallus caerulescens Rail, African - - -
Corvus albicollis Raven, White-necked - - -
Acrocephalus baeticatus Reed-warbler, African - - -
Acrocephalus arundinaceus Reed-warbler, Great - - -
Pogonocichla stellata Robin, White-starred - - -
Cossypha caffra Robin-chat, Cape - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Cossypha dichroa Robin-chat, Chorister - - -
Cossypha natalensis Robin-chat, Red-capped - - -
Monticola rupestris Rock-thrush, Cape - - -
Monticola explorator Rock-thrush, Sentinel - - -
Coracias garrulus , European Near Threatened - -
Coracias caudatus Roller, Lilac-breasted - - -
Philomachus pugnax Ruff, Ruff - - -
Bradypterus baboecala Rush-warbler, Little - - -
Actitis hypoleucos Sandpiper, Common - - -
Calidris ferruginea Sandpiper, Curlew - - -
Tringa stagnatilis Sandpiper, Marsh - - -
Tringa glareola Sandpiper, Wood - - -
Psalidoprocne holomelaena Saw-wing, Black (Southern race) - - -
Ptilopsus granti Scops-owl, Southern White-faced - - -
Cercotrichas signata Scrub-robin, Brown - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Cercotrichas leucophrys Scrub-robin, White-browed - - -
Crithagra gularis Seedeater, Streaky-headed - - -
Tadorna cana Shelduck, South African - - -
Anas smithii Shoveler, Cape - - -
Lanius collurio Shrike, Red-backed - - -
Circaetus cinereus Snake-eagle, Brown - - -
Gallinago nigripennis Snipe, African - - -
Passer melanurus Sparrow, Cape - - -
Passer domesticus Sparrow, House - - -
Passer diffusus Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed - - -
Accipiter melanoleucus Sparrowhawk, Black - - -
Accipiter minullus Sparrowhawk, Little - - -
Platalea alba Spoonbill, African - - -
Pternistis natalensis Spurfowl, Natal - - -
Pternistis afer Spurfowl, Red-necked - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Lamprotornis corruscus Starling, Black-bellied - - -
Lamprotornis nitens Starling, Cape Glossy - - -
Sturnus vulgaris Starling, Common - - -
Onychognathus morio Starling, Red-winged - - -
Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Starling, Violet-backed - - -
Creatophora cinerea Starling, Wattled - - -
Himantopus himantopus Stilt, Black-winged - - -
Calidris minuta Stint, Little - - -
Saxicola torquatus Stonechat, African - - -
Ciconia nigra Stork, Black Vulnerable - -
Ciconia ciconia Stork, White - - -
Ciconia episcopus Stork, Woolly-necked - - -
Mycteria ibis Stork, Yellow-billed Endangered - Specially Protected
Chalcomitra amethystina Sunbird, Amethyst - - -
Hedydipna collaris Sunbird, Collared - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Cinnyris afer Sunbird, Greater Double-collared - - -
Cyanomitra veroxii Sunbird, Grey - - -
Nectarinia famosa Sunbird, Malachite - - -
Cyanomitra olivacea Sunbird, Olive - - -
Cinnyris bifasciatus Sunbird, Purple-banded - - -
Chalcomitra senegalensis Sunbird, Scarlet-chested - - -
Cinnyris chalybeus Sunbird, Southern Double-collared - - -
Cinnyris talatala Sunbird, White-bellied - - -
Hirundo rustica Swallow, Barn - - -
Hirundo cucullata Swallow, Greater Striped - - -
Hirundo abyssinica Swallow, Lesser Striped - - -
Hirundo albigularis Swallow, White-throated - - -
Hirundo smithii Swallow, Wire-tailed - - -
Porphyrio madagascariensis Swamphen, African Purple - - -
Acrocephalus gracilirostris Swamp-warbler, Lesser - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Apus barbatus Swift, African Black - - -
Tachymarptis melba Swift, Alpine - - -
Apus apus Swift, Common - - -
Apus horus Swift, Horus - - -
Apus affinis Swift, Little - - -
Apus caffer Swift, White-rumped - - -
Tchagra senegalus Tchagra, Black-crowned - - -
Tchagra tchagra Tchagra, Southern - - -
Anas hottentota Teal, Hottentot - - -
Anas erythrorhyncha Teal, Red-billed - - -
Sterna paradisaea Tern, Arctic - - -
Chlidonias niger Tern, Black - - -
Sterna caspia Tern, Caspian Vulnerable Protected -
Sterna hirundo Tern, Common - - -
Sterna bergii Tern, Swift - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Chlidonias hybrida Tern, Whiskered - - -
Chlidonias leucopterus Tern, White-winged - - -
Burhinus capensis Thick-knee, Spotted - - -
Burhinus vermiculatus Thick-knee, Water - - -
Psophocichla litsipsirupa Thrush, Groundscraper - - -
Turdus smithi Thrush, Karoo - - -
Turdus libonyanus Thrush, Kurrichane - - -
Turdus olivaceus Thrush, Olive - - -
Pogoniulus pusillus Tinkerbird, Red-fronted - - -
Pogoniulus bilineatus Tinkerbird, Yellow-rumped - - -
Parus niger Tit, Southern Black - - -
Apaloderma narina Trogon, Narina - - -
Tauraco corythaix Turaco, Knysna - - -
Gallirex porphyreolophus Turaco, Purple-crested - - -
Arenaria interpres Turnstone, Ruddy - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Streptopelia capicola Turtle-dove, Cape - - -
Mandingoa nitidula Twinspot, Green - - -
Gypohierax angolensis Vulture, Palm-nut - - -
Motacilla aguimp Wagtail, African Pied - - -
Motacilla capensis Wagtail, Cape - - -
Motacilla clara Wagtail, Mountain - - -
Bradypterus barratti Warbler, Barratt's - - -
Schoenicola brevirostris Warbler, Broad-tailed - - -
Chloropeta natalensis Warbler, Dark-capped Yellow - - -
Sylvia borin Warbler, Garden - - -
Bradypterus sylvaticus Warbler, Knysna Vulnerable - -
Acrocephalus palustris Warbler, Marsh - - -
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Warbler, Sedge - - -
Phylloscopus trochilus Warbler, Willow - - -
Platysteira peltata Wattle-eye, Black-throated - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Uraeginthus angolensis Waxbill, Blue - - -
Estrilda astrild Waxbill, Common - - -
Estrilda perreini Waxbill, Grey - - -
Amandava subflava Waxbill, Orange-breasted - - -
Coccopygia melanotis Waxbill, Swee - - -
Ploceus capensis Weaver, Cape - - -
Ploceus bicolor Weaver, Dark-backed - - -
Ploceus xanthops Weaver, Golden - - -
Ploceus xanthopterus Weaver, Southern Brown-throated - - -
Ploceus ocularis Weaver, Spectacled - - -
Amblyospiza albifrons Weaver, Thick-billed - - -
Ploceus cucullatus Weaver, Village - - -
Ploceus subaureus Weaver, Yellow - - -
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel, Common - - -
Zosterops virens White-eye, Cape - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – Regional Status - NEMBA TOPS List KZN Specially (2013) Protected Species (1974)
Vidua macroura Whydah, Pin-tailed - - -
Euplectes axillaris Widowbird, Fan-tailed - - -
Euplectes ardens Widowbird, Red-collared - - -
Euplectes albonotatus Widowbird, White-winged - - -
Turtur chalcospilos Wood-dove, Emerald-spotted - - -
Phoeniculus purpureus Wood-hoopoe, Green - - -
Phylloscopus ruficapilla Woodland-warbler, Yellow-throated - - -
Strix woodfordii Wood-owl, African - - -
Dendropicos namaquus Woodpecker, Bearded - - -
Dendropicos fuscescens Woodpecker, Cardinal - - -
Campethera abingoni Woodpecker, Golden-tailed - - -
Dendropicos griseocephalus Woodpecker, Olive - - -
Jynx ruficollis Wryneck, Red-throated - - -
Source: Distributions= SABAP2 Conservation Status: = BirdLife SA (2015), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
APPENDIX E List of herpetofauna potentially present in Project site
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Reptiles
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Agamidae Acanthocercus atricollis Southern Tree Agama - - - - atricollis
Agama aculeata distanti Eastern Ground - - - Endemic Agama
Chamaeleonidae Bradypodion KwaZulu Dwarf Vulnerable Vulnerable - Endemic melanocephalum Chameleon
Chamaeleo dilepis Flap-neck Chameleon - - - -
Colubridae Crotaphopeltis Red-lipped Snake - - - - hotamboeia
Dasypeltis inornata Southern Brown Egg- - - - Endemic eater
Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic Egg-eater - - - -
Dispholidus typus Boomslang - - - -
Philothamnus Green Water Snake - - - - hoplogaster
Philothamnus natalensis Eastern Natal Green - - - - natalensis Snake
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Philothamnus natalensis Western Natal Green - - Endemic occidentalis Snake
Philothamnus Spotted Bush Snake - - - - semivariegatus
Thelotornis capensis Southern Twig Snake - - - - capensis
Cordylidae Chammaesaura anguina Cape Grass Lizard - - - Endemic anguina
Chammaesaura Large-scaled Grass Near Threatened Protected - Endemic macrolepis Lizard
Cordylus vittifer Common Girdled - - - Near Endemic Lizard
Elapidae Dendroaspis Eastern Green Mamba - Vulnerable - - angusticeps
Dendroaspis polylepis Black Mamba - - - -
Elapsoidea sundevallii Sundevall's Garter - - - - Snake
Hemachatus Rinkhals - - - Near Endemic heamachatus
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Hydrophis platurus Yellow-bellied Sea - - - - Snake
Naja melanoleuca Forest Cobra - - - -
Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting - - - - Cobra
Afroedura pondolia Pondo Flat Gecko - - - Endemic
Hemidactylus mabouia Common Tropical - - - - House Gecko
Homopholis wahbergii Wahlberg’s Velvet - - - - Gecko
Lygodactylus capensis Common Dwarf Gecko - - - - capensis
Pachydactylus Spotted Gecko - Protected - Near Endemic maculatus
Gerrhosauridae Gerrhosaurus flavigulari Yellow-throated Plated - - - - Lizard
Tetradactylus africanus Eastern Long-tailed - - - Endemic Seps
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Lamprophiidae Amblyodipas concolor KwaZulu-Natal Purple- - - - Endemic glossed Snake
Amblyodipas polylepis Common Purple- - - - - polylepis glossed Snake
Aparallactus capensis Cape centipede-eater - - - -
Atractaspis bibronii Bibron’s Stiletto Snake - - - -
Boaedon capensis Common House - - - - Snake
Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug - - - Endemic Eater
Gonionotophis capensis Common Field Snake - - - - capensis
Gonionotophis nyassae Black File Snake - - - -
Homoroselaps dorsalis Striped Harlequin Near Threatened - Protected Endemic Snake
Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin - - - Endemic Snake
Lamprophis aurora Aurora Snake - - - Endemic
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Lamprophis guttatus Spotted Rock Snake - Protected - Near Endemic
Lycodonomorphus Live Ground Snake - - - Endemic inornatus
Lycodonomorphus Dusky-bellied Water - - - - laevissimus Snake
Lycodonomorphus Brown Water Snake - - - - rufulus
Macrelaps KwaZulu-Natal Black Near Threatened - - Endemic microlepidotus Snake
Psammophis brevirostris Short-snouted Grass - - - - Snake
Psammophylax Spotted Grass Snake - - - - rhombeatus rhombeatus
Pseudaspis cana Mole Snake - - - -
Pelomedusidae Pelomedusa subrufa Marsh Terrapin - - - -
Pythonidae Python natalensis South African Python - Protected Protected -
Scincidae Acontias plumbeus Giant Legless Skink - - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Afroablepharus Wahlberg’s Snake- - - - - wahlbergii eyed Skink
Scelotes mossambicus Mozambique Dwarf - - - Near Endemic Burrowing Skink
Scelotes inornatus Durban Dwarf Critically Endangered - - - Burrowing Skink
Trachylepis Red-sided Skink - - - Endemic homalocephala
Trachylepis striata Striped Skink - - - -
Trachylepis sulcata Western Rock Skink - - - -
Trachylepis varia Variable Skink - - - -
Typhlopidae Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron’s Blind Snake - - - Near Endemic
Leptotyphlops scutifrons Peter's Thread Snake - - - -
Leptotyphlops sylivicolus Forest Thread Snake Data Deficient - - Endemic
Varanidae Varanus albigularis Rock Monitor - - Protected - albigularis
Varanus niloticus Water Monitor - - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
IUCN – Regional NEMBA TOPS List KZN Protected Endemic Status Status (2014) (2013) Species (1974)
Viperidae Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder - - - -
Causus defilippii Snouted Night Adder - - - -
Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder - - - -
Sources: Distribution = Bates et al. (2014)/ADU ReptileMAP; Conservation Status = Bates et al. (2014), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Amphibians
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – NEMBA TOPS KZN Protected Regional Status List (2013) Species (1974)
Arthroleptidae Arthroleptis wahlbergi Bush Squeaker - - -
Leptopelis natalensis Natal Tree Frog - - -
Breviceptidae Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog - - -
Breviceps verrucosus Plain Rain Frog - - -
Bufonidae Amietophrynus gutturalis Guttural Toad - - -
Amietophrynus rangeri Raucous Toad - - -
Hemisotidae Hemisus guttatus Spotted Shovel-nosed Frog Vulnerable - -
Hemisus marmoratus Mottled Shovel-nosed Frog - - -
Hyperoliidae Afrixalus aureus Golden Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus delicates Delicate Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus fornasinii Greater Leaf-folding Frog - - -
Afrixalus spinifrons Natal Leaf-folding Frog Vulnerable - -
Hyperolius acuticeps Sharp-nosed Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius argus Argus Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – NEMBA TOPS KZN Protected Regional Status List (2013) Species (1974)
Hyperolius pickersgilli Pickersgill’s Reed Frog Endangered Critically - Endangered
Hyperolius pusillus Water Lily Frog - - -
Hyperolius semidiscus Yellow-striped Reed Frog - - -
Hyperolius tuberilinguis Tinker Reed Frog - - -
Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina - - -
Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog - - -
Phrynobatrachidae Phrynobatrachus mabiensis Dwarf Puddle Frog - - -
Phrynobatrachus natalensis Snoring Puddle Frog - - -
Pipidae Xenopus laevis Common Platanna - - -
Ptychadenidae Ptychadena anchietae Plan Grass Frog - - -
Ptychadena oxyrhynchus Sharp-nosed Grass frog - - -
Ptychadena porosissima Striped Grass Frog - - -
Pyxicephalidae Amietia angolensis Common River Frog - - -
Anhydrophryne hewitti Natal Chirping Frog - - -
Cacosternum boettgeri Common Caco - - -
October 2019 1791874-324751-8
Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status
Red List – NEMBA TOPS KZN Protected Regional Status List (2013) Species (1974)
Cacosternum nanum Bronze Caco - - -
Cacosternum striatum Striped Caco Data Deficient - -
Natalobatrachus bonebergi Kloof Frog Endangered - -
Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog - - -
Strongylopus grayii Clicking Stream Frog - - -
Tomopterna cryptotis Tremolo Sand Frog - - -
Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog - - -
Source: Distributions = du Preez & Carruthers (2009)/ADU FrogMAP; Conservation Status = IUCN (2018-2), NEMBA ToPS List (2013) & KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 15 of 1974).
October 2019
APPENDIX F Specialist CVs
Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Golder Associates Africa (Pty.) Ltd. – Johannesburg Education Terrestrial Ecologist MSc. Resource Conservation Biology, Andrew Zinn is a terrestrial ecologist with Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd. In University of the this role he conducts terrestrial ecology studies, comprising flora and fauna Witwatersrand, surveys, for baseline ecological assessments and ecological impact Johannesburg, 2013 assessments. He has worked on projects in several African countries including Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, South Africa BSc. Hons. Ecology and Conservation Biology, and Tanzania. University of KwaZulu- Andrew is a qualified ecologist, holding a Master of Science degree in Resource Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Conservation Biology from the University of the Witwatersrand. Before joining 2005 Golder's Ecology Division, Andrew worked for WSP Environment and Energy. He has also worked on a range of conservation and ecology related projects, both BSc. Zoology and Grassland Science, locally in South Africa, including work in the Kruger National Park, as well as University of KwaZulu- further afield in Northern Ireland and the United Arab Emirates. Andrew is Natal, Pietermaritzburg, registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions as a 2004 Professional Natural Scientist - Ecological Science.
Certifications Member of the South African Wildlife Management Association, 2013 Employment History
Registered with the South Sub-contracted to KPMG UAE – Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates African Council of Natural Independent ecological consultant (2011 to 2011) Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural I was subcontracted to KPMG UAE as a subject matter expert on a team Scientist , conducting an internal audit of the Conservation Department of Sir Bani Yas 2015 Desert Island, in the United Arab Emirates. The island is a conservation and tourism destination off the coast of Abu Dhabi, in the Arabian Gulf. Languages
English – Fluent WSP Environment and Energy – Johannesburg Consultant (2008 to 2011) As an environmental consultant I was involved in a wide range of environmental projects. These included managing environmental authorisation projects (EIA and BA studies), facilitating stakeholder engagement processes, conducting compliance audits and developing environmental management programmes (EMP). I was also involved in specialist ecological projects.
Yale University/Kansas State University – Satara, Kruger National Park Researcher (2007 to 2008) I was employed as a research technician on the Savanna Convergence Project in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. The project is long-term, cross- continental study investigating the roles of fire and herbivory on savanna/prairie vegetation dynamics. I was responsible for the collection and analyses of vegetation and herbivore distribution data.
1 Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ECOLOGY Nidvest Tank Developed a rehabilitation plan for the upgrading of the Quarry 2 Tank Terminals Terminals, Quarry 2 in the Durban Harbour complex. Tank Terminals KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa Frontier Mine Conducted a biodiversity screening study for the Frontier Mine Concession in line Katanga Province, with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Democratic Republic of Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Congo Management of Living Natural Resources. Metalkol Mine Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Metalkol Mine Concession in Katanga Province, line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Democratic Republic of Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Congo Management of Living Natural Resources. Boss and COMIDE Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Boss and COMIDE Mine Mines Concessions in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the Katanga Province, International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation Democratic Republic of and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources. Congo Kipoi Copper Mine Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Kipoi Mine Concession in line Katanga Province, with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Democratic Republic of Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Congo Management of Living Natural Resources.
Kipushi Mine Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, Katanga Province, of the Kipushi Mine lease area. Democratic Republic of Congo Arcelor Mittal Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessments at various Arcelor Mittal Gauteng and Western properties, including Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Pretoria and Suldanha Cape, South Africa Phalaborwa Mining Conduct annual VEGRAI monitoring assessments at select sampling points Company along the Olifants and Selati Rivers. Limpopo Province, South Africa Kusile Power Station Completed a search and rescue operation of Red Data and Protected plants Mpumalanga Province, growing in the development footprint of the proposed Kusile Power Station 10 South Africa year ash stack. Ndumo - Gezisa Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, Power-line Project of the proposed route alternatives of the Ndumo-Gezisa Power-line. Maputaland, KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa
2 Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Scaw Metals - Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessment at various Scaw Metal Manufacturing properties to provide control and eradication recommendations. Facilities Gauteng & Free State, South Africa Jwaneng Diamond Conducted a flora assessment of undisturbed and disturbed areas at Jwaneng Mine Diamond Mine to inform the development of a re-vegetation protocol, as part of Southern District, the mines rehabilitation programme. Botswana Komoa Copper Project Participated on the terrestrial ecology assessment of the exploration area of the Katanga Province, proposed Komoa Copper Mine. Democratic Republic of Congo Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, Shinyana Region, of the site of the proposed tailings facility No. 4 at Bulyanhulu Gold Mine. Tanzania Tshikondeni Coal Mine Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of theTshikondeni Coal Mine lease Limpopo Province, area, with the aim of providing a ecological baseline to inform the development of South Africa a mine rehabilitation plan. Grootegeluk Coal Mine Conducted an ecological sensitivities assessment of the sites of the proposed Limpopo Province, entrance road and cyclic ponds at Exxaro Coal's Grootegeluk Mine. South Africa Mafube Colliery - Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of the Nooitgedacht Nooitgedacht portion of the proposed Mafube Colliery. Mpumalanga Province, South Africa Ruighoek Chrome Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of areas of Ruighoek Mine Mine in which open cast pit mining has been proposed. North-West Province, South Africa
TRAINING Basic Principles of Ecological Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Centre for Environmental Management, North-West University, 2008
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions Southern African Wildlife Management Association
PUBLICATIONS Journal Articles Burkepile, D.E., C.E. Burns, E. Amendola, G.M. Buis, N. Govender, V. Nelson, C.J. Tambling, D.I. Thompson, A.D. Zinn and M.D. Smith. Habitat selection by large herbivores in a southern African savanna: the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces. Ecosphere, 4(11):139 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00078.7.
3 Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)
Knapp, A.K., D.L. Hoover, J.M. Blair, G. Buis, D.E. Burkepile, A. Chamberlain, S.L. Collins, R.W.S Fynn, K.P. Kirkman, M.D. Smith, D. Blake, N. Govender, P. O'Neal, T. Schreck and A. Zinn. A test of two mechanisms proposed to optimize grassland aboveground primary productivity in response to grazing. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5 (2012), 357-365.
Zinn, A.D., D. Ward and K. Kirkman. Inducible defences in Acacia sieberiana in response to giraffe browsing. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 24 (2007), 123-129.
Zinn, A.D.. Exploitation vs. Conservation: A Burgeoning Fifth Column -. African Wildlife, 61 (2007), 9-11.
4 Resumé WARREN AKEN
Golder Associates Africa (Pty.) Ltd. – Johannesburg
Senior Aquatic Biologist / Team Lead: Social and Sciences Prof.Sci.Nat - 400495/14
Team lead and project manager in the Social and Sciences Group within the Mine Environment Division. Senior aquatic biologist in the fields of environmental impact assessments and environmental compliance to international standards. Specializes in aquatic biology focusing on ichthyofauna, aquatic macroinvertebrates and ecosystem functioning.
Freshwater Ecology and Aquatic Biodiversity As a qualified Ichthyologist Warren has subsequently completed his Master in Education Aquatic Health. With over ten years of experience working in African river M.Sc (Aquatic Health), systems, he is well equipped to assess the ecological drivers (e.g. habitat and University of Johannesburg, water quality) and biota of freshwater ecosystems. Further to this his exposure Johannesburg, South and understanding of the anthropogenic drivers allows for a pragmatic approach Africa, 2013 to determining the ecological status and cumulative impacts within a catchment. Warren has been trained in the use of SPATSIM (V3), for EFlow modelling in B.Sc Honours (Ichthyology and Fisheries Science), relation to hydropower developments. Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Environmental Compliance and Impact Assessment Africa, 2004 Working on both green and brownfields sites within the mining, oil and gas and industrial sectors, Warren has been involved in predevelopment baseline B.Sc (Ichthyology Zoology) , Rhodes University, assessments as well as compliance monitoring. Assessing the impacts of a Grahamstown, South project and applying the mitigation hierarchy is key to maintaining biodiversity Africa, 2003 and the ecosystem services they provide, whilst allowing sustainable development. Through the long term monitoring of rivers, Warren and team are Matric, Pretoria Boys High School, South Africa , 2000 able to detect trends and advise suitable mitigation measures and adaptive management. Certifications SASS5 Practitioner Aquaculture (Department of Water With an ever growing demand for protein, the growth of Aquaculture is expanding Affairs Accreditation), globally with numerous opportunities in Africa. Warren has been involved on the Expires 2020 EIA, auditing and strategic planning components of aquaculture development. First Aid Level 1, 2018 Client Management Warren maintains strong relationships with his clients, having worked on Category R Certificate of individual projects for over 10 years, whilst acting as the client relationship Competency (Skippers manager for various other technical disciplines. Licence), 2016 Project Management Languages Warren is involved in the initiation, planning, writing of proposals, execution and English – Fluent overall supervision of biodiversity projects to ensure that they are delivered on time, within budget and with the appropriate team to meet the client’s
expectations. In a diverse continent, and in line with the IFC’s Guidance Note 6, our team promotes the collaboration with recognized and credible organisation and or academic institutes.
Employment History
Independent Consultant – Madagascar and RSA
1 Resumé WARREN AKEN
Aquatic Biologist / Fish husbandry technician (July 2007 to December 2007) Worked as a sub-consultant for Golder Associates in Madagascar as well as in South Africa as an assistant aquatic biologist. Responsible for components of the Biodiversity Management Plan, which involved salvaging fish from the rivers and housing them in recirculating systems built on site. Conditioning and husbandry of fish.
Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fishery Board – Highland, Scotland Assistant Biologist (May 2005 to September 2005) Employed as a seasonal assistants for the summer. Involved in the hatchery, planting out of salmon fry, telemetry tagging, anti-poaching work and electro- fishing. Data collection, analysis and reporting.
2 Resumé WARREN AKEN
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Countries of project Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, work experience: Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Scotland, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia.
ERG Lead on the aquatics team for the baseline and impact assessment study of the Katanga, DRC aquatic ecosystems associated with four mines within the copperbelt. Zambia Hydropower Lead biodiversity specialist managing a core team of specialist for baseline data Development collection. Environmental Flow (EFlow) modelling for hydropower using Northern Province, SPATSIM V3 software. Zambia Seychelles Fishing Specialist lead for the Seychelles Mariculture Master Plan (MMP), addressing a Authority framework to launch an aquaculture industry. Mahé, Seychelles CLN Reviewer and technical advisor on the biodiversity and fisheries monitoring of the Nacala, Mozambique oil and gas operations in Northern Mozambique. Delonex Conducted a high level biodiversity assessment for seismic exploration activities. Somali, Ethiopia Highlands Trout Formed part of the team who conducted the Environmental Management Plan Katse, Lesotho (EMP) audit for the Highland Trout aquaculture operations located in Katse Dam. Farm Africa Conducted a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Kenyan Market-Led Nyanza, Kenya Aquaculture Programme. Sasol Gas to Power Lead aquatic biologist for the collection of baseline data in the Govuro River, Inhambane, assessing river crossings. Mozambique Kansanshi Lead on the aquatics team for the baseline and impact assessment study of the Solwezi, Zambia aquatic ecosystems associated with a proposed TSF. Blesbokspruit Worked on the Ecology team providing specialist input for the Ecological Springs, South Africa Economic Study. The project is based around the Eco System Services, which the Blesbokspruit provides. Johannesburg Water Project manager and coordinate the aquatic monitoring and Whole Effluent Johannesburg, South Toxicity (WET) testing, associated with four (4) of Johannesburg Waters Waste Africa Water Treatment Works (WWTW’s).
Matla I have been involved in the biological monitoring program for the Matla River Kriel, South Africa Diversion (Exxaro Resources), since baseline and impact assessment, through to present, where I now manage the project and conduct biannual aquatic monitoring. Kusile Working as part of the team for the baseline study for the proposed Bravo Ogies, South Africa (Eskom) power station, I participated in the aquatics screening assessment and survey.
3 Resumé WARREN AKEN
Palaborwa Mining Golder Associates (Pty) Ltd. conducts biomonitoring on sections of the Olifants Company and Selati Rivers associated with Palabora Mining Company (Pty) Ltd., Foskor Mpumalanga, South (Pty) Ltd and Bosveld Phosphate. Project manager and lead aquatic scientist Africa worked on the project since 2008 - present. Dynatec Ambatovy Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. was responsible for the Biodiversity Biodiversity Project Management for the Ambatovy Nickel and Cobalt mine in Madagascar. Worked Atsinanana, Madagascar on the aquatics salvaging fish from the rivers and housing them in systems we built on the mine site. Conditioning and husbandry of these salvaged fish was a part of the work. Riversdale Benga Coal Riversdale Mining (Pty) Ltd was contracted by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Concession to conduct the EIA for the proposed Benga Coal Concession. I was a part of the Tete, Mozambique Aquatic Sampling Team conducting work on the Zambezi and Revuboè River Systems. Lonmin Exploration Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. was approached by Lonmin Plc to conduct an Drilling environmental assessment of aquatic ecosystems associated with their Makamba, Tanzania exploration drilling activities in Tanzania. Prior to submitting a full work plan I attended a site visit in order to assess the area, identify sites and begin the collection of data. Vale Vale has contracted Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. to carry out ecological Tete, Mozambique work of which I conducted an ichthyofaunal assessment within the Moatize Industrial Complex.
TRAINING First Aid Level 1 2018
SUPPLEMENTAL SKILLS
GIS Practitioner I have experience and am currently using ArcMap 10.2 software. Skills include map production and analysis of ecological data.
Ecotoxicology Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) interpretation for aquatic ecosystems and reporting. Working in collaboration with the Golder Associates Research Laboratory (GARL).
Diatoms sampling Sample collection, interpretation of results and reporting.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS South African Society for Aquatic Scientists (SASAqS) Water Institute of Southern Africa (WISA) Zoological Society of Southern Africa (ZSSA)
4 Resumé WARREN AKEN
PUBLICATIONS Conference Aken, Warren and Roger Bills. 2014. An Inventory of Fish from Tete, the Lower Proceedings Zambezi, Mozambique. South African Society of Aquatic Scientists (SASAqS), June. Bloemfontein, RSA.
Other TAYLOR, J.C., GRAHAM, M., AKEN, W. And VAN RENSBURG, L. 2009. The Application of European Diatom Indices in Tropical and Sub-Tropical Rivers. International Symposium “Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers”. (Poster)
5 October 2019
APPENDIX G Specialist Declarations
Specialist Declaration
DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST
(For official use only) File Reference Number: DC/ NEAS Reference Number: Date Received:
Application for an environmental authorisation in terms of section 24(2) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) or for a waste management licence in terms of section 20(b) of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).,
PROJECT TITLE Application for EA, AEL and GA for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban
Specialist: Andrew Zinn (Golder Associates) Contact person: Andrew Zinn Postal address: P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House Postal code: 1685 Cell: 083 361 0373 Telephone: 011 254 4800 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Professional SACNASP – Pr.Sci.Nat. 400687/15 affiliation(s) (if any) South African Wildlife Management Association
Project Consultant: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Contact person: Natalie Kohler Postal address: P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House Postal code: 1685 Cell: 079 316 0920 Telephone: 011 254 4800 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]
Department of Economic Development, Details of the Specialist and Declaration of 01 July 2016 Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu- Interest Natal Page 1 of 2 Specialist Declaration
4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_
I, Andrew Zinn, declare that --
General declaration:
I act as the independent specialist in this application; do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014; I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and I am aware that a person is guilty of an offence in terms of Regulation 48 (1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014, if that person provides incorrect or misleading information. A person who is convicted of an offence in terms of sub-regulation 48(1) (a)-(e) is liable to the penalties as contemplated in section 49B(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).
Signature of the specialist:
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Name of company (if applicable):
10 September 2019 Date:
______
Department of Economic Development, Details of the Specialist and Declaration of 01 July 2016 Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu- Interest Natal Page 2 of 2 Specialist Declaration
DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST
(For official use only) File Reference Number: DC/ NEAS Reference Number: Date Received:
Application for an environmental authorisation in terms of section 24(2) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) or for a waste management licence in terms of section 20(b) of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).,
PROJECT TITLE Application for EA, AEL and GA for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project at Ambrose Park, in Bayhead, Durban
Specialist: Warren Aken (Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd) Contact person: Warren Aken Postal address: P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House Postal code: 1685 Cell: 078 388 6311 Telephone: 011 254 4800 Fax: E-mail: [email protected] Professional Prof.Sci.Nat. – 400495/14 affiliation(s) (if any)
Project Consultant: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Contact person: Natalie Kohler Postal address: P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House Postal code: 1685 Cell: 079 316 0920 Telephone: 011 254 4800 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]
Department of Economic Development, Details of the Specialist and Declaration of 01 July 2016 Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu- Interest Natal Page 1 of 2 Specialist Declaration
4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_
I, Warren Aken, declare that --
General declaration:
• I act as the independent specialist in this application; • do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014; • I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; • I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; • I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; • I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; • I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; • I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; • all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and • I am aware that a person is guilty of an offence in terms of Regulation 48 (1) of the EIA Regulations, 2014, if that person provides incorrect or misleading information. A person who is convicted of an offence in terms of sub-regulation 48(1) (a)-(e) is liable to the penalties as contemplated in section 49B(1) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998).
Signature of the specialist:
Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd Name of company (if applicable):
10 September 2019 Date:
______
Department of Economic Development, Details of the Specialist and Declaration of 01 July 2016 Tourism & Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu- Interest Natal Page 2 of 2
golder.com