Proposed Upgrades to the Diamond Coast Aquaculture Facility Kleinzee, Northern Cape

Home , Kleinzee

PROPOSED UPGRADES TO THE

DIAMOND COAST AQUACULTURE FACILITY

KLEINZEE, NORTHERN CAPE

PRE-APPLICATION BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Anchor Environmental Consulting Report No, 1758/2

PROPOSED UPGRADES TO THE DIAMOND COAST AQUACULTURE FACILITY KLEINZEE, NORTHERN CAPE

PRE-APPLICATION BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX F: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

May 2018

Report Prepared by: Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd. 8 Steenberg House, Silverwood Close, Tokai 7945, South Africa www.anchorenvironmental.co.za

Authors: Vera Massie and Ken Hutchings

Citation: Massie V & Hutchings K, 2018. Proposed upgrades to the Diamond Coast Aquaculture facility Kleinzee, Northern Cape – Pre-application basic assessment report: Appendix F: Environmental Impact Assessment. Supporting documentation for the Basic Assessment process conducted in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998). May 2018.

Cover Photo: Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED ...... 1 1.2 IMPACT RATING METHODOLOGY ...... 2

2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORICAL DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINT ...... 6

3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 11

3.1 POTENTIAL MARINE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ...... 11 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 11 3.1.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – IDENTIFICATION AND NATURE OF IMPACTS ...... 12 3.1.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS: CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASES ...... 12 3.1.2.2 CUMULATIVE MARINE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ...... 15 3.1.2.3 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 15 3.1.3 THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 18 3.2 POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ...... 19 3.2.1 INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 19 3.2.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 3.2.3 FINDINGS OF THE SITE VISIT ...... 23 3.2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – IDENTIFICATION AND NATURE OF IMPACTS ...... 27 3.2.4.1 ASSESSMENT OF TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS: CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 28 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-TB1: IMPACT ON VEGETATION AND LISTED OR PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES ...... 28 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-TB2: ALIEN PLANT INVASION RISK ...... 29 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-TB3: NEGATIVE IMPACT ON FAUNA (INCLUDING BIRDS AND BATS) ...... 29 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-TB4: DISRUPTION OF LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY AND LOSS OF FUNCTION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA ...... 31 3.2.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS: OPERATION PHASE ...... 32 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-TB1: IMPACTS ON VEGETATION AND LISTED PLANT SPECIES ...... 32 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-TB2: INCREASED ALIEN PLANT INVASION RISK ...... 32 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-TB3: SALINISATION OF SOILS AND LOSS OF PLANT DIVERSITY ...... 33 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-TB4: NEGATIVE IMPACT ON FAUNA (EXCLUDING BIRDS AND BATS) ...... 33 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-TB5: DISRUPTION OF LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY AND LOSS OF FUNCTION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA ...... 34 3.2.4.3 CUMULATIVE TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ...... 35 3.2.4.4 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 36 3.2.5 THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 38 3.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AVIFAUNA AND BATS BY THE PROPOSED WIND ENERGY FACILITY ...... 39 3.3.1 INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 39 3.3.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY SITE ...... 40 3.3.3 BIRD AND BAT COMMUNITIES LIKELY TO BE PRESENT IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 41 3.3.3.1 BIRDS ...... 41 3.3.3.2 BATS ...... 51 3.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS AND BATS ...... 55 3.3.4.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON BIRDS AND BATS: CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 55 3.3.4.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON BIRDS AND BATS: OPERATION PHASE ...... 55 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-BB1: BIRD AND BAT COLLISION WITH ROTATING TURBINES BLADES ...... 56 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-BB2: BAROTRAUMA ASSOCIATED BAT MORTALITIES ...... 57

POTENTIAL IMPACT BB3: BIRD COLLISION WITH POWER LINES AND ELECTROCUTION BY PERCHING ON ELECTRICAL STRUCTURES ...... 58 3.3.4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BIRDS AND BATS ...... 59 3.3.4.4 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 59 3.3.5 THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 60 3.4 POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...... 61 3.4.1 INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 61 3.4.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – IDENTIFICATION AND NATURE OF IMPACTS ...... 62 3.4.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS: CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 62 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-SE1: INVESTMENT IN THE LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY ...... 63 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-SE2: INCREASED EMPLOYMENT, INCOME AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ...... 63 POTENTIAL IMPACT CP-SE3: NOISE GENERATION ...... 64 3.4.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS: OPERATION PHASE ...... 65 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE1: INVESTMENT INTO THE LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY ...... 65 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE2: INCREASED EMPLOYMENT, INCOME AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ...... 66 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OP-SE3: IMPACT OF DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY ON SEA FISHERIES ...... 67 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OP-SE4: IMPACT OF DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY ON THE MARICULTURE SECTOR (INCLUDING RANCHING) ...... 68 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OP-SE5: DISEASE TRANSMISSION TO COMMERCIALLY IMPORTANT MARINE SPECIES ...... 68 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE6: DISEASE TRANSMISSION TO ABALONE RANCHING OPERATIONS ...... 69 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE7: IMPACT OF INVASIVE SPECIES ON HARVESTED MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ...... 70 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE8: IMPACT OF EFFLUENT DISCHARGE ON RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ...... 70 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OP-SE9: VISUAL INTRUSION FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 71 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE10: NOISE GENERATION ...... 73 POTENTIAL IMPACT OP-SE11: ACCESS TO COASTAL PUBLIC PROPERTY ...... 75 3.4.2.3 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 76 3.4.3 THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 77 3.5 POTENTIAL HERITAGE IMPACTS ...... 78 3.5.1 INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHODOLOGY ...... 78 3.5.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – IDENTIFICATION AND NATURE OF IMPACTS ...... 78 3.5.2.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY ...... 78 INTRODUCTION ...... 78 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ...... 79 AIM ...... 79 RESULTS ...... 79 IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 80 CONCLUSION ...... 81 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 81 3.5.2.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL STUDY ...... 81 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 81 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 82 3.5.2.3 MARITIME HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 83 INTRODUCTION ...... 83 FINDINGS ...... 83 IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 83 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 83 3.5.3 THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE ...... 84

4 REFERENCES ...... 85

GLOSSARY Abalone Abalone is a common name for any of a group of small to very large sea snails, marine gastropod molluscs in the family Haliotidae. Here it refers to the species Haliotis midae. Alien An organism occurring outside its natural past or present range and dispersal potential including any parts of the organism that might survive and subsequently reproduce (organisms whose dispersal is caused by human action). Bathymetry The measured depth of water in oceans, seas, or lakes. Bioaccumulation The process where the chemical concentration in an aquatic organism achieves a level that exceeds that in the water as a result of chemical uptake through all routes of chemical exposure (e.g. dietary absorption, transport across the respiratory surface, dermal absorption). Biosecurity A set of preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, quarantined pests, invasive alien species, and living modified organisms. Catadromous Migratory behaviour of organisms that spend most of their lives in freshwater but travel to the sea to breed. Chemical oxygen demand A measure of the capacity of water to consume oxygen during the decomposition of organic matter and the oxidation of inorganic chemicals such as Ammonia and nitrite. Ephemeral river A stream that flows only briefly during and following a period of rainfall in the immediate locality. Euphotic zone In a water body, the layer closer to the surface that receives enough light for photosynthesis to occur. Invasive Alien organisms that have naturalised in a new area and expanding their range. Mixing zone A mixing zone is an administrative construct which defines a limited area or volume of the receiving water where the initial dilution of a discharge is allowed to occur, until the water quality standards are met. In practice, it may occur within the near-field or far-field of a hydrodynamic mixing process and therefore depends on source, ambient, and regulatory constraints. Orthophosphate Synonyms: phosphate, filterable reactive phosphate, reactive phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphate. The phosphate form which is most readily utilised by biota and provides a good estimation of the amount of phosphorus available for algae and plant growth. Solid waste All solid waste, including construction debris, chemical waste, excess

iii

cement/concrete, wrapping materials, timber, tins and cans, drums, wire, nails, food and domestic waste (e.g. plastic packets and wrappers). Species Defined in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No 10 of 2004), which means a kind of animal, plant or other organism that does not normally interbreed with individuals of another kind, and includes any subspecies, cultivar, variety, geographic race, strain, hybrid or geographically separate population. Turbidity The cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by large numbers of individual organic and/or inorganic particles that are generally invisible to the naked eye, similar to smoke in air. The measurement of turbidity is a key test of water quality. Upwelling A process that is induced by offshore winds transporting coastal surface water offshore, which is replaced by rising deep, cold and nutrient-rich water.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEC Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd. AIS Alien and Invasive Species BA Basic Assessment BAR Basic Assessment Report CBA Critical Biodiversity Areas COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research CWDP Coastal Waters Discharge Permit DCA Diamond Coast Aquaculture DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEA:O&C Department of Environmental Affairs Branch: Oceans & Coasts DO Dissolved oxygen EA Environmental Authorisation EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMPr Environmental Management Programme ESA Ecological Support Area ICMA National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of 2008) IMTA Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture NEMBA National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No 10 of 2004) NHRA National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) ONA Other Natural Areas RMZ Recommended Mixing Zone RUI Really Useful Investments No 72 (Pty) Ltd SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency TSS Total Suspended Solids

vi Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

1 INTRODUCTION Diamond Coast Aquaculture (hereinafter referred to as DCA) owns and operates an aquaculture farm on Farm 654 Portion 1 near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape, which is situated on land previously owned and mined by the DeBeers Group. DCA now owns this land and currently holds the environmental authorisation and aquaculture right for this facility, which has an annual production capacity of 150 t of abalone and 200 t of seaweed. DCA intends to expand their annual production capacity to 1000 t of abalone, 2000 t of finfish, 5000 t of seaweed, 300 t of oysters, sea urchins and/or sea cucumbers. The expansion of the DCA facility triggers a number of Listed Activities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014 (as amended by Government Notice No. 40772 of 7 April 2017), promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). DCA is therefore required to apply for Environmental Authorisation to the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation. DCA appointed Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd (Anchor) to undertake the Basic Assessment (BA) process.

This appendix presents the detailed impact assessment that forms part of and is reported in the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) compiled for the project. It must be read in conjunction with the BAR, Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) and any other appendices compiled for this project as listed in the BAR.

1.1 Environmental Impacts Identified Based on the professional experience of the environmental assessment practitioner, legal requirements, the nature of the proposed activity, the nature of the receiving environment, the following key environmental issues – potential negative impacts and potential benefits – were identified:

• Marine ecology – potential alteration of the marine ecology due to effluent discharges from the land-based aquaculture facility. • Potential terrestrial biodiversity impacts due to the clearing of vegetation, erection of fences, new aquaculture facility infrastructure and erection of wind turbines. • Potential impacts on avifauna and bats resulting from the erection of wind turbines. • Social and socio-economic – potential socio-economic benefits to the wider community in the form of job creation, skills development, increased investment and growth. The proposed development will also have visual impacts as a result of the construction of aquaculture and windfarm infrastructure, as well as lighting at night. Noise levels may also increase during the construction and Operation phases of the project. In combination visual and noise impacts will alter the sense of place in the area. • Heritage – potential impact on heritage resources on the land and the sea bed, notably wrecks and associated artefacts.

Note that due to the scale of the proposed aquaculture farm and potential long-term impacts on the marine environment, Anchor conducted a marine ecology specialist study, which is included in Appendix D of the Basic Assessment Report. The Heritage Impact Assessment was compiled by the

1 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Agency for Cultural Resource Management (ACRM). This specialist study is also included in Appendix D of the Basic Assessment Report.

1.2 Impact Rating Methodology The assessment of impacts was based on specialists’ expertise, Anchor Environmental’s professional judgement, field observations and desk-top analysis. The significance of all potential impacts that would result from the proposed project is determined in order to assist decision-makers. The significance of an impact is defined as a combination of the consequence of the impact occurring and the probability that the impact will occur. The significance of each identified impact was thus rated according to the methodology set out below: Step 1 – Determine the consequence rating for the impact by determining the score for each of the three criteria (A-C) listed below and then adding them. The rationale for assigning a specific rating, and comments on the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources and be irreversible, must be included in the narrative accompanying the impact rating:

Rating Definition of Rating Score A. Extent – the area over which the impact will be experienced Confined to project or study area or part thereof (e.g. limits of the Local 1 concession area) Regional The region (e.g. the whole of Namaqualand coast) 2 (Inter) national South African land and waters and beyond 3 B. Intensity – the magnitude of the impact in relation to the sensitivity of the receiving environment, taking into account the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources Low Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes are negligibly altered 1 Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions and processes continue albeit in a Medium 2 modified way High Site-specific and wider natural and/or social functions or processes are severely altered 3 C. Duration – the time frame for which the impact will be experienced and its reversibility Short-term Up to 2 years 1 Medium-term 2 to 15 years 2 Long-term More than 15 years (state whether impact is irreversible) 3

The combined score of these three criteria corresponds to a Consequence Rating, as follows:

Combined Score (A+B+C) 3 – 4 5 6 7 8 – 9 Consequence Rating Very low Low Medium High Very high

2 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Example 1:

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

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

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

Example 2:

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

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

Probability Improbable Possible Probable Definite

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

Example 3:

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

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

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

3 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Step 5 – State the level of confidence in the assessment of the impact (high, medium or low). Impacts are also considered in terms of their status (positive or negative impact) and the confidence in the ascribed impact significance rating. The prescribed system for considering impacts status and confidence (in assessment) is laid out in the table below. Depending on the data available, a higher level of confidence may be attached to the assessment of some impacts than others. For example, if the assessment is based on extrapolated data, this may reduce the confidence level to low, noting that further ground-truthing is required to improve this.

Confidence rating Status of impact + ve (beneficial) or – ve (cost) Confidence of assessment Low, Medium or High

Example 5:

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

The significance rating of impacts is considered by decision-makers, as shown below. Note, this method does not apply to minor impacts which can be logically grouped into a single assessment. INSIGNIFICANT: the potential impact is negligible and will not have an influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity. VERY LOW: the potential impact is very small and should not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity. LOW: the potential impact may not have any meaningful influence on the decision regarding the proposed activity. MEDIUM: the potential impact should influence the decision regarding the proposed activity. HIGH: the potential impact will affect a decision regarding the proposed activity. VERY HIGH: The proposed activity should only be approved under special circumstances.

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

• Essential: must be implemented and are non-negotiable; and • Best Practice: must be shown to have been considered and sound reasons provided by the proponent if not implemented. Essential mitigation and optimisation measures must be inserted into the completed impact assessment table. The impact should be re-assessed with mitigation, by following Steps 1-5 again to demonstrate how the extent, intensity, duration and/or probability change after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

4 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Example 6: A completed impact assessment table

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long- Without Regional Medium High term mitigation 2 2 7 Probable HIGH – ve High 3 Essential mitigation measures: xxxxx xxxxx Long- Local Low Low With mitigation term Improbable VERY LOW – ve High 1 1 5 3

Step 7 – Prepare a summary table of all impact significance ratings as follows:

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

Indicate whether the proposed development alternatives are environmentally suitable or unsuitable in terms of the respective impacts assessed by the relevant specialist and the environmentally preferred alternative.

5 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORICAL DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINT Farm 654 Portion 1 near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape was previously owned and mined by the DeBeers Group. De Beers Namaqualand Mines was active on this farm portion until mid-2011, after which Diamond Coast Aquaculture assumed full management responsibility over the property (refer to letter from the Mine Manager WG Macdonald in Appendix J of this pre-application BAR). The entire farm portion has been heavily disturbed by mining activities over the last 100 years. Much of the area was mined down to bedrock. The last mining-specific activities on this land were recorded in June 2006 in the northern portion of the property (mine-block AK15B). Rehabilitation activities involve shaping of mine tails (dumps), which were mostly left to be naturally colonised by surrounding vegetation. In flatter areas rows of nets were erected to act as wind breakers which, in other rehabilitated areas, have been shown to facilitate establishment of seedlings. However, on Farm 654 Portion 1, recovery of indigenous plant communities seems to be rather slow (Refer to photos taken during the site visit included in Appendix B). The mining and rehabilitation activities on Farm 654 Portion 1 by DeBeers are listed in Table 1 and are shown in relation to the proposed development footprint in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Indigenous vegetation is defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Listing Notice 2 as “[...] vegetation consisting of indigenous plant species occurring naturally in an area, regardless of the level of alien infestation and where the topsoil has not been lawfully disturbed during the preceding ten years.” DCA intends to clear approximately 35 ha of vegetation for the proposed expansion of the farm. Activity 15 of Listing Notice 2 states that scoping and environmental impact reporting is required if more than 20 ha of indigenous vegetation is removed (linear activities are excluded from this provision). The spatial analysis shows that the topsoil of the majority of the land to be developed by DCA was last lawfully disturbed in 2010-2012 (Table 1, Figure 1 and Figure 2). This means that only approximately 4.5 ha (a maximum of 10 ha depending on where the wind turbines will be situated) of indigenous vegetation, as defined by the EIA Regulations, will be cleared (refer to Table 1). It follows that this development does not trigger EIA Notice 2 Activity 15. More than 1 ha of indigenous vegetation will, however, be cleared and Listing Notice 1 Activity 27 applies.

Notwithstanding the definition of indigenous vegetation applied by the EIA Regulations, much of the area was mined down to the bedrock and the topsoil was not returned to the mining sites during open cast mining for alluvial diamonds. Consequently, seawater seepage occurs in the low lying areas where the main aquaculture area will be situated. Vegetation does not recover well on saline soils and bedrock and those areas remain mostly bare. Recovery of indigenous plant communities in other areas has also been very slow where only a handful of species dominate. The findings of the site visit are described in Section 3.2.3 below. Photos of the site visit can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 1 Historic DeBeers mining blocks and mining operation dump sites on Farm 654 Portion 1 in relation to the footprint of the proposed Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm expansion. The last mining-specific activities took place in June 2006 from mine-block AK15B. (Source: DeBeers Group of Companies).

Figure 2 DeBeers post-mining rehabilitation areas mining in relation to the footprint of the proposed Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm expansion. Earth-moving activities on rehabilitation area KZ006 related to rehabilitation care and maintenance were conducted in June 2011. (Source: DeBeers Group of Companies).

Table 1 Farm 654 Portion 1 Mining and Rehabilitation activities prior to transfer of the land to Diamond Coast Aquaculture. The total area of indigenous vegetation to be cleared is shown in the last column. Indigenous vegetation is defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Listing Notice 1 as “[...] vegetation consisting of indigenous plant species occurring naturally in an area, regardless of the level of alien infestation and where the topsoil has not been lawfully disturbed during the preceding ten years.”

AK_2A Pre-1980 • Profiling completed The maximum area to be February 2010. cleared on the entire wind farm area ~7 ha (1 wind • 0 ha Netting completed in June turbine ~0.25 ha. A maximum 2011. • Solar dams of 28 turbines with 660 kW Last disturbance of topsoil < Area with KZ_001 • Additional earth-moving will be installed). Most of the 10 years ago. The vegetation is no Mining Pre-1980 • Proposed wind farm area activities related to wind turbines will be erected therefore not considered ID rehabilitation care and on KZ_001 and KZ_010. indigenous. maintenance in The solar dams are negligible 2011/2012. with 0.04 ha. AK_6A Pre-1980 • Profiling completed • Solar dams, intake February 2010. AK_11A Pre-1980 structures and oyster dam • Netting completed in (Aquaculture farm) 0 ha August 2010 • Main farming area and Total area to be cleared ~ Last disturbance of topsoil < KZ_006 • Additional earth-moving oyster dam 22 ha. 10 years ago. The vegetation is activities related to therefore not considered AK_15A 2006 • Northern portion of main rehabilitation care and indigenous. farming area and effluent maintenance in June outfall pipe 2011. • Rehabilitation and 0 ha Area with profiling completed • Main farming area, Total area to be cleared ~ Last disturbance of topsoil < no Mining Pre-1980 KZ_005 February 2010. sewage works, solar dams 1.5 ha 10 years ago. The vegetation is ID • Netting completed in therefore not considered August 2010. indigenous. AK_20A 2006 4.5 ha • Finfish farm and hatchery • Profiling completed Pre- Total area to be cleared ~ Last disturbance of topsoil > KZ_007 • 2008 Northern portion of main 4.5 ha 10 years ago. The vegetation is AK_15B 2006 farming area therefore considered indigenous.

Indigenous vegetation to be Mining Record of last Rehabilitation Area Record of last rehabilitation Part of proposed Estimated total area to be cleared (Indigenous defined area ID mining activity ID or restoration activities development cleared as per EIA Regulations*) Most of the wind turbines are • Naturally restored area = likely to be situated on KZ_001 AK_15H Pre-1980 KZ_008 • Wind farm area pre 1980 and KZ_010. Clearance will be minimal. Most of the wind turbines are Area with likely to be situated on KZ_001 no Mining Pre-1980 KZ_009 • Roadway • Wind farm area and KZ_010. Clearance will be ID minimal. Maximum area to be cleared AK_20H Pre-1980 • Material was excavated on the entire wind farm area = from KZ_010 to construct ~7 ha (1 wind turbine = ~0.25 0 ha the oyster dam and the ha. A maximum of 28 turbines Pre-1980 Last disturbance of topsoil < abalone platform. with 660 kW will be installed). Road remnant KZ_010 • Wind farm area 10 years ago. The vegetation is AK_20N was mined • Profiling was completed therefore not considered during 2008 in 2011 as part of this indigenous. process. Most of the wind turbines are • Profiling completed pre- likely to be situated on KZ_001 AK_15N Pre-1980 KZ_004 • Wind farm area 2006 and KZ_010. Clearance will be minimal.

Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Potential marine ecological impacts 3.1.1 Introduction, terms of reference and methodology The proposed expansion of the DCA facility to include finfish and other organisms will result in the release of higher quantities of effluent of potentially poorer water quality than the effluent currently discharged by the abalone farm. Planned upgrades to the seawater intake and effluent outfall structures could also potentially impact on marine fauna and flora in the vicinity of the proposed development site. Anchor conducted a marine specialist study to assess the impacts on the marine environment and recommend mitigation measures. The full specialist report is included in Appendix D of the Basic Assessment Report and is envisioned to inform the amendment of the current application of the Coastal Waters Discharge Permit.

The proposed development is likely to impact on the marine ecology during the construction and Operation phases and a specialist impact assessment has been conducted as per the following terms of reference:

• A description of the proposed development; • A description of the affected environment based on available literature; • An impact assessment of potential environmental impacts within the marine environment as a result of the proposed project; and • Recommendation of mitigation measures to effectively reduce significant impacts.

The marine specialist impact assessment focused on the marine ecology of this area, but also considered the wider marine biogeographical context. Information and data collected from previous studies conducted along the Northern Cape coast were used with available scientific literature to describe the marine, sandy beach, rocky shore and nearshore subtidal reef ecology of these habitats in the Kleinzee area. For the purposes of the assessment, the study area was considered to include the coastline and adjacent surf zone to a distance of approximately 700 m offshore. The upper limit of the study area was set as the maximum height reached by the high water spring tides at the base of the dunes. This is the portion of the marine environment that is likely to be most impacted by the proposed development.

11 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.1.2 Preferred alternative – Identification and nature of impacts 3.1.2.1 Assessment of Impacts: Construction and Operation phases Impacts during the construction phase (and decommissioning phase) include the direct losses of intertidal and subtidal habitats and biota in the development footprint, impaired water quality and pollution, and noise and vibration. During the Operation phase, the following potential impacts were identified as being of concern: Impingement and entrainment of marine organisms in the seawater abstraction infrastructure; impaired water quality (TSS, nutrients and temperature) around the effluent outfall; waste disposal; maintenance and pipeline repair; the introduction of disease, parasites and alien species to the marine environment; and chemical pollution. When assessing impacts after implementing mitigation measures, one impact was rated as ‘insignificant’, five as ‘very low’ and four as ‘low’. No mitigation measures were required for six impacts rated as ‘very low’ or ‘insignificant’. The impacts are summarised in the tables below (Refer to the specialist report in Appendix D for the detailed impact assessment).

Potential marine ecological impacts are denoted by first listing the phase of the development (i.e. CP = Construction Phase; OP = Operation Phase) followed by the impact category (i.e. ME =Marine Ecology). Impacts are numbered consecutively and separately for the construction and Operation phases.

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

CP-ME Impact 1: Loss of intertidal habitat and biota within the Low Definite Low -ve Medium construction footprint. With Mitigation Very low Definite Very low -ve Medium CP-ME Impact 2: Sediment plumes generated during installation of Very low Probable Very low -ve High infrastructure may increase turbidity. With Mitigation No mitigation necessary. CP-ME Impact 3: Harmful chemicals (hydrocarbon spills originating from Medium Possible Low -ve High storage areas and construction vehicles). With Mitigation Low Improbable Very low -ve High

Construction CP-ME Impact 4: Waste disposal (Construction waste generated on site). Medium Probable Medium -ve High With Mitigation Medium Possible Low -ve High CP-ME Impact 5: Noise and vibration on shore birds, fish and marine Very low Probable Very low -ve High mammals (heavy machinery, earthmoving vehicles, generators, etc.). With Mitigation Very low Improbable Insignificant -ve High

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence OP-ME Impact 1: Seawater abstraction (impingement and entrainment of Low Improbable Very low -ve High biota). With Mitigation No mitigation required

OP-ME Impact 2: Elevated suspended solids in the water column due to Medium Probable Medium -ve Low particulate matter (uneaten food and faeces) I the effluent stream. With Mitigation Local Low Very low -ve Low OP-ME Impact 3: Eutrophication caused by nutrients in effluent stream. Medium Probable Medium -ve Low Operation With Mitigation Low Possible Very low -ve Low OP-ME Impact 4: Increased water temperature due to sun warming in Low Improbable Very low -ve High the aquaculture facilities

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 5: Disease and parasite transmission to wild stocks. (Import of stock and the high stocking densities typical of aquaculture can High Possible Medium -ve High lead to outbreaks of disease or parasitic infections which may be transmitted to susceptible wild species via the effluent stream). With Mitigation Medium Improbable Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 6: Chemical pollution due to water treatment and use of High Possible Medium -ve High therapeutic chemicals in the aquaculture facilities. With Mitigation Medium Possible Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 7a: Escape and establishment of rainbow trout. Potential Very low Possible Insignificant -ve High impacts on native fish, other marine biota and ecosystem function. With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 7b: Escape and establishment of Pacific oyster. Potential Low Improbable Very low -ve Medium impacts on native fish, other marine biota and ecosystem function. With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 8: Waste generation during Operation phase (domestic, Medium Probable Medium -ve High biological, production). With Mitigation Medium Possible Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 9: Deterioration of receiving water quality due to Very low Possible Very low -ve High mechanically removed, decomposing fouling organisms. With Mitigation No mitigation required

Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.1.2.2 Cumulative marine ecological impacts Anthropogenic activities can result in numerous and complex effects on the natural environment. While many of these are direct and immediate, the environmental effects of individual activities or projects can interact with each other in time and space to cause incremental or aggregate effects. Effects from unrelated activities may accumulate or interact to cause additional effects that may not be apparent when assessing the activities individually. Cumulative effects are defined as the total impact that a series of developments, either present, past or future, will have on the environment within a specific region over a particular period of time (DEAT IEM Guideline 7, Cumulative effects assessment 2004).

Existing pressures on the marine and coastal environment in Kleinzee are the decades of supra tidal and subtidal diamond mining and very low levels of commercial and recreational fishing and tourism. Cumulative impacts are considered to be insignificant for the following reasons:

1. Habitat loss is confined to the project’s intake and outfall infrastructure which has a very small footprint and cumulatively contributes little to ongoing habitat loss associated with the mining industry in the area; 2. Effective implementation of recommended mitigation measures results in a low significance impact assessment for waste disposal from the DCA aquaculture facility. There are no other effluent discharges into the sea for at least 70 km north and south. The DCA facility will therefore not contribute significantly to the accumulation of waste in the marine environment.

3.1.2.3 Summary of mitigation measures Construction phase

• To minimise disturbance, restrict the spatial extent of the work site within the coastal zone and educate all staff about sensitive marine habitats where unnecessary activities should be avoided. • Minimise disturbance above HWM, drive in intertidal on same tracks and rehabilitate disturbed areas; • Contingency plans in the event of accidental spills must be prepared and immediately implemented in the event of a spill. All fuel and oil is to be stored with adequate spill protection. No leaking vehicles or vessels are permitted on site; • To ensure that correct waste disposal practices are followed, inform all staff about sensitive marine species and the suitable disposal of construction waste. Suitable handling and disposal protocols must be clearly explained and sign boarded and the ‘Reduce, reuse, recycle’ hierarchy should be implemented. If applicable, filter water on start-up of farm to remove plastic debris; and • To reduce impacts from noise and vibrations, subject mobile equipment, vehicles and power generation equipment to noise tests at commencement and periodically throughout the construction phase. Implement noise or vibration reducing measures where possible.

15 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Operation phase

• To minimise waste load in the effluent the following mitigation measures must be implemented: 1. Feed conversion ratios should be carefully calculated and optimised 2. Effluent should be bio-remediated and partially recirculated using the Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture system targeted at nutrient and solid removal; 3. A screen for solids removal should be installed between the finfish and seaweed tanks; 4. Solids mobilised during tank cleaning are not to be diverted into the effluent stream without treatment (multi-trophic treatment, screening, settlement pond etc.); • To ensure that ambient water quality is not negatively affected, physico-chemical parameters of the effluent quality should be monitored daily (dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, pH) and other constituents such as nutrients, TSS, ammonia, hydrocarbons, chlorine, anti-biotics should be analysed at the frequency specified in the CWDP; • To minimise impacts of pipeline maintenance and repair, fouling should be removed by mechanical rather than chemical means; • To decrease the likelihood of disease and parasite transmission to wild fish stocks, strict biosecurity measures must be maintained. Incoming water and effluent water must be treated to prevent the proliferation of naturally occurring diseases and pathogens, all organisms must be obtained from certified disease, pathogen and parasite free sources, and all fry must undergo a health examination prior to stocking. All organisms introduced to the facility should be isolated in a quarantine system for a period of six weeks and subject to regular health inspections to monitor for disease. Stock should be regularly inspected for disease and parasites as part of a formalised stock health monitoring programme and necessary action to eliminate pathogens through the use of therapeutic chemicals or improved farm management must be taken immediately. This will require focused research effort into the identification, pathology and treatment of diseases and parasites infecting farmed species. Comprehensive records of all pathogens and parasites detected as well as logs detailing the efficacy of treatments applied must be kept. These records should be publically available to facilitate rapid responses by other operators to future outbreaks. Facilities must be kept clean with good husbandry practices and farms must adhere to industry standards (i.e. marine fin-fish standards and monitoring programmes). Upon the detection of an infection in any section of the facility, adjacent stocks must be treated simultaneously. Culture facilities must be designed to have multiple redundancy exclusion barriers or screens fine enough to contain the organisms being cultured (e.g. eggs, larvae, juveniles). Finally, sludge filtered from effluent water should be disposed of according to a waste management plan for contaminated waste. • To prevent the escape of finfish from the aquaculture facility, escape prevention barriers should be installed. A biosecurity management plan should be drawn up to reduce the likelihood of escape occurring and staff should be comprehensively trained in this regard. Recovery procedures should be followed should escape occur.

16 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

• Finally, the effect of chemical therapeutants must be minimised as far as possible by using only veterinary approved chemicals, administering the lowest effective dose, and utilizing the most efficient drug delivery mechanisms to minimise the concentrations of biologically active ingredients entering the marine environment via the farm effluent. In order to determine the intensity of the potential impact, regular monitoring of water quality should be implemented.

Effluent and receiving water quality monitoring

Effluent discharge is the most significant long-term impact of the proposed expansion of the aquaculture farm on the marine environment. The risk posed by an effluent outfall varies depending on the characteristics of the effluent (volume, properties and contaminant loading), as well as the assimilative capacity, sensitivity and ecological importance of the receiving environment. Abalone farm effluent is generally considered to be very clean in comparison to finfish effluent.

Along exposed coastlines such as that off Kleinzee, the minimum requirement for an outfall of this nature is that it is positioned seaward of Chart Datum. The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the shape of the coastline, bathymetry, as well as prevailing swell and wind direction. A rocky reef runs parallel to the coast, 200-500 m offshore at the study site, which creates a sheltered inshore habitat. The predominant swell direction in the area is south-west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline) and it is anticipated that the incoming swell will push water northward, creating a long-shore current parallel to the beach. Effluent will therefore be carried northward, reducing the likelihood of eutrophic conditions developing in the relatively sheltered inshore waters and ensuring biosecurity of the DCA facility (i.e. effluent will be carried away from the seawater intake point that lies 900 m south of the effluent outfall point). Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore, which should also facilitate dispersion of the effluent.

During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which could temporarily result in a southward long-shore current. This could potentially carry effluent towards the sea water intake point of the farm (900 m south of the outfall point), but the likelihood of this happening is considered to be very low as the increased wave action associated with approaching cold fronts and north westerly winds would facilitate good mixing of the effluent before it reaches the intake pipeline.

Overall, effluent quality is not expected to be problematic for the receiving environment or biosecurity. In the absence of an effluent profile, inshore current data, and effluent dispersion modelling, the confidence in the outcome of the impact assessment is low and ongoing monitoring and adaptive management will be required. The revised Coastal Waters Discharge Permit must ensure that DCA is able to meet the receiving water quality guidelines at the edge of an acceptable mixing zone (note however, that it is recommended the guideline derived by the Coastal Systems Research Group (CSIR 2016) for Total Suspended Solids should be used instead of the 1995 Water Quality Guideline (±10 % of ambient).

On receipt of a Coastal Water Discharge Permit (CWDP), the end of pipe concentrations contained in the permit conditions must be met to ensure compliance at the edge of the mixing zone. Monthly compliance monitoring of the effluent should be performed to minimise environmental impacts. If

17 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment discharged effluent exceeds the end of pipe values at any time, the operation will be in violation of the CWDP and the cause of poor effluent quality must be identified, reported and rectified immediately. It is recommended that monitoring of effluent quality (end of pipe) and the ambient (edge of mixing zone) water quality is monitored by measurement of the following parameters:

1. Temperature (°C) 2. Salinity (PSU) 3. Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 4. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) (mg/L) 5. Total nitrogen (mg/L) 6. Ammonia (mg/L) 7. Orthophosphate (mg/L) 8. Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Physico-chemical parameters can be measured by a portable water quality meter fitted with temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen probes, calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers specifications, while water samples for ammonia, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, chemical oxygen demand and TSS will need to be sent to a SANAS accredited laboratory for analysis. It is recommended that monitoring of ambient water quality commence prior to the discharge of any effluent and that this continues for at least a year into aquaculture operations to determine whether ambient water quality is affected by the effluent discharge and to ensure that WQGs specified in the permit are being met at the edge of the mixing zone. Not only would this practice validate the efficacy of the discharge design, but would also be beneficial to the user as water quality of the ambient would be confirmed for biosecurity purposes.

3.1.3 The No-Go alternative The nearshore and coastal environment has been disturbed by diamond mining activities over the last 100 years. If the development does not go ahead the marine environment status quo will be maintained. However, socio-economic benefits of aquaculture expansion would not be realised in turn.

18 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2 Potential terrestrial biodiversity impacts 3.2.1 Introduction, terms of reference and methodology Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species (at a genetic level), between species, and of ecosystems as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NEMBA’).

The proposed development is likely to impact on terrestrial biodiversity during the construction and Operation phases and an impact assessment has been conducted as per the following terms of reference:

• A brief description of the affected environment highlighting any sensitive and/or significant terrestrial habitats that might be affected by the proposed development; • The identification and assessment of all potential impacts on terrestrial biodiversity; and • The identification of measures required to mitigate negative impacts associated with the development and/or enhance positive aspects.

A site visit was undertaken on 30 September 2017 to inspect the study site and existing state of the terrestrial environment. Observations from the site visit along with existing literature (Mucina et al. 2006) were used to describe the current biophysical state of the study site and to identify potential impacts of the proposed expansions of the aquaculture farm on terrestrial biodiversity.

Terrestrial biodiversity impacts are likely to result from a number of project activities, including the removal of vegetation, the erection of fences and wind turbines and noise generation and structures for the storage of seawater on land. Note that birds and bats are dependent on healthy terrestrial ecosystems and have therefore been included in assessment of impacts on fauna. Mortality associated with the wind energy facility during the Operation phase has been separately assessed in Section 3.3.

3.2.2 Brief description of the terrestrial environment The study site is situated within the Succulent Karoo Biome, which spans most of the arid coastal lowland of the Northern Cape. The Succulent Karoo Biome covers a flat to gently undulating plain, with some hilly and “broken” veld at altitudes mostly below 800 m above sea level (Mucina et al 2006). The Namaqualand coast is about 30 km wide, a generally flat plain, consisting of sandy material of aeolian origin (Mucina et al. 2006). The Succulent Karoo Biome is characterised by low winter rainfall and extreme summer aridity. Desiccating, hot, Berg Winds may occur throughout the year and during summer temperatures in excess of 40°C are common. Rainfall varies between 20 and 290 mm per year. Consequently, coastal vegetation mostly relies on fog for water supply. Temperatures rarely drop below zero degrees (Mucina et al. 2006). The Succulent Karoo is the world’s only entirely arid region diversity hotspot (Mittermeier et al. 2000, Myers et al 2000) and is home to more than 6300 plant species of which 26% are strict endemics and 14% are near endemics that have the centre of their distribution in this biome; 17% are listed as Red Data species (Driver et

19 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment al 2003). Most of the endemic species are either succulents of geophytes (Driver & Maze 2002, Driver et al. 2003). The Succulent Karoo Biome is not considered an endangered ecosystem type.

The vegetation is dominated by dwarf, succulent shrubs, of which the ‘vygies’ (Aizoaceae) and Stonecrops (Crassulaceae) are particularly prominent. Mass flowering displays of annuals (mainly Daisies Asteraceae) occur in spring, often on degraded or fallow lands. Grasses are rare, except in some sandy areas, and are of the C3 type. The number of plant species mostly succulents - is very high and unparalleled elsewhere in the world for an arid area of this size (Mucina et al 2006).

Mole rats, lizards, tortoises and a variety of invertebrates, including monkey beetles, scorpions, bee flies, bees and masarid and vespid wasps (Vernon 1999) have high endemism in the Succulent Karoo Biome (Mucina et al. 2006). More than 250 bird species and nearly 80 mammal species, 132 reptile and amphibian species and an unknown number of insects inhabit this biome (WWF 2017). Most wild animals are small, like the Bat-Eared Fox, Suricate (Meerkat) and Barking Gecko. Many animals are nocturnal or hide in burrows in the ground during the day to avoid the hot, dry conditions. Termites are thought to have created heuweltjies, raised mounds of calcium-rich soil, which often support distinctive plant communities. These heuweltjies are iconic landscape features in the region (Armstrong and Siegfried 1990; Midgley 2002).

The predominant vegetation type at the study site is Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld, which stretches along the coast from Deurloopbaai (south of Port Nolloth) to Abraham Villiersbaai (south of the Grown River mouth). This vegetation type can be described as a coastal peneplain1 with semi- mobile sand plains to highly mobile, sharp, angular dune plumes usually north of the estuaries. Vegetation is dwarf shrub-land dominated by erect succulent shrubs (Didelta, Othonna, Ruschia, Tetragonia, Tripteris, Zygophyllum) as well as nonsucculent shrubs (Eriocephalus, Lebeckia, Pteronia, Salvia). Spiny grasses (Cladoraphis) are a common sight on wind-blown semi-stable dunes, with 1-2 m erect to spreading shrubs mostly with malacophyllous leaves protected from the wind between dunes (Mucina et al. 2006).

A small percentage of this vegetation type is currently protected in the Groen-Spoeg National Park. Approximately eight percent of the area covered by this vegetation type has been transformed by diamond mining and prospecting, including the study area. Strip-mining for diamonds is destructive in the northern coastal regions and rehabilitation of impacted areas is slow and often not entirely successful. The Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Programme (SKEP) has been developed to conserve this region. Furthermore, kelp collection and vehicle tracks to the beach constitute a disturbance in places accessible to the public (most of the area is still inaccessible due to ongoing mining). Acacia cyclops locally invades the dunes (Mucina et al 2006).

Namaqualand seashore vegetation can be found seaward of the development site as an approximately 250 m wide strip above the high tide zone along the sea from the Holgat River to just south of the Olifants River. The vegetation and landscape features of this vegetation type include slightly sloping beaches and coastal rocky formations supporting sparse vegetation composed of (partly) succulent hummock-forming and spreading dwarf shrubs and herbs on the beach, in shell beds and on low dunes (Mucina et al. 2006). Endemic species include Gazania sp. and Limonium sp

1 A more or less level land surface produced by erosion over a long period, undisturbed by crustal movement.

20 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

(Mucina et al. 2006). Amphibolia rupis-arcuatae and Fenestraria rhopalophylla subsp. aurantiaca are found only from the vicinity of Kleinzee northwards to the Orange River mouth, indicating a floristic relationship between the Namib and Namaqualand Seashore units (Mucina et al. 2006).

The 2016 Northern Cape Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) map in Figure 3 demonstrates that Farm 654 Portion 1 has been fully transformed by mining activities. The map shows that the conservation planning model used to delineate the CBAs selected some of the roads on Portion 1 of Farm 654 as CBA 1 and 2, giving those areas a high conservation priority status. The site visit, however, confirmed that these roads are still maintained and used regularly. Although the soil does not consist of overburden when compared to the remaining site (this is demonstrated by the redder tone of the soil of the road when compared to other areas), on the ground, these areas cannot be considered areas of critical biodiversity. This is chiefly due to vegetation removal and subsequent compacting of soils (mining vehicle traffic and grading). Furthermore, the map shows scattered units of Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) and Other Natural Area (ONA). These units seem somewhat random and it is not clear how these units differ to the remaining study site. The small dune area in the most south-western part of Portion 1, however, has been delineated as a CBA 1 category and connects to the dune and beach area stretching north (state land), south and into the Buffels River estuary. The field visit confirmed that this dune area is in relatively good condition and the development footprint and impacts of the intake and outfall structures should be minimised and mitigated in this dune area.

Figure 3 Northern Cape Critical Biodiversity Areas of the study area (Source: South African National Biodiversity Institute).

Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.3 Findings of the site visit A site visit was undertaken on 30 September 2017 to inspect the study site and existing state of the terrestrial environment. Much of the area was mined down to the bedrock and the topsoil was not returned to the mining sites. Consequently, seawater seepage occurs in the low lying areas where the main mariculture area will be situated. Vegetation has not recovered well on the saline soils and bedrock and these areas remain mostly bare. Recovery of indigenous plant communities in other areas has also been very slow where only a handful of species dominate (Table 2). Photos of the more common plant species observed during the site visit are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6, additional photos of the site visit showing the landscape can be found in Appendix B.

Table 2 Plant species recorded during the site visit to the Kleinzee Farm 654 Portion 1 on the 30 September 2017.

Plant species Endemism Threat status Amphibolia rupis-arcuatae No Least concern Galenia fruticosa No Least concern Crassothonna cylindrica No Least concern Crassothonna sedifolia No Least concern Drosanthemum sp. N/A N/A Mesembryanthemum chrystallinum No Least concern Psilocaulon dinteri No Least concern Sarcocornia perennis No Least concern Salsola nollothensis No Least concern Atriplex vestita No Least concern Lebeckia cinerea No Least concern Cladoraphis cyperoides No Least concern Eragrostis sabulosa Yes Least concern

None of the above-listed species are threatened and only Eragrostis sabulosa is endemic to South Africa. This species mainly occurred on the fringes of water in artificial depressions created by historical diamond mining behind the dunes.

23 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Amphibolia rupis-arcuatae Galenia fruticosa

Crassothonna cylindrica Crassothonna sedifolia

Drosanthemum sp. Mesembryanthemum chrystallinum

Figure 4 Photos of plant species found on Farm 654 Portion 1 during the site visit on 30 September 2017.

24 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Psilocaulon dinteri Sarcocornia perennis

Salsola nollothensis

Atriplex vestita Lebeckia cinerea

Figure 5 Photos of plant species found on Farm 654 Portion 1 during the site visit on 30 September 2017.

25 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Cladoraphis cyperoides Eragrostis sabulosa

Figure 6 Photos of plant species found on Farm 654 Portion 1 during the site visit on 30 September 2017.

The saline soils in the southern part of the development footprint seem to attract a number of bird and mammal species as evident by the variety of different tracks and dung observed on the sandy soils (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Animal tracks in the saline south-western part of the development site (Property 654 Portion 1).

26 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.4 Preferred alternative – Identification and nature of impacts Potential terrestrial ecological impacts of the proposed aquaculture farm expansions would result from a number of activities associated with the construction and Operation phases including the following:

Construction phase:

• The clearing of vegetation for expanding the main mariculture area, the hatcheries, upgrading of seawater intake and effluent outfall structures, erecting wind turbines etc. Could impact threatened vegetation (not confirmed during the site visit, but presence cannot be excluded) and sensitive ecosystems. • Operation of construction machinery on site. This will create a physical impact as well as generate noise, pollution and other forms of disturbance at the development site. • Increased human presence may lead to trampling of vegetation that is still in the process of recovery.

Operation phase:

• The operation of the facility will generate noise and disturbance, which may deter fauna from the site. • Maintenance activities such as vegetation clearing will impact the biodiversity of the site if not conducted in a sensitive manner. • Loss of connectivity and habitat fragmentation may occur as a result of the presence of the facility and formation of informal pathways. • The storage of seawater on land. There is a risk that seawater from the solar dams may seep into the soil. Most plants cannot grow in saline soils (exceptions are salt marsh species).

The activities described above are likely to manifest as the following impacts during the construction and operation phases:

1. Impact on vegetation and listed or protected plant species (note that no listed or protected species were identified during the site visit but their presence cannot be excluded); 2. Alien plant invasion risk; 3. Salinisation of soils (limited to Operation phase); 4. Direct and indirect faunal impacts; and 5. Loss of landscape connectivity and impact on functioning of CBAs.

Note that the impact site does not have a high erosion risk due to the extremely arid climate and this impact has therefore not been assessed.

Potential terrestrial biodiversity impacts are denoted by first listing the phase of the development (i.e. CP = Construction Phase; OP = Operation Phase) followed by the impact category (i.e. TB = Terrestrial Biodiversity). Impacts are numbered consecutively and separately for the construction and Operation phases.

27 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.4.1 Assessment of terrestrial biodiversity impacts: Construction phase Potential impact CP-TB1: Impact on vegetation and listed or protected plant species Vegetation loss is an inevitable consequence of the proposed expansion of the DCA facility. However, as described above, much of the area was mined down to the bedrock and the topsoil was not returned to the mining sites. Consequently, seawater seepage occurs in the low lying areas and vegetation has not recovered well. Recovery of indigenous plant communities in other areas, including those areas that were netted, has also been very slow and only a handful of successful species dominate the landscape. Site preparation and construction will result in the loss of sparse vegetation cover. However, no threatened plant species were found during the site visit and sensitive species are unlikely to occur in this highly disturbed environment. Construction activities are unlikely to result in significant loss of vegetation or the loss of listed or protected plant species and the impact has been rated as VERY LOW. It is recommended that the western portion of the rehabilitation area KZ007 (See Figure 2) is avoided as this is the only area that has recovered relatively well from mining impacts. A residual impact does exist due to the fact that habitat loss is permanent, however, search and rescue of threatened species is not considered necessary for this development. The development would not contribute to cumulative habitat loss as the habitat has already been compromised by historical mining activities. Furthermore, the potential for rehabilitation has been shown to be low at this site.

Table 3 Construction phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 1: Significant loss of vegetation and loss of listed or protected plant species.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long- Without Local Low Low term Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 5 3 Recommended mitigation measures: • Avoid western portion of KZ007 as this is the only area that has recovered well from mining impacts. Clearly demarcate this area as a no-go area with construction tape or similar method. • Vegetation clearing should be kept to a minimum. Short- With Local Low Very low term Improbable INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 1

28 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impact CP-TB2: Alien plant invasion risk Disturbance created by vegetation removal often provides an opportunity for alien (mostly invasive) plants to establish in an area. No alien plants were found on Farm 654 Portion 1 during the site visit. The Buffels river estuary, however, is heavily infested and windblown seeds (the predominant wind direction is southeast) could potentially assist the spread of Acacia cyclops, which is known to invade the dunes of the Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld vegetation type. Seawater intake and effluent outfall structures will be installed in the dunes and care must be taken that this activity does not assist the spread of this or other invasive plant species. If regular alien plant control is exercised no residual impact from alien plant species is likely to occur. Provided that alien plant species are controlled, there will be minimal cumulative impact from alien plant species. However, this development is likely to contribute to habitat degradation of the area should invasive plant species establish at the site. With mitigation measures the impact of alien plant invasion has been rated as INSIGNIFICANT for this development.

Table 4 Construction phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 2: Alien plant invasion risk.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

Long- Without Local Medium Medium term Possible LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 2 6 3 Essential mitigation measures: • Cleared areas which are not surfaced or required for construction should be re-vegetated with seed or plants of locally occurring species. • Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development during construction. • Early removal of alien plants using appropriate methods for the species. • No muddy and dirty equipment should be brought onto site as this is likely to carry seed of alien species. • If sand or other natural materials for building are required and brought onto site, the stored heaps should be monitored for the growth and germination of alien species and should be regularly cleared during construction. Short- With Local Low Very low term Improbable INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 1

Potential impact CP-TB3: Negative impact on fauna (including birds and bats) The area has been severely disturbed by mining activities and recovery of the habitat has been very slow. The construction of the aquaculture facility would result in further habitat loss for resident fauna. The area just south of the oyster dam is currently utilised by a number of mammal and bird species, which is evident by the numerous types of tracks that were found during the site visit.

29 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Furthermore, noise levels and other disturbances due to human presence (e.g. operation of heavy machinery) can directly and indirectly impact on fauna resident at or passing through the area. Sensitive and shy fauna would move away from the impact zone during the construction area. Slow- moving species would not be able to avoid the construction activities and could be killed. Some mammals and reptiles such as tortoises could be vulnerable to illegal collection or poaching during the construction phase as a result of the large number of construction personnel that are likely to be present.

Not all faunal impacts can be mitigated and there will be some residual impact resulting from noise, disturbance and collisions of individual animals unable to flee the construction activities. Direct impacts on fauna during construction will be temporary and will not generate significant long-term cumulative impacts. The impact has been rated as VERY LOW after mitigation measures.

Table 5 Construction phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 3: Negative impact on fauna.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Short- Without Local Medium Very low term Probable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 2 4 1 Essential mitigation measures: • All construction staff should undergo an environmental induction from the ECO or other suitably qualified persons. • Any fauna directly threatened by the construction activities should be removed to a safe location by the ECO or other suitably qualified person. • The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. Personnel should not be allowed to wander off the construction site. • No fires should be allowed on site. • No fuel wood should be allowed on-site. • Dogs should be kept on leashes. • All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. • No unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. • All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. Short- With Local Low Very low term Possible INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 1

30 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impact CP-TB4: Disruption of landscape connectivity and loss of function of Critical Biodiversity Area The expansion of the mariculture farm could potentially contribute to the disruption of broad-scale ecological processes such as dispersal, migration or the ability of fauna to respond to fluctuations in climate or other conditions. The fence around Farm 654 Portion 1 could also restrict animal movement and disrupt the connectivity of the landscape. However, most of the development will not occur on Critical Biodiversity Areas with the exception of the seawater intake and effluent outfall structures, which will be installed on the dunes. It is very important to maintain the connectivity of the coastal CBA, which stretches from the Buffels River estuary northward. No infrastructure other than seawater intake and effluent outfall infrastructure should be constructed within the CBA and the construction footprint must be kept at a minimum. With mitigation measures the impact has been rated as VERY LOW. The habitat has already been negatively impacted by mining activities and therefore the construction of the facility will result in residual impact, with respect to the current condition (not in terms of the original connectivity of the landscape). Assuming that within the CBA construction will be limited to seawater intake and effluent outfall structures, the development is not likely to contribute significantly to cumulative loss of landscape connectivity in this region. Furthermore, diamond mining is the main disturbance of landscape connectivity in the Northern Cape and the area that will be developed by DCA is very small and unlikely to contribute significantly to existing habitat fragmentation.

Table 6 Construction phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 4: Disruption of landscape connectivity and loss of function of Critical Biodiversity Area.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • The development footprint should be kept as small as possible and vegetation should be allowed to persist in areas not used for aquaculture activities. • Fauna outside the construction area should not be disturbed. • If the site must be lit at night, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects. • Apart from the seawater intake and effluent outfall structures, no development should occur in the Critical Biodiversity Area (i.e. on the dune, which connects the Buffels River estuary and the beach to the north). • The fence demarcating Farm 654 Portion 1 should be built such that tortoises and small animals can pass through and traverse the site. • No driving on the beach and through the dunes without a permit. • The footprint of the maintenance access area is to be kept as small as possible. With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

31 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.4.2 Assessment of terrestrial biodiversity impacts: Operation phase Potential impact OP-TB1: Impacts on vegetation and listed plant species Vegetation may have to be cleared as part of maintenance activities. Clearing should be undertaken in an environmentally friendly manner. Herbicides should be avoided and manual clearing methods should be used wherever possible. The impact has been rated as INSIGNIFICANT. Clearing of vegetation for maintenance will not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with the removal of vegetation.

Table 7 Operation phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 1: Significant loss of vegetation and loss of listed or protected plant species.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long-term Low Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5 Recommended mitigation measures: • Avoid western portion of KZ007 as this area is the only area that has recovered well from mining impacts. Clearly demarcate this area as an area earmarked for rehabilitation. • Vegetation clearing should be kept to a minimum. • Herbicides should be avoided and manual clearing methods should be used wherever possible. • Precautions should be taken to prevent the spread of fire onto or off the site. • A maintenance management plan should be approved by the DEA should more than 1 ha of vegetation be cleared for maintenance purposes. With Local Low Short-term Very low INSIGNIFI- Improbable - ve High mitigation 1 1 1 3 CANT

Potential impact OP-TB2: Increased alien plant invasion risk Disturbance created during the construction phase will leave the development site vulnerable to alien plant invasion for some years into the Operation phase of the development. Although this risk is naturally reduced in the arid Namaqualand Coastal Dune vegetation type, regular monitoring for alien plants within the development area should be conducted. The impact after mitigation measures has been determined as INSIGNIFICANT. With regular alien control there will be minimal cumulative impact from alien species. If alien species are not adequately controlled, then the invasion of the site would contribute to habitat degradation in the area.

Table 8 Operation phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 2: Alien plant invasion risk during the Operation phase.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long- Without Local Medium Medium term Possible LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 2 6 3 Essential mitigation measures: • Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development during operation. • All alien plants present at the site should be controlled at least biannually using the best practice methods for the species present. With Local Low Short- Very low Improbable INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 1 term 1 3

32 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impact OP-TB3: Salinisation of soils and loss of plant diversity The storage of seawater on land can potentially lead to the salinisation of soils if the dams are not sealed properly and leakage occurs. Not many plant species can grow in saline soils and therefore this activity poses a risk to the already low species diversity of the surrounding vegetation. It is also important to note that saline soils leach very slowly in arid environment and soils will remain saline for a very long time. The impact can, however, be easily mitigated by ensuring that the dams are properly sealed and by maintaining the lining on a regular bases. The impact after mitigation has therefore been rated as VERY LOW.

Table 9 Operation phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 3: Salinisation of soils and loss of plant diversity.

Consequen Extent Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence ce Without Local High Long-term High Possible MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 3 3 7 Essential mitigation measures: • Dams and pipes must be sealed to prevent leakage. • Dams and pipes must be regularly checked for leakages. With Local Low Long-term Low Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

Potential impact OP-TB4: Negative impact on fauna (excluding birds and bats) The expansion of the DCA facility will impact on fauna as the habitat will no longer be available and maintenance and Operation activities may disturb fauna in the area. The area is, however, already heavily disturbed and the sensitive fauna most likely no longer utilise the area or have adjusted to the current levels of activity. The impact has therefore been rated as VERY LOW after mitigation measures are implemented. The habitat loss associated with the expansion of the DCA facility cannot be mitigated, but this impact is not likely to be of broader significance given the limited extent in comparison to impacts caused by diamond mining. Contribution of this development to cumulative habitat loss is also considered to be insignificant when compared to diamond mining activities.

33 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 10 Operation phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 4: Negative impact on fauna during the Operation phase (excluding the impact on birds and bats).

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long-term Low Probable LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5 Essential mitigation measures: • If the site must be lit at night, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects. • All staff should undergo an environmental induction from the ECO or other suitably qualified persons. • The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. No fires should be allowed on site. • No fuel wood should be allowed on-site. • Dogs should be kept on leashes. • All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. • No unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. • All vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. Without Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

Potential impact OP-TB5: Disruption of landscape connectivity and loss of function of Critical Biodiversity Area The expansion of the DCA facility would disrupt the connectivity of the landscape. However, the area is already highly disturbed and the impact will most likely be seen due to the fences erected around the perimeter of Farm 654 Portion 1. The fence should be maintained and checked regularly to ensure that small animals are able to pass underneath the fence without being harmed. The CBA will be minimally impacted during the Operation phase, which will involve maintenance of the seawater intake and effluent outfall structures. Maintenance vehicles should only drive on demarcated roads. With the implementation of the mitigation measures the impact has been rated as VERY LOW.

The disruption of the landscape connectivity can only be partly mitigated and some fauna will avoid the area and move around the perimeter. The development would not contribute significantly to cumulative habitat disruption in the area compared to the current status quo (not compared to the original landscape prior to diamond mining).

34 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 11 Operation phase terrestrial biodiversity impact 5: Disruption of landscape connectivity and loss of function of Critical Biodiversity Area.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • The development footprint should be kept as small as possible and vegetation should be allowed to persist in areas not used for aquaculture activities. • Maintenance vehicles and personnel must only drive/walk on demarcated roads and pathways. • The fence should not pose a threat to fauna, and as such the fence should not be electrified within 30 cm of the ground. • If the site must be lit at night, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects. • No driving on the beach and through the dunes without a permit. • The footprint of the maintenance access area is to be kept as small as possible. With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

3.2.4.3 Cumulative terrestrial biodiversity impacts Terrestrial biodiversity at the proposed development site was severely disturbed by open cast mining for alluvial diamonds over the last 100 years. The vegetation and therefore the habitat for faunal communities have been recovering very slowly, even in areas that have been netted to assist rehabilitation. Cumulative effects should be assessed in terms of the size of the area that will no longer contribute towards rehabilitation of this vegetation type rather than the removal of poor quality habitat. Terrestrial biodiversity at the site does currently not contribute to biodiversity targets of this biome, nor does it seem to have the potential to do so significantly in future.

Notwithstanding, recommendations have been made to avoid the dune area fringing the Buffels River estuary and keeping impacts on the dunes parallel to the coast to a minimum. Furthermore, a relatively small flat area in the very north of the development site has recovered comparatively well has been earmarked as a ‘green space’ by DCA and will not be developed. Successful rehabilitation is dependent on many factors and there are areas in the vicinity of Kleinsee, which show much higher rehabilitation success when compared to the proposed development site.

Considering the above, this development is very unlikely to contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of rehabilitation potential of the Namaqualand Coastal Duneveld vegetation type.

35 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.4.4 Summary of mitigation measures Essential mitigation measures to be implemented during the planning phase:

• Apart from the seawater intake and effluent outfall structures, no development should occur in the Critical Biodiversity Area (i.e. on the dune, which connects the Buffels River estuary and the beach to the north) • Avoid western portion of KZ007 as this is the only area that has recovered well from mining impacts. • The fence demarcating Farm 654 Portion 1 should be built such that tortoises and small animals can pass through and traverse the site. The fence should not pose a threat to fauna, and as such the fence should not be electrified within 30 cm of the ground.

Essential terrestrial biodiversity mitigation measures during the construction phase:

• Clearly demarcate the western portion of KZ007 as a no-go area with construction tape or similar method. • Vegetation clearing should be kept to a minimum. • Cleared areas which are not surfaced or required for construction should be re- vegetated with seed or plants of locally occurring species. • Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development during construction. • Early removal of alien plants using appropriate methods for the species. • No muddy and dirty equipment should be brought onto site as this is likely to carry seed of alien species. • If sand or other natural materials for building are required and brought onto site, the stored heaps should be monitored for the growth and germination of alien species and should be regularly cleared during construction. • All construction staff should undergo an environmental induction from the ECO or other suitably qualified persons. • Any fauna directly threatened by the construction activities should be removed to a safe location by the ECO or other suitably qualified person. • The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. Personnel should not be allowed to wander off the construction site. • No fires should be allowed on site. • No fuel wood should be allowed on-site. • Dogs should be kept on leashes. • All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. • No unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. • All construction vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. • The development footprint should be kept as small as possible and vegetation should be allowed to persist in areas not used for aquaculture activities.

36 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

• Fauna outside the construction area should not be disturbed. • If the site must be lit at night, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects.

Essential terrestrial biodiversity mitigation measures during the Operation phase as follows:

• The western portion of KZ007 must be avoided as this area is the only area that has recovered well from mining impacts. Clearly demarcate this area as an area earmarked for rehabilitation. • Vegetation clearing should be kept to a minimum. • Herbicides should be avoided and manual clearing methods should be used wherever possible. • Precautions should be taken to prevent the spread of fire onto or off the site. • A maintenance management plan should be approved by the DEA should more than 1 ha of indigenous vegetation be cleared for maintenance purposes (be cognisant of 'the definition of ‘indigenous vegetation’ in the EIA Regulations). • Regular monitoring for alien plants within the development during operation. • All alien plants present at the site should be controlled at least biannually using the best practice methods for the species present. • Dams and pipes must be sealed to prevent leakage. • Dams and pipes must be regularly checked for leakages. • All construction staff should undergo an environmental induction from the ECO or other suitably qualified persons. • The collection, hunting or harvesting of any plants or animals at the site should be strictly forbidden. • No fires should be allowed on site. • No fuel wood should be allowed on-site. • Dogs should be kept on leashes. • All hazardous materials should be stored in the appropriate manner to prevent contamination of the site. Any accidental chemical, fuel and oil spills that occur at the site should be cleaned up in the appropriate manner as related to the nature of the spill. • No unauthorised persons should be allowed onto the site. • All vehicles should adhere to a low speed limit to avoid collisions with susceptible species such as snakes and tortoises. • The development footprint should be kept as small as possible and vegetation should be allowed to persist in areas not used for aquaculture activities. • Maintenance vehicles and personnel must only drive/walk on demarcated roads and pathways. • If the site must be lit at night, this should be done with low-UV type lights (such as most LEDs), which do not attract insects.

37 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.2.5 The No-Go alternative Terrestrial biodiversity at the proposed development site was severely disturbed by diamond mining activities over the last 100 years. The vegetation and therefore the habitat for faunal communities has been recovering very slowly, even in areas that have been netted to assist rehabilitation. If the development does not go ahead the status quo will be maintained. The status quo does not contribute towards achieving biodiversity goals for this vegetation type, nor does it seem to have the potential to do so in future. The plant diversity is very low and a handful of robust species dominate the landscape. The top soil was not returned after mining was completed and without ground cover in an arid zone, top soil is not going to habilitate itself in the foreseeable future.

38 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.3 Potential impacts on avifauna and bats by the proposed wind energy facility 3.3.1 Introduction, terms of reference and methodology DCA intends erecting a number of wind turbines on the eastern inland portion of Farm 654 Portion 1 with a capacity to produce 660 kW per turbine. This area covers more than half of Portion 1 (Refer to Appendix A for the site layout map). All wind turbines combined are likely to produce energy in excess of 10 megawatts but will remain below 20 megawatts. The wind turbines will link to the power station on site from where the electricity will be fed to the aquaculture farm. It is envisioned that the entire DCA facility will be powered by wind energy. The wind turbine layout and technology used is not available at this time. This study assumes that the wind turbines will be connected to the power station via above-ground power lines, which represents the worst case scenario. This follows that the mitigation measures required to reduce the impact of above-ground power lines will no longer be applicable if power lines are buried underground.

This study aims to identify sensitive bird and bat species occurring in the area, rate the potential impacts and provide mitigation measures and guidance for turbine placement.

The proposed development is likely to impact on avifauna (birds) and bats during the construction and Operation phases. The loss of potential roosting sites and disturbance during the construction phase has been covered as part of the terrestrial biodiversity assessment is not repeated here (refer to section dealing with impact on fauna). An impact assessment for the Operation phase of the wind energy facility has been conducted as per the following terms of reference:

• A brief description of the affected environment in relation to sensitive species and habitats that might be affected by the proposed wind farm; • The identification and assessment of potential impacts on birds and bats; and • The identification of measures required to mitigate negative impacts associated with the development and/or enhance positive aspects.

A site visit was undertaken on 30 September 2017 to inspect the study site and existing state of the terrestrial and coastal environment. Bird species were recorded as they were seen, but systematic counts were not conducted. The site visit was conducted during the day and it is unknown whether any bats utilise the proposed development site. This is a desktop impact assessment, which is primarily informed by existing literature, scoping and impact assessment reports of the area and species sightings recorded through citizen science (The Southern African Bird Atlas Project SABAP2).

The operation of wind turbines and associated infrastructure are likely to impact on collision-prone birds, perching birds (raptors), nocturnal birds and bat species foraging in the area at night. Potential impacts on birds and bats during the Operation phase include:

1. Birds and bats can be killed by collision with the rotating turbine blades; 2. Bats have been reported to die from barotrauma (the lungs of a bat collapse in the low air pressure around the moving blades causing fatal internal haemorrhaging); and 3. Power line associated bird mortalities. Birds can collide with power lines and die from electrocution. Perching birds, especially raptors, can be electrocuted on power lines.

39 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impacts on birds and bats are denoted by first listing the phase of the development (i.e. CP = Construction Phase; OP = Operation Phase) followed by the impact category (i.e. BB = Birds and Bats). Impacts are numbered consecutively and separately for the construction and Operation phases.

3.3.2 Brief description of the study site Farm 654 Portion 1 near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape was previously owned and mined by the DeBeers Group. De Beers Namaqualand Mines was active on this farm portion until mid-2011, after which Diamond Coast Aquaculture assumed full management responsibility over the property (refer to letter from the Mine Manager WG Macdonald in Appendix J of this pre-application BAR). The entire farm portion has been heavily disturbed by open cast mining over the last 100 years. Much of the area was mined down to bedrock. The landscape is completely transformed and to this day is very sparsely vegetated. A handful of dominant tough plant species dominate the plant communities. Photos taken during the site visit clearly demonstrate the extent to which the landscape has been negatively impacted and that it shows little recovery (Please refer to Chapter 2 for a site description and historical disturbance and Appendix B of this BAR for site photos).

The study site is situated within the Succulent Karoo Biome, which spans most of the arid coastal lowland of the Northern Cape. A description of this environment is provided in Section 3.2.2. The Succulent Karoo Biome and coastal landscape provides beaches, rocky shores and islands for marine and coastal birds, salt pans for terns and flamingos and succulent shrub habitat for larks and other passerine species.

The transformed terrestrial environment on Farm 654 Portion 1, however, is not expected to support high bird diversity, especially passerine diversity, due to the lack of seeds as a source for food. The entire area in and around the Buffels Estuary floodplain, the shoreline, the surrounding dune area has been severely disturbed by the development of a golf course and effluent discharged by the Kleinzee sewage works. Vehicle tracks criss-cross the river, flood plain and the dunes in the vicinity of the Estuary. Several road crossings in the lower reaches of the river severely impact on the flow of the river that feeds the Estuary (FieldWork 2016). Although highly impacted, the Buffels River estuary, the surrounding dunes and shoreline are likely to support a number of wader birds, wading birds and seabirds (e.g. plovers, pelicans, flamingos and cormorants).

Availability of roosting sites, food and open water (freshwater) determine the prevalence of bats in an area (Marais 2011), although requirements differ according to species. For example the Cape horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus capensis) is associated with Karoo succulent vegetation and the presence of caves or hollows would be considered appropriate roosting spaces. The Egyptian free- tailed bat (Tadarida aegryptiaca) in contrast is very common and in some cases chooses to roost in buildings or crevices. The mine tailings north of the Buffels River estuary have been shaped smooth as part of the rehabilitation process and the field visit photos show that suitable crevices and hollows are unlikely to be present on site (Appendix B – Site Photos).

The Buffels River is non-perennial and during floods, the river is fed by small tributaries, which have over time incised valleys 1 km east of the study site. Although mostly dry, the pre-construction monitoring study for the proposed Blue Wind Energy Facility immediately north of Kleinzee and

40 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment adjacent to the DCA facility area, confirmed that these support small roosting sites for various bat species (BioInsight 2014). Furthermore, some unoccupied buildings in and around the town of Kleinzee have also been shown to provide roosting habitat (BioInsight 2014).

The undisturbed coastal habitat approximately 7 km south of Kleinzee has been earmarked for conservation by the local conservation trust. In a scoping study conducted for the proposed large Eskom wind farm (300 MW) south of Kleinzee, Marais (2011) concluded that the sparse Karoo vegetation, the flat, sandy landscape and limited surface rock availability would not be likely to support sizeable bat populations.

Open surface water, stream beds or drainage canals are scarce due to the very low mean annual precipitation of the study area. Open water is limited to the Kleinzee sewage works ponds and free standing water at the mouth of the Buffels Estuary. The latter is fed by the Kleinzee aquifer, a large sand-filled aquifer up to 12 m in depth at the mouth of the Buffels River estuary (Heydorn and Grindley 1981). The sea rarely breaks the sand berm at the mouth of the estuary and the open water of the estuary remains relatively fresh (7 ppt) as a result (Heydorn and Grindley 1981) and therefore suitable for bats.

3.3.3 Bird and bat communities likely to be present in the study area 3.3.3.1 Birds Access to the proposed development site has been restricted for a long time due to diamond mining and bird counts are therefore sparse. Consequently, only two counts were conducted since 2007 as part of the citizen science SABAP2 project, recording a total of 74 species (Pentad 2935_1700) (Avian Demography Unit downloaded from http://sabap2.adu.org.za). If bird species counts for the Buffels River estuary and the area south of Kleinzee are considered, one hundred and seventy six bird species have been recorded in the wider study area (SABAP2, Heydorn and Grindley 1981, FieldWork 2016). A full species list has been included in Table 12.

Among the species recorded 16 species have been red-listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in southern Africa. Four species have been listed as “near threatened”, seven species as “vulnerable” and five species as “endangered” (Source: BirdLife South Africa Checklist of Birds in South Africa 2017) (See Table 12 for status). Several of these species are collision-prone species and are specifically vulnerable to wind turbines and associated infrastructure due to their low manoeuvrability, their known collision rates and preferences to perch on electrified structures (mainly raptors) (Simmons 2011). These include the Great White Pelican, Cape Gannet, Ludwig’s Bustard, Southern Black Korhaan, Caspian Tern, Martial Eagle (moderate collision, high electrocution), Secretary Bird, Lanner Falcon (High for collision and electrocution), Black Harrier, Cape Cormorant, Bank Cormorant, Crowned Cormorant, Greater Flamingo, and Lesser Flamingo. The endemic South African Shelduck is also prone to collisions and should be considered a sensitive species. Both, Flamingos and the South African Shelduck were seen during the site visit near the water bodies of the existing aquaculture ponds. Their flight paths are, however, unknown.

41 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

The low occurrences of the Cape Gannet, Secretary Bird and Black Harrier, Verreaux’s Eagle and Martial Eagle make it unlikely that these species will be at risk. However, Flamingos and Pelicans are most likely to suffer impacts from inappropriately placed turbines. It must be noted that there are no data from South Africa on the susceptibility of particular bird species to turbine collisions, only to power lines. In an avian scoping study conducted for the proposed Eskom large-scale wind farm (300 MW) south of Kleinzee, Simmons 2011 extrapolated from power line vulnerability to turbine collisions based on work by Martin and Shaw (2010, in Simmons 2011), who indicate that certain species have blind spots on their forward vision and simply do not see obstacles in front of them. Furthermore, species such as eagles and other large raptors have also been shown to be vulnerable to electrocution due to their tendencies to perch on electrified components of the associated infrastructure (Simmons 2011). Power lines with lower capacities have smaller gaps between the live wire and the earthed wire, which increases the risk of electrocution for perching raptors.

In summary, among the most important species (threatened or endemic), the highly collision prone species present in the study area include flamingos, cormorants, pelican, bustard, korhaan, raptors and the South African Shelduck. The total number of priority species therefore amounts to ten. However, mitigation measures should ensure that raptors in general are protected from electrocution when perching. Larger raptors such as eagles are territorial and have large home ranges with slow reproductive rates.

The lack of abundant seeds and roosting sites in this highly transformed landscape at the proposed development site is likely to be reflected in low local passerine bird densities. Passerines are therefore not seen as vulnerable species for this small-scale wind farm.

Table 12 Bird species recorded in the Kleinzee area. Data sources: (1) 1981 Estuarine and Coastal Research Unit (ECRU) survey of the Buffels River estuary (Heydorn and Grindley 1981); (2) FieldWork 2016 (Situation Assessment Report for the Buffels River estuary); (3) Anchor Environmental site visit October 2017; (4) South African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP2) for north of Kleinzee (Pentad 2935_1700) and south of Kleinzee (Pentad 2940_1700) (2007 – Present).

Common name Species name ECRU 1981 FieldWork 2016 Farm 654 Portion 1 North of Kleinzee South of Kleinzee Regional Buffels River Estuary Buffels River Estuary 2017 Anchor site visit SABAP2 Pentad 2935_1700 SABAP2 Pentad 2940_1700 threat Presence/Absence Presence/Absence Presence/Absence Abundance 2007-Present Abundance 2007-Present status

Common Ostrich Struthio camelus X 2 86

Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis 1 86

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 2 116

Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus X 1 39 VU

Cape Gannet Morus capensis 1 VU

White-breasted Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo X X X 1 112 Cape Cormorant Phalacrocorax capensis X X 1 84 EN

Bank Cormorant Phalacrocorax neglectus 1 7 EN

Reed Cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus 27

Crowned Cormorant Phalacrocorax coronatus X 1 109 NT

African Darter Anhinga rufa 24

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea X X 2 109

Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala 95

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 4

Little Egret Egretta garzetta 2 109

Yellow-billed Egret Egretta intermedia 1

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis X 12

Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides 2

Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus X 18

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 52 White Stork Ciconia ciconia 3

African Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus 1 115

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 1

Hadeda Ibis Bostrychia hagedash 2 118

African Spoonbill Platalea alba 2 Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber X X 57 NT

Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor 1 48 NT

Spur-winged Goose Plectropterus gambensis 47

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus 2 116

South African Shelduck Tadorna cana X X X 2 119

Cape Shoveler Anas smithii 2 119

Yellow-billed Duck Anas undulata 105

Red-billed Teal Anas erythrorhyncha 2 107

Cape Teal Anas capensis X 89

Hottentot Teal Anas hottentota 16

Fulvous Duck Dendrocygna bicolor 6

Southern Pochard Netta erythrophthalma 1

Maccoa Duck Oxyura maccoa 8 NT

Secretarybird Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius X 1 VU Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus 11 VU

Greater Kestrel Falco rupicoloides 1 20

Rock Kestrel Falco rupicolus X 2 66

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus 9

Verreaux's Eagle Aquila verreauxii 2 VU

Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus 3 EN

Black-chested Snake-eagle Circaetus pectoralis 2

African Fish-eagle Haliaeetus vocifer 2

Jackal Buzzard Buteo rufofuscus 6

Steppe Buzzard Buteo vulpinus 6

Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk Melierax canorus 43 Black Harrier Circus maurus 1 EN

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix 1

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 98

Red-knobbed Coot Fulica cristata X 1 118

Ludwig's Bustard Neotis ludwigii 2 9 EN

African Black Oystercatcher Haematopus moquini X 111 LC

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres X 51

Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula X 46

White-fronted Plover Charadrius marginatus X X 1 106

Kittlitz's Plover Charadrius pecuarius 43

Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris X 1 77

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 34

Crowned Lapwing Vanellus coronatus X 4

Blacksmith Lapwing Vanellus armatus X 2 114 Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea X X 46 LC

Little Stint Calidris minuta 33

Sanderling Sanderling Calidris alba X X 25

Ruff Ruff Philomachus pugnax X 40

Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus 1

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos X X 1 12

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia 67

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola X 24

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 1 LC

Common Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 24

Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 1 52 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus X 62

Spotted Thick-knee Burhinus capensis X 1 107

Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus X X X 2 119

Grey-headed Gull Larus cirrocephalus X 28

Hartlaub's Gull Larus hartlaubii X X X 1 114

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 1 75 VU

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 39

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 31

Swift Tern Sterna bergii 94

Namaqua Sandgrouse Pterocles namaqua 4

Speckled Pigeon Columba guinea X X 2 116

Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata 1 112

Cape Turtle-dove Streptopelia capicola 15

Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis 2 115 Namaqua Dove Oena capensis X 39

Cape Eagle-owl Bubo capensis 1

Spotted Eagle-owl Bubo africanus X 4

Fiery-necked Nightjar Caprimulgus pectoralis 2

White-rumped Swift Apus caffer 1 2

Little Swift Apus affinis 79

Alpine Swift Tachymarptis melba 8

White-backed Mousebird Colius colius 1 24

Red-faced Mousebird Urocolius indicus 1 60

Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis X 100

Giant Kingfisher Megaceryle maximus 1 Malachite Kingfisher Alcedo cristata 10

European Bee-eater Merops apiaster 1 42

African Hoopoe Upupa africana 1

Karoo Lark Calendulauda albescens 1 3

Grey-backed Sparrowlark Eremopterix verticalis 1 4

Red-capped Lark Calandrella cinerea 17

Stark's Lark Spizocorys starki 2

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 64

White-throated Swallow Hirundo albigularis X 24

Pearl-breasted Swallow Hirundo dimidiata 4

Rock Martin Hirundo fuligula X 2 105

Common House-martin Delichon urbicum 1

Brown-throated Martin Riparia paludicola 2 110

Pied Crow Corvus albus X X 2 118 Cape Crow Corvus capensis 2 57

Grey Tit Parus afer X 15

Cape Penduline-tit Anthoscopus minutus 11

Cape Bulbul Pycnonotus capensis 29

African Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus nigricans 5

Mountain Wheatear Oenanthe monticola X 1 1

Capped Wheatear Oenanthe pileata 1 11

Familiar Chat Cercomela familiaris 2 54

Tractrac Chat Cercomela tractrac 2 51

Anteating Chat Myrmecocichla formicivora 22

African Stonechat Saxicola torquatus X 1 115 Cape Robin-chat Cossypha caffra 4

Karoo Scrub-robin Cercotrichas coryphoeus X 2 90

Yellow-bellied Eremomela Eremomela icteropygialis 4

Lesser Swamp-warbler Acrocephalus gracilirostris 94

African Reed-warbler Acrocephalus baeticatus 1 38

Rufous-eared Warbler Malcorus pectoralis 1

Long-billed Crombec Sylvietta rufescens 2 38

Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis 1

Grey-backed Cisticola Cisticola subruficapilla 22

Levaillant's Cisticola Cisticola tinniens 19

Namaqua Warbler Phragmacia substriata 1 3

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata 20

Fairy Flycatcher Stenostira scita 2

African Paradise-flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis 3 Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis X X X 1 119

African Pipit Anthus cinnamomeus 2

Common (Southern) Fiscal Lanius collaris 1 84

Bokmakierie Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus 1 101

Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris X 2 118

Wattled Starling Creatophora cinerea X 55

Pale-winged Starling Onychognathus nabouroup 3

Pied Starling Spreo bicolor X X X 2 100

Malachite Sunbird Nectarinia famosa X 2 63

Southern Double-collared Sunbird Cinnyris chalybeus 2 107

Dusky Sunbird Cinnyris fuscus 1 1 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 1 77

Cape Sparrow Passer melanurus X X 2 117

Cape Weaver Ploceus capensis 2 92

Southern Masked-weaver Ploceus velatus X X 1 103

Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea 3

Southern Red Bishop Euplectes orix X 1 115

Yellow Bishop Euplectes capensis X 1

Common Waxbill Estrilda astrild 1 85

Pin-tailed Whydah Vidua macroura 7

White-throated Canary Crithagra albogularis 49

Yellow Canary Crithagra flaviventris 2 28

Lark-like Bunting Emberiza impetuani 1

Cape Bunting Emberiza capensis 1 22

Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 1 NA Karoo Thrush Turdus smithi 1 59

Orange River White-eye Zosterops pallidus 1 49

Cape Long-billed Lark Certhilauda curvirostris 1 88

Southern Black Korhaan Afrotis afra 10 VU

Karoo Prinia Prinia maculosa 85

Southern Grey-headed Sparrow Passer diffusus 30

African sand martin Riparia riparia X

Barn owl Tyto alba X

Cape glossy starling Lamprotornis nitens X

Cape white-eye? Zosterops virens X

Karoo chat Cercomela schlegelii X

Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.3.3.2 Bats Bats are mammals from the order Chiroptera and are the second largest group of mammals after rodents. There are approximately 117 species of bats in southern Africa of which five species have a global red list status of “Vulnerable” and 12 are classified as “Near Threatened” (Monadjem et al. 2010). Out of 117 species more than 50 occur in South Africa (Taylor 2000, Monadjem et al. 2010).

Insectivorous bats are the most important predators of nocturnal flying insects in South Africa and act as effective population controls. Urban development and agricultural practices are accountable for shrinking populations in South Africa. The erection of wind turbines for renewable energy represents an additional, relatively new pressure on bat diversity. Many bat species roost in large aggregations and concentrate in small areas. A major disturbance such as a wind farm can therefore pose a serious threat to an entire population resident in, or migrating to, the area. Secondly, the reproduction rates of bats are much lower than those of most other small mammals (one or two pups are born per female annually). A population can build up over a long period of time, which is due to their longevity and low predation rates compared to other small mammals. Consequently, recovery rates of decimated bat population can be extremely slow following major die-offs and roost disturbances.

Given the sophisticated navigation skills of bats by means of echolocation, it has been hypothesised that under natural circumstances, bat echolocation is designed to track down and pursue smaller insect prey or avoid stationary objects (Marais 2011). Unnaturally sideways moving objects across a flight path may pose a challenge to bat navigation. Furthermore, lights on turbines often attract nocturnal insects that are believed to get trapped in low air pockets around the turbines, which in turn attract hunting bats (Marais 2011). In addition to collision with the turbine blades, bats have been shown to commonly suffer from barotrauma, which causes the lungs to collapse in the low air pressure around the moving blades resulting in fatal internal haemorrhaging (Baerwald et al 2008).

BioInsight South Africa conducted pre-construction bat monitoring surveys between July 2013 and March 2014 for the proposed Blue Wind Energy Facility situated northwest of Kleinzee, immediately adjacent to the study site (BioInsight 2014). The objective of the study was to characterise bat activity for the study area and assess the impact of the proposed wind energy facility. BioInsight (2014) confirmed the occurrence of four echolocating bat species, namely the Long-tailed serotine, Natal long-fingered bat, Cape serotine and Egyptian free-tailed bat (Table 13).

The Egyptian free-tailed bat occurs in higher densities than the other species and forages in open areas, potentially flying at high altitudes that coincide with rotating wind turbine blades. This species is therefore considered to have high collision potential. Mortalities of this species have been recorded on wind farms in South Africa and elsewhere in the world (Arnett et al. 2008; Doty and Martin 2013).

The remaining confirmed species are considered to have a medium/medium-high potential collision risk with wind turbines. These species are clutter-edge foragers (Monadjem et al. 2010) and have specific morphological and acoustic adaptations for enhanced manoeuvrability required for hunting in cluttered habitat (i.e. vegetation) (Schnitzler and Kalko 2001). These species are either associated with forested areas or tall bushes and are not expected to fly higher than 2-10 m or far away from vegetation clusters. Therefore their flight height depends on the height of the vegetation.

51 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Compared to the proposed Blue Wind Energy Facility, the vegetation at the study site barely exceeds 1 m in height and collision risk is therefore considered to be minimal for these species. Notwithstanding there are, however, records of wind turbine related mortality of the Cape serotine (Aronson et al. 2013; Doty and Martin 2013).

Bats also migrate short distances between foraging and roosting areas and clutter-foragers may have to cross open areas, making these species vulnerable to collision. Furthermore, the Natal long- fingered bat is known to migrate between winter and summer roosts, during which time vulnerability to collision is higher. Bats primarily migrate long distances for reproduction and hibernation and the former migration type has been shown to result in high mortalities (Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008).

Overall, BioInsight found that bat activity was very low in winter, higher in spring and low in summer and autumn. In spring, the area is less arid, with higher insect availability and therefore becomes more suitable for bats. Additionally, increased wind speed was correlated with decreased bat activity. Approximately 50% of all bat activity occurred up to 3.5 m/s; 80% of the medium flight height bat species were active up to 5.5 m/s and 80% of high flying species (species that are more likely to occur at blade swept area) activity occurs at 7 m/s wind speed.

Bat activity in the control area north of the proposed Blue Wind Energy Facility was comparatively higher. Overall, bat activity was concluded to be very low when compared to other provinces in South Africa and most of the bat activity was detected near the ground. Few roosting sites were found during this study, which are shown in Figure 8. Overall, BioInsight found that the area adjacent to the DCA facility is considered to be of low sensitivity in terms of potential bat collisions with wind turbines. No-go areas were therefore not proposed. The main reasons for this were as follows:

1. Low bat activity throughout the year; 2. Most bat activity was detected near the ground; 3. Low number of roosting sites; 4. All four species are common and wide-spread (none are threatened).

However, bat populations and species not detected in this study (there are potentially fourteen bat species that could be present at the wind energy facility site) could potentially be impacted by the proposed wind energy facility and mitigation measures were therefore proposed. With mitigation the impact was considered low for the Blue Wind Energy Facility (BioInsight 2014).

The highly transformed landscape of the DCA site and sparse vegetation are considered even less suitable for bats when compared to the adjacent site investigated by BioInsight in 2014. Furthermore, the scale of the proposed DCA wind farm is only a tenth of what has been proposed for the Blue Wind Energy Facility. The impacts on confirmed and potential bat species occurring at the DCA site are therefore considered to be low, provided that mitigation measures are implemented (see impact assessment below).

Table 13 List of confirmed bat species at the Blue Wind Energy Facility site, between September 2012 and August 2013 (Source: BioInsight 2014).

Conservation Status Risk of collision Common name Scientific name Global National (Sowler and Stoffberg Breeding season Birth season (IUCN 2012) (Friedmann and Daly, 2004) 2012) Long-tailed serotine Eptesicus hottentotus LC LC Medium August November-December Natal long-fingered bat Miniopterus natalensis LC NT Medium-High March-April October-November Cape serotine Neoromicia capensis LC LC Medium-High March-April October-December Egyptian free-tailed bat Tadaria aegyptiaca LC LC High N/A N/A

Figure 8 Bat roost locations found during the bat monitoring study for the proposed Blue Wind Energy Facility north of Kleinzee.

Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.3.4 Preferred alternative - Potential impacts on birds and bats 3.3.4.1 Assessment of impacts on birds and bats: Construction phase The loss of potential roosting sites and disturbance during the construction phase has been covered as part of the terrestrial biodiversity assessment is not repeated here (refer to section dealing with impact on fauna.

3.3.4.2 Assessment of impacts on birds and bats: Operation phase The flight paths of the priority bird species discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 are unknown at this point. The proposed wind farm is a small farm when compared to large-scale facilities that have been proposed elsewhere in the country (e.g. the proposed 300 MW Eskom wind farm south of Kleinzee, proposed 150 MW Blue Wind Energy Facility north of Kleinzee). Considering the size of the development and the fact that a scoping and EIR is not required in terms of the EIA Regulations, it is not considered necessary to conduct pre-planning and construction monitoring to establish the flight paths of the priority species for authorisation purposes. It is considered reasonable to assume that with mitigation, the impacts will be justifiable when weighted against the benefits of renewable energy produced by this wind farm.

Species such as the cormorants, oystercatchers and flamingos are generally found within 1 km of the coast, which therefore represents the high risk zone (Simmons 2011). It is deemed sufficient to take a conservative precautionary approach for the placement of the wind turbines on the DCA facility. First and foremost, a one kilometre buffer should be implemented northward from the estuary as well as a 1.2 km buffer strip inland from the high water mark. Flight paths may connect these two important habitats in the otherwise very disturbed landscape. Limiting the wind turbines to the north-eastern section of the development site should maintain coastal connectivity, potentially reducing collision rates for shore birds.

Flamingos and pelicans may also travel inland to dams and flooded pans and could well be found frequently farther than 1 km from the coast. The lower reaches of the Buffels River are fed by the Kleinzee and Spektakelberg aquifers and the river approximately 3 km upstream has a seepage area. It is possible that this location is visited by coastal birds for roosting, in which case the proposed wind farm area would likely be situated within the flight path (this is also true for the recommended reduced footprint size). Finally, sewage works often constitute roosting habitat in otherwise disturbed environments. DCA should hire a local birder (there is no need to hire an ornithologist for this purpose) to monitor water bodies (including the sewage works) within a 10 km radius from the proposed wind farm area to establish whether these constitute roosting sites for coastal birds (species should be identified and individuals counted). Should this be the case, flight paths of these birds should then be investigated to establish if they cross the proposed wind farm area and if so, at what times of the day. Birds will usually depart from the sea to roosting spots at relatively predictable times and understanding these patterns could mitigate collisions if turbines are switched off at certain times of the day.

55 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

A comprehensive pre-construction bat monitoring study was conducted by BioInvest in 2013-2014 (BioInvest 2014) for the proposed 59 turbine, 150 MW, Blue Wind Energy Facility. The study confirmed the presence of four insectivorous bat species of which none is currently threatened. The wind energy facility area directly east of the DCA facility was found to be of low sensitivity due to low bat densities comprised of common species, limited roosting sites, and limited open water bodies. A number of mitigation measures have been proposed to minimise the risk of bat mortality on the proposed DCA wind energy facility.

Potential impact OP-BB1: Bird and bat collision with rotating turbines blades Birds and bats can die when colliding with the rotating wind turbine blades. Bird mortality rates at existing wind energy facilities have been assessed internationally in the last decade. Although more and more wind energy facilities are being erected in South Africa, information on collision-prone species from Operation phase monitoring is still scarce. Bird mortalities are commonly measured as mortalities per turbine per year, which vary widely depending on turbine placement and/or on the species assessed.

The intensity of the impact, when compared to a large scale wind energy facility, is considered to be “medium”, as mortality rates will be lower than on a large-scale facility. This approach is important to note, as intensity could be interpreted as “high” due to individuals experiencing death. The latter approach would not allow the distinction in impact between a small and large wind energy facility.

Without mitigation measures, the impact on birds and bats by collision with turbine blades has been rated as MEDIUM. Mitigation measures must be implemented rigorously to ensure that the impact rating can be reduced to VERY LOW. Bird and bat mortalities due to collision should be carefully monitored in accordance with a monitoring protocol. Should mortalities increase, a specialist must investigate the reasons and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the collision rate.

56 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 14 Operation phase impacts on birds and bats by the wind energy facility 1: Bird and bat collision rates with rotating turbine blades.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve Medium mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • 1.2 km buffer parallel to the coast (only applicable if no detailed pre-construction bird study is conducted). • 1 km buffer north of the Buffels River estuary (only applicable if no detailed pre-construction bird study is conducted). • Pre-construction basic monitoring of open water areas within 10 km radius of the proposed wind energy facility site. In the unlikely event that large numbers of birds commute to these water bodies by passing or departing from the DCA site, a more detailed pre-construction monitoring study will be required. • Every second turbine blade to be marked with UV paint that is highly visible to birds but invisible to the human eye. • Install low risk turbine designs and configurations, which discourage birds from perching on turbine towers or blades. • Allow sufficient space for commuting birds to fly safely through turbine strings. • Carefully monitor bird and bat collision incidence during the Operation phase in accordance with a monitoring programme. • If bat collisions are high attempt curtailment of cut-in speeds to 6 m/s wind speed. • Initiate post-construction monitoring studies by specialist if collisions are high. • Shut down problem turbines at particular times or under particular conditions determined by a post-construction monitoring study. • Only intermittent lights to be used for turbines (Richardson 2000). If flood-lighting must be installed red or green light should be used instead of white light. Red or green light does not attract nocturnal birds or insects (food for bats or nocturnal birds) (Weir 1976). With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

Potential impact OP-BB2: Barotrauma associated bat mortalities Bats have been shown to experience barotrauma, which causes the lungs to collapse in the low air pressure around the moving blades resulting in fatal internal haemorrhaging (Baerwald et al 2008).

Without mitigation measures, the impact of barotrauma on bat populations has been rated as MEDIUM. Mitigation measures must be implemented rigorously to ensure that the impact rating can be reduced to VERY LOW. Bat mortalities should be carefully monitored in accordance with a monitoring protocol. Should mortalities increase, a specialist must investigate the reasons and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the mortality rate.

57 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 15 Operation phase impacts on birds and bats by the wind energy facility 2: Bat barotrauma associated with rotating turbine blades.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Carefully monitor bat mortality incidence during the Operation phase in accordance with a monitoring programme. • If bat collisions are high attempt curtailment of cut-in speeds to 6 m/s wind speed. • Initiate post-construction monitoring studies by specialist if bat mortalities are high (thresholds to be specified in the mortality monitoring protocol). • Shut down problem turbines at particular times or under particular conditions determined by a post-construction monitoring study. • Only intermittent lights to be used for turbines (Richardson 2000). If flood-lighting must be installed red or green light should be used instead of white light. Red or green light does not attract nocturnal birds or insects (food for bats or nocturnal birds) (Weir 1976). With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

Potential impact BB3: Bird collision with power lines and electrocution by perching on electrical structures Power lines and wind turbines pose similar collision risks to birds, affecting the same types of birds (Jenkins et al. 2010). Mitigation of collision risks includes the careful selection of low impact alignments for new power lines relative to bird movements and avoidance of concentrations of high risk species. The flight paths of priority species identified in this study area are, however, not known and pre-construction intensive bird monitoring is not considered justifiable for such a small-scale wind energy facility. Consequently, the layout of the wind energy facility should be designed such as to minimise power line length. Furthermore, power lines should be marked by bird flappers and have an air gap > 2 m between live components and/or live and earthed components to prevent electrocution of large raptors attempting to perch. Birds should also be physically excluded from high risk areas of live infrastructure. Finally, where feasible high risk live infrastructure should be insulated (van Rooyen 2004; Lehman et al. 2007).

The impact of power lines on birds has been rated as MEDIUM without mitigation measures. Mitigation measures must be implemented rigorously to ensure that the impact rating can be reduced to LOW. Bird mortalities should be carefully monitored in accordance with a monitoring protocol and infrastructure should be maintained regularly to minimise exposed live components.

58 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 16 Operation phase impacts on birds and bats by the wind energy facility 3: Bird collision with power lines and electrocution by perching on electrical structures.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Minimise power line length. • Mark power lines with bird flappers. • Ensure that power lines have an air gap >2 m between live components and/or live and earthed components to allow for safe perching by larger raptors. • Physically exclude birds from high risk areas of live infrastructure. • Insulate live infrastructure wherever possible. • Carefully monitor bird collision and electrocution incidence during the Operation phase in accordance with a monitoring programme. • Maintain infrastructure in good condition to ensure minimal exposure of live components. With Local Low Long-term Low Probable LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

3.3.4.3 Cumulative impacts on birds and bats Large coastal areas have been irrevocably altered by open cast mining for alluvial diamonds and large-scale wind energy facilities are currently considered as an attractive land-use option in the Northern Cape. In comparison to what has been proposed in the immediate vicinity of Kleinzee, the proposed DCA wind energy facility, with 19 MW, only contributes a fraction to the impacts that will be seen on bird and bat populations. Together, the Blue Wind and Kleinzee Energy Facilities will produce 450 MW, covering a large area and large numbers of wind turbines. Finally, cumulative impacts are likely to be low considering that the DCA facility is situated on entirely transformed land. Some areas in the east and south have not been mined and potential impacts would be comparatively greater.

3.3.4.4 Summary of mitigation measures Planning phase: Mitigation of impacts by means of turbine placement and design considerations

• Implement 1.2 km buffer parallel to the coast (only applicable if no detailed pre- construction bird study is conducted, which recommends alternative placement of turbines). • Implement 1 km buffer north of the Buffels River estuary (only applicable if no detailed pre-construction bird study is conducted, which recommends alternative placement of turbines). • Pre-construction basic monitoring of open water areas within 10 km radius of the proposed wind energy facility site. In the unlikely event that large numbers of birds commute to these water bodies by passing or departing from the DCA site, a more detailed pre-construction monitoring study will be required. • Design the wind energy facility layout such as to minimise power line length.

59 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

• Every second turbine blade to be marked with UV paint that is highly visible to birds but invisible to the human eye. • Install low risk turbine designs and configurations, which discourage birds from perching on turbine towers or blades. • Allow sufficient space for commuting birds to fly safely through turbine strings. • Only intermittent lights to be used for turbines (Richardson 2000). If flood-lighting must be installed red or green light should be used instead of white light. Red or green light does not attract nocturnal birds or insects (food for bats or nocturnal birds) (Weir 1976). • Ensure that power lines have an air gap >2 m between live components and/or live and earthed components to allow for safe perching by larger raptors. • Insulate live infrastructure wherever possible.

Operation phase: Mitigation by turbine design choices, Operation procedures and monitoring

• Carefully monitor bird and bat collision incidence during the Operation phase in accordance with a monitoring programme. • If bat collisions are high attempt curtailment of cut-in speeds to 6 m/s wind speed. • Initiate post-construction monitoring studies by specialist if collisions are high. • Shut down problem turbines at particular times or under particular conditions determined by a post-construction monitoring study. • Mark power lines with bird flappers and maintain the flappers. • Physically exclude birds from high risk areas of live infrastructure. • Carefully monitor power lines for bird collision and electrocution incidence during the Operation phase in accordance with a monitoring programme. • Maintain infrastructure in good condition to ensure minimal exposure of live components.

3.3.5 The No-Go alternative Although severely disturbed by human activities, the coastal area (including the Buffels River estuary) still supports a healthy number of bird species, notably a number of threatened species. In total 11 bird species have been identified as particularly sensitive and may be impacted during the Operation phase of the proposed DCA wind energy facility. Four bat species have been confirmed to occur in the greater study area, which could potentially be impacted. With the implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts have been rated as VERY LOW to LOW.

If the development does not go ahead the status quo will be maintained and DCA will rely on municipal electricity provision which is largely generated by coal burning power stations with ongoing, negative environmental impacts (currently not renewable energy).

60 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.4 Potential socio-economic impacts 3.4.1 Introduction, terms of reference and methodology Social impacts can be defined as “the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions (these include policies, programmes, plans and/or projects) that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and generally live and cope as members of society. These impacts manifest at various levels, including individual level, family or household level, community, organisation or societal level. Some social impacts are experienced as a physical reality, while other social impacts are perceptual or emotional (Vanclay 2003). The issue of social impacts is complicated by the way in which different people from different cultural, ethic, religious, gender and educational backgrounds etc. view the world. This is referred to as the “social construct of reality”. The social construct of reality informs people’s worldview and the way in which they react to changes (Barbour, 2007).

A Social Impact Assessment is the process of analysing (predicting, evaluating and reflecting) and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of planned interventions (policies, programmes, plans and projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions so as to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment (Vanclay, 2003).

The Terms of Reference for the study were to:

• Review literature, internet resources, previous studies and information provided by stakeholders relating to the socio-economic environment of the study area; • Compile a baseline for the affected areas, including the potentially affected community as well as the local (municipal) and, where relevant, regional (district municipal) context; • Analyse the information to ascertain the socio-economic conditions and characteristics of the study area; • Identify the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed project based on the baseline data, project description, review of other studies for similar projects and professional experience; • Assess the significance of the socio-economic impacts using the Anchor Environmental’s impact rating methodology; • Identify mitigation measures for the reduction of the significance of negative impacts (and enhancement of benefits) and re-rate the impact significance assuming the effective implementation of mitigation measures.

61 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

In this context it must be noted, specifically with regards to social impacts, that:

• These impacts are not easily measured objectively and therefore often need to be inferred rather than measured. A combination of insight into social processes in general and knowledge of the community under study are important to draw valid inferences; • Social impacts are often multifaceted and inter-connected and therefore not easily disaggregated into separate impacts; • Communities are dynamic and in a continual process of change. The proposed upgrades to the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm is one factor contributing to such change, but it is often difficult to identify when an impact is attributable to the project or to other factors (or a combination thereof); and • Human beings are naturally continuously adapting to changes in their environment, including project impacts. As such these impacts change in significance for those affected.

Socio-economic impacts are likely to result from a number of project activities:

• Employment of new staff; • Procurement of new infrastructure; • Installation of new infrastructure (aquaculture and windfarm); • Competition with other aquaculture operations; • Discharge of effluent and potential impacts on marine living resources harvested by humans; and • Restriction in access to areas occupied by the aquaculture farm;

Potential socio-economic impacts are denoted by first listing the phase of the development (i.e. CP = Construction Phase; OP = Operation Phase) followed by the impact category (i.e. SE = Socio- economic). Impacts are numbered consecutively and separately for the construction and Operation phases.

3.4.2 Preferred alternative – Identification and nature of impacts 3.4.2.1 Assessment of impacts: construction phase Three potential socio-economic impacts were identified for the construction phase:

• CP-SE1: Investment in the local, regional and national economy; • CP-SE2: Increased employment, income and skills development; and • CP-SE3: Noise.

The landscape of the study site has been severely altered as a result of diamond mining and is characterised by mine tailings, depressions filled with seawater seepage, and bare bedrock. Mine tailings surround the proposed development site and activities related to the installation of infrastructure will be largely hidden from view. The proposed project is not likely to have a visual impact during the construction phase.

62 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impact CP-SE1: Investment in the local, regional and national economy It is expected that the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm expansion will take place over several years and assesses the total investment required to complete the project. The expected capital value of the proposed expansions to the aquaculture farm amount to approximately R 400-500 million.

The extent of the economic investment is deemed national, as materials and expertise required during construction are likely to be sourced from outside Namaqualand. Specialised equipment is likely to be sourced from abroad, which would dilute the benefit accruing locally. The intensity of the benefit is considered medium over a medium-term. The probability of the full benefit occurring has been rated as probable (>70% - 90% chance of occurring). The significance of this benefit has been rated as high without and with the implementation of essential mitigation measures.

Table 17 Construction phase socio-economic impact 1: Significance of investment into the local, regional and national economy.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without National Medium High term Probable HIGH + ve Medium mitigation 3 2 7 2 Benefit enhancing measures: • Procure goods and services from local, provincial or South African suppliers as far as possible, giving preference to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) suppliers. Medium- With National Medium High term Probable HIGH + ve Medium mitigation 3 2 7 2

Potential impact CP-SE2: Increased employment, income and skills development It is expected that approximately 200-250 people will be employed during the construction phase of the proposed development with an expected value of the employment opportunities of R35-40 million of which 85-90% will accrue to previously disadvantaged communities of Kleinzee and surrounds. While construction employment will be temporary, workers have the opportunity to improve their economic prospects in the longer term if they take full advantage of the income, experience and skills transferred to them through the project. The proposed development will also create or sustain indirect employment at suppliers of materials and other services. It is not possible, however, to quantify indirect employment and income that will be created by the project, but it is likely to be relatively limited.

The extent of the benefit is predicted to be regional, as the majority of construction workers and skills are likely to be procured from the local communities in the Namaqua Region. The intensity of the benefit is considered medium. Unemployment rates in the region are very high as a result of mine closures and these new temporary employment opportunities will make a difference for many households.

The benefit has been assessed to be of MEDIUM significance without and with the implementation of benefit enhancing measures (Table 18).

63 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 18 Construction phase socio-economic impact 2: Increased employment, income and skills development. Note that when assessing this impact, the scoring of the extent is reversed, as it is more favourable to employ people locally given the high unemployment levels in this region.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without National Medium Medium term Probable MEDIUM + ve High mitigation 1 2 5 2 Benefit enhancing measures: • Use local and regional labour (Nama Khoi Municipality, Namakwa District Municipality). • Preferentially employ previously disadvantaged individuals. Medium- With Regional Medium High term Probable HIGH + ve Medium mitigation 2 2 6 2

Potential impact CP-SE3: Noise generation Noise-producing activities include blasting, piling, construction of roads and wind turbine foundations, and the erection of the turbines themselves, earth moving vehicles, and delivery trucks. The impact will be local and of low intensity for a medium-term period. The impact will be definite, resulting in very low impact significance. Essential mitigation measures include diligent compliance with the Environmental Management Programme for the construction phase.

Table 19 Construction phase socio-economic impact 3: Significance of noise generation.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without Local Low Very low term Definite VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 4 2 Essential mitigation measures: • Best management practice and compliance with the Environmental Management Programme for the construction phase. Medium- With Local Low Very low term Definite VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 4 2

64 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.4.2.2 Assessment of impacts: Operation phase Eleven potential socio-economic impacts were identified for the operation phase:

• OP-SE1: Investment in the local, regional and national economy; • OP-SE2: Increased employment, income and skills development; • OP-SE3: Impact of deteriorating water quality on sea fisheries; • OP-SE4: Impact of deteriorating water quality on mariculture activities; • OP-SE5: Disease transmission to commercially important marine resources; • OP-SE6: Disease transmission to abalone ranching operations; • OP-SE7: Impact of invasive species on harvested marine living resources; • OP-SE8: Impact of effluent discharge on recreational activities; • OP-SE9: Visual intrusion from the proposed development; • OP-SE10: Noise generation; • OP-SE11: Access to coastal public property.

Potential impact OP-SE1: Investment into the local, regional and national economy At full production the expected annual income generated by the aquaculture farm is R200-250 million. Estimated revenue is likely to vary over time, as the production is sensitive to environmental factors (such as algal blooms or water pollution) and pricing is sensitive to national and international competition and demand.

Revenue from aquaculture farms will result in:

• Direct economic investment, through payment of salaries and direct procurement from suppliers, e.g. equipment and contractors; • Payment of taxes and levies; • Indirect economic investment, mainly procurement by suppliers and service providers from other businesses; and • Induced economic impacts, through increased demand from households earning an income from direct and indirect economic impacts.

The extent of the economic investment is deemed national, as project and private expenditure is likely to take place beyond the Namakwa District Municipality. The intensity of the impact is considered medium as revenue is likely to be volatile over the long-term. The probability of the full benefit occurring has been rated as probable (>70% - 90% chance of occurring). The significance of this benefit has been rated as very high without and with the implementation of essential benefit enhancing measures.

65 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 20 Operation phase socio-economic impact 1: Significance of investment into the local, regional and national economy.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without National Medium Long-term Very high Probable VERY HIGH + ve Medium mitigation 3 2 3 8 Benefit enhancing measures: • Procure goods and services from local, provincial or South African suppliers as far as possible, giving preference to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) suppliers. • Procure ancillary services for goods purchased overseas, such as installation, customisation and maintenance, from South African companies as far as possible. With National Medium Long-term Very High Probable VERY HIGH` + ve Medium mitigation 3 2 3 8

Potential impact OP-SE2: Increased employment, income and skills development It is expected that approximately 270-300 people will be employed permanently during the Operation phase of the proposed development with an expected value of the employment opportunities of R75-100 million during the first 10 years of which 85-90% will accrue to previously disadvantaged communities of Kleinzee and surrounds. The proposed development will also create or sustain indirect employment at suppliers of materials and other services (including feed and fry suppliers). It is not possible, however, to quantify indirect employment and income that will be created by the project. The extent of the benefit is predicted to be largely regional, as the majority of employees and skills are likely to be procured from the local communities in the Namaqua Region. The intensity of the benefit is considered high. Unemployment rates in the region are very high as a result of mine closures and these new employment and skill development opportunities will make a difference for many households.

The benefit has been assessed to be of very high significance without and with the implementation of benefit enhancing measures (Table 18).

Table 21 Operation phase socio-economic impact 2: Increased employment, income and skills development. Note that when assessing this impact, the scoring of the extent is reversed, as it is more favourable to employ people locally given the high unemployment levels in this region.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without National High Long-term High Probable HIGH + ve High mitigation 1 3 3 7 Benefit enhancing measures: • Preferentially use local and regional labour (Nama Khoi Municipality, Namakwa District Municipality). • Preferentially employ previously disadvantaged individuals. With Local High Long-term Very high Probable VERY HIGH + ve Medium mitigation 3 3 3 9

66 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impacts OP-SE3: Impact of deteriorating water quality on sea fisheries The effluent discharged from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm will contain elevated nutrient and suspended solid concentrations, as well as residual veterinary chemicals (therapeutants). If not mitigated appropriately, this could harm the local marine ecology with potentially negative knock-on effects on the inshore fisheries sector of this region.

There is little data on shore based recreational angling in South Africa. Although several recent surveys have assessed catch and effort in this fishery along the KZN coast and several discrete localities along the Eastern and Western Cape coasts, the last time the Namaqualand coast was surveyed was between 1994 and 1996 as part of the National Marine Linefish Survey (Brouwer et al 1997). Even at this time, little survey effort was expended north of Doringbaai (C. Erasmus Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. pers. comm.). Data from this survey were reported for the West Coast (Cape Point to Namibian border) as a whole, and revealed that this region had the lowest estimated number of shore anglers nationally (average of just 0.12 anglers per km), who expended approximately 200 000 angler days.year-1 effort and caught fish at an average catch-per-unit-effort of 0.94 fish.angler.day-1 (Brouwer et al 1997).

The main species targeted by shore anglers along the west coast were galjoen, white stumpnose, hottentot, silver kob and steenbras. There is no recent data available on ashore angler catch and effort for Kleinzee specifically.

Clark et al (2002) identified 458 subsistence/small scale commercial marine fishers in the region between The Orange River and Doringbaai. Thirty percent of these fishers were estuarine gill net fishers from the villages of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp at the Olifants River Mouth. The remaining 330 fishers were distributed between the three fishing communities Port Nolloth, Hondeklip Baai and Doring Baai. In this region as a whole, these fishers mainly harvested rocky intertidal invertebrates (58%), rock lobster (69%) and finfish (100%), predominately snoek and hottentot (Clark et al 2002). All these resources except snoek naturally occur within the near shore zone that is likely to be impacted by discharges from the proposed aquaculture farm. The increase in the number of artisanal fishers in Port Nolloth and Hondeklip Baai in the 15 years since Clark et al (2002) completed their survey is unknown. Since then, many artisanal fishers received official recognition and were granted initially interim relief, and later small-scale commercial fishing rights in the west coast rock lobster (wcrl) and traditional linefish sectors. More recently, however, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is attempting to implement a new Small-Scale Fisheries Policy, which is envisioned to shift the focus from individual rights holders to fishing communities. This policy seeks to allocate access to a “basket” of near shore fishery species to “identified” fishing communities, who will largely be responsible for monitoring and co-managing the marine living resources allocated to them.

The potential impact of effluent discharge from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm on the marine ecology of the site (and therefore living marine resources) has been assessed separately in the marine ecology specialist study summarised in Section 3.1. It is assumed that the impact on the sea fisheries sector will be very low provided that the receiving environment does not deteriorate as result of effluent discharges from the DCA facility. This impact assessment has therefore not been repeated here.

67 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impacts OP-SE4: Impact of deteriorating water quality on the mariculture sector (including ranching) Effluent discharges from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm will contain elevated nutrient and suspended solid concentrations, as well as residual veterinary chemicals (therapeutants). If not mitigated appropriately, this could result in the deterioration of water quality in the vicinity of the outfall and potentially harm other mariculture operations in the area.

Abalone ranching involves the seeding of hatchery-reared abalone into the ocean for rehabilitation of denuded areas or for harvesting purposes. Approximately 200 km of coastline north and south of Kleinzee has been allocated for abalone ranching in subtidal reef habitat. Abalone does not naturally occur in the Northern Cape but have been shown to survive and grow on subtidal reefs in this area. Current experimental research shows that abalone ranching may represent a promising alternative to land-based farming.

The proposed DCA effluent outfall is situated within the buffer zone that separates two abalone ranching concession areas, which have been allocated to Diamond Coast Aquaculture and Port Nolloth Seafarm Ranching (PNSF) respectively. DCA’s concession area extends from the south end of McDougall Bay to Rob Island, which is situated approximately 10 km north of the proposed effluent outfall. The northern boundary of PNSF’s concession area is situated 2 km south of the proposed effluent outfall.

The potential impact of effluent discharge from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm on the marine ecology of the site has been assessed separately in the marine ecology specialist study summarised in Section 3.1. It is assumed that the impact on the mariculture sector will be VERY LOW provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented and the receiving environment does not deteriorate as result of effluent discharges from the DCA facility. The assessment of this impact has therefore not been repeated here.

Potential impacts OP-SE5: Disease transmission to commercially important marine species Disease transmission is not only a concern for the productivity of the cultured stock, but also threatens wild stocks due to enhanced transmission of parasites and diseases (Heuch et al. 2005, Krkošek et al. 2007, Ford and Myers 2008). Native species are likely to be highly susceptible to infection due to limited natural resistance to new diseases, pathogens and parasites, which may be transferred to receiving waters through effluent discharges, escapees of cultured organisms, poor biosecurity management practices and external vectors such as birds. Commercially important indigenous species that are found and caught in the nearshore in this region (off the coast of Hondeklip Baai) and include harder Liza richardsonii, hottentot Pachymetepon blochii and snoek Thyrsites atun. Fish species that occur in the region and are commercially important elsewhere include silver kob Argyrosomus inodrus, elf Pomatomus saltatrix and yellowtail Seriola lalandii.

The potential impact of disease transmission from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm to native fish (and therefore living marine resources) has been assessed separately in the marine ecology specialist study summarised in Section 3.1. It is assumed that the impact on commercially important

68 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

fish will be LOW provided that disease transmission is actively mitigated during the Operation phase. This impact assessment has therefore not been repeated here.

Potential impact OP-SE6: Disease transmission to abalone ranching operations Abalone Haliotis midiae does not occur naturally northward of St Helena Bay in the Western Cape and the transmission of diseases to natural stocks has therefore not been considered as a potential impact. However, transmission of disease to ranched abalone in the area needs to be considered as a potential socio-economic impact on existing ranching operations. Infectious diseases are considered one of the main barriers to successful abalone aquaculture as they limit production in terms of quality, quantity and regularity (Bachère et al. 1995 and Mialhe et al. 1995). Existing abalone ranches could therefore lose stock if a disease outbreak on the Diamond Cost Aquaculture farm is not contained.

Investment into abalone ranches in the Kleinzee area have been made by Port Nolloth Seafarm Ranching, Abagold Ltd and Diamond Coast Aquaculture. The loss of stock to a disease outbreak would have a local extent, with a high intensity (the investment and potential loss is very high) over the medium-term. The impact significance was determined to be MEDIUM before and LOW after the implementation of mitigation measures (Table 22).

Table 22 Operation phase socio-economic impact 6: Disease transmission to abalone ranching operations. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without Local High Medium term Probable MEDIUM – ve High mitigation 1 3 6 2 Essential mitigation measures: • Maintain strict bio-security measures. • All organisms obtained from other hatcheries must be sourced only from certified disease, pathogen and parasite free sources. • Ensure all larvae undergoes a health examination prior to stocking. • Regularly inspect stock for disease and/parasites as part of a formalised stock health monitoring programme and take necessary action to eliminate pathogens through the use of therapeutic chemicals or improved farm management. This will require focussed research effort into the identification, pathology and treatment of diseases and parasites infecting farmed species. • Maintain comprehensive records of all pathogens and parasites detected as well as logs detailing the efficacy of treatments applied. These records should be made publically available to facilitate rapid responses by other operators to future outbreaks. • Treat adjacent stocks simultaneously even if infections have not yet been detected. • Keep facilities clean. • Farms to adhere to industry standards (i.e. abalone farming standards and monitoring programmes). Best practice • All organisms introduced to the facility should be isolated in a quarantine system for a period of six weeks and subject to regular health inspections to monitor for disease. • Culture facilities must be designed to have multiple redundancy exclusion barriers or screens fine enough to contain the organisms being cultured (e.g. eggs, larvae, juveniles). Medium- With Local High Medium term Improbable LOW – ve High mitigation 1 3 6 2

69 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Potential impact OP-SE7: Impact of invasive species on harvested marine living resources Escape of farmed aquaculture organisms is a common event globally. Although land-based aquaculture systems are more biosecure than cage aquaculture operations, there is still a risk of farmed organisms escaping into the marine environment. Recirculation aquaculture operations typically pose a low risk for escapees entering the natural environment provided that facilities are designed suitably and stringent management protocols are implemented.

DCA intends to farm two exotic species, the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, both of which are classified as exempt alien species in terms of the Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA).

DCA are not certain which sea cucumber and sea urchin species will be farmed. If exotic species are selected, a risk assessment and permit will be required in terms of NEMBA.

It is considered unlikely that the Pacific oyster and rainbow trout would establish and become invasive in this cool-temperate marine environment. The impacts of Pacific oyster and rainbow trout escapees on the marine ecology of the area were assessed in the marine specialist study summarised in Section 3.1 and were rated as VERY LOW and INSIGNIFICANT respectively. It is assumed that the impact on harvested marine living resources will be insignificant to very low. This impact assessment has therefore not been repeated here.

Potential impact OP-SE8: Impact of effluent discharge on recreational activities Enhanced nutrient supply can stimulate macroalgal blooms in disturbed environments despite the control effect applied by intertidal grazers (Masterson et al. 2008). DWAF (1995) Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) for coastal marine waters state that: “Waters should not contain concentrations of dissolved nutrients that are capable of causing excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other aquatic plants or reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations below the target range for dissolved oxygen” at the edge of the Recommended Mixing Zone (RMZ).

Tourism is becoming an increasingly important industry given the picturesque nature of the West Coast and the variety of recreational opportunities it offers including sailing, canoeing, surfing, bathing, diving, kitesurfing, fishing and beach activities. Locals and tourists also engage in bait collection, fishing and lobster fishing. Although Kleinzee is not yet a popular tourism destination, it is important to keep the tourism potential in mind as new developments are implemented.

In order to ensure that a coastal area is suitable for recreational activities, water quality must be of an acceptable standard. Visual impacts of eutrophication include the accumulation of ‘green scum’ which is an alga that makes affected areas unattractive to users of the marine environment. If eutrophication develops in the marine environment as a result of the temporary discharge of effluent with nutrient levels markedly higher than those of the ambient, this impact should be considered as ‘short-term’. However, if the situation is not quickly rectified and is left to continue, this impact should be considered as ‘long-term’ (i.e. for the life of the aquaculture facility). In order to minimise the impact of the discharge of increased concentrations of nutrients into the marine environment, the effluent quality should be monitored daily (dissolved oxygen, temperature,

70 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment turbidity, pH) and water quality samples must be analysed frequently as per the CWDP specifications. Implementing regular monitoring of effluent quality reduces the significance of this impact from MEDIUM to VERY LOW.

Table 23 Operation phase socio-economic impact 8: Nuisance caused by eutrophication as a result of increased nutrients in the outfall stream.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long-term Without Local Medium Medium 3 (impact is Possible LOW - ve High mitigation 1 2 6 reversible) Essential mitigation measures: • No discharge of seawater (including effluent) above the low water mark. • Effluent quality should be monitored daily (dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, pH). • Water quality samples must be analysed for nutrients as frequently as per the CWDP specifications. With Local Medium Short-term VERY LOW Improbable INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 2 1 4

Potential impacts OP-SE9: Visual intrusion from the proposed development The landscape of the study site can currently be described as a severely disturbed mining landscape characterised by mine tailings, depressions filled with seawater seepage, and bare bedrock. Despite vegetation rehabilitation efforts, the site is still mostly sparsely vegetated, especially in areas where soils are hyper saline as a result of seawater seepage. The expansion of the aquaculture farm will include new aquaculture infrastructure on land owned by DCA and on state land (coastal property up to the high water mark), security lighting and a windfarm on the eastern portion of the property.

Mine tailings are generally not entirely flattened but rather shaped to resemble hills. These hills surround the proposed development site and aquaculture farm will therefore not be visible from the town of Kleinzee. The impact significance of installing aquaculture infrastructure and security lighting on land owned by DCA has therefore been rated as VERY LOW with mitigation measures (Table 24). (Note this excludes impacts caused by (1) infrastructure on state land and public coastal property as well as the windfarm, which have been assessed separately in Table 25 and Table 26).

Table 24 Operation phase socio-economic impact 9a: Significance of visual intrusion from the proposed aquaculture infrastructure on land owned by Diamond Coast Aquaculture (Farm 654 Portion 1).

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long-term Without Local Low Low 3 (impact is Probable LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 5 reversible) Essential mitigation measures: • The proposed development is to blend with the surrounding area as far as possible (e.g. colour of infrastructure, screening using landscaping or indigenous vegetation). • Security lighting must be angled downward. Long-term With Local Low Low 3 (impact is Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 5 reversible)

71 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Seawater intake and effluent outfall structures on state land (Farm 175) and below the high water mark on coastal public property will be upgraded. This involves the construction of an additional pump house, the installation of new suction lines and a new outfall pipeline. The impact of this infrastructure in the visually exposed dune and beach area has been rated as MEDIUM without mitigation measures and as LOW with mitigation measures (Table 25).

Table 25 Operation phase socio-economic impact 9b: Significance of visual intrusion from the infrastructure upgrades on state land (Farm 175) and on coastal public property (below the high water mark).

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long-term Without Local Medium Medium 3 (impact is Definite MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 1 2 6 reversible) Essential mitigation measures: • Pump houses to blend with the surrounding area (e.g. colour of infrastructure). • No discharge of seawater (including effluent) above the low water mark. • Effluent intake and outfall pipelines must be buried as far as possible. • Ensure minimal disturbance of dune habitat. • Rehabilitate disturbed parts with vegetation indigenous to the area and suitable for dune habitat. • No driving on the beach and through the dunes without a permit. • The footprint of the maintenance access area is to be kept as small as possible. Long-term With Local Low Low 3 (impact is Definite LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 5 reversible)

DCA also intends to erect wind turbines with a capacity to produce 660 kW per turbine, exceeding 10 megawatts but remaining below 20 megawatts. This means that a maximum of 28 wind turbines can be erected on the eastern portion of the proposed development site. Wind turbines erected close to the boundaries of the property will be visible from the town of Kleinzee and the R355 and may be perceived as a visual intrusion. Additionally, shadow flicker occurs when the sun passes behind the wind turbine and casts a shadow. As the rotor blades rotate, shadows pass over the same point causing an effect termed shadow flicker. The town of Kleinzee is positioned south of the proposed windfarm, which means that the sun will never be low enough to create shadow flicker and this impact has therefore not been considered in the assessment.

The impact has been assessed assuming that all 28 wind turbines will be erected and has been rated as MEDIUM without mitigation measures and as VERY LOW with mitigation measures. The visually sensitive area is limited to the south-eastern quarter of the property where turbines could be seen from Kleinzee and from the R355. Considering the fact that visual intrusion by wind turbines causes annoyance, which over the long-term can potentially lead to development of adverse physiological and psychological effects of affected people (Refer to the section on Operation noise impact), it is strongly recommended that a maximum of five wind turbines are visible from Kleinzee. Mine tailings (rehabilitated and current) on and to the east of the proposed development site should assist in the reducing visibility of the proposed wind energy facility.

72 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 26 Operation phase socio-economic impact 9c: Significance of visual intrusion from the proposed windfarm (assuming that all 28 turbines are erected).

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Long-term Without Local Low Low 3 (impact is Definite LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 1 5 reversible) Best practice mitigation measures: • No more than five wind turbines are to be visible from Kleinzee. Long-term With Local Low Low 3 (impact is Possible VERY LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 1 5 reversible)

Potential impact OP-SE10: Noise generation Noise will be generated by fans and blowers used to enhance dissolved oxygen in production water. These fans and blowers will be placed inside semi-closed buildings lined with Styrofoam to mitigate the impacts. (Note that fans and blowers require an air intake and buildings cannot be fully enclosed). Employees and delivery trucks will also contribute to noise emissions.

The impact will be definite, resulting in LOW impact significance. Essential mitigation measures include diligent compliance with the Environmental Management Programme for the construction phase.

Table 27 Operation phase socio-economic impact 10a: Significance of noise generation by the aquaculture farm.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long-term Low Possible LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5 Essential mitigation measures: • Best management practice and compliance with the Environmental Management Programme. With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

DCA also intends to erect wind turbines with a capacity to produce 660 kW per turbine, exceeding 10 megawatts but remaining below 20 megawatts. This means that a maximum of 28 wind turbines can be erected on the eastern portion of the proposed development site. Wind turbines emit mechanical and aerodynamic noise (correlated with wind speed). The major mechanical components include the gearbox, generator, and yaw motors, each of which produce their own characteristic sounds (World Bank Group 2015). Other mechanical systems, such as fans and hydraulic motors, can also contribute to the overall acoustic emissions. Mechanical noise is radiated by the surface of the turbine and by openings in the nacelle housing. The interaction of air and the turbine blades produces aerodynamic noise through a variety of processes as air passes over and past the blades (Howe et al. 2007).

73 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

The propagation of sound from the source is generally influenced by the following factors:

• Source characteristics (e.g. directivity, height, etc.); • Distance of the source from the observer; • Air absorption, which depends on frequency; • Ground effects (i.e. reflection and absorption of sound on the ground, dependent on source height, terrain cover, ground properties, frequency, etc.); • Blocking of sound by obstructions and uneven terrain; • Weather effects (i.e., wind speed, change of wind speed or temperature with height). The prevailing wind direction can cause differences in sound pressure levels between upwind and downwind positions; and • Shape of the land; certain land forms can also focus sound.

Wind energy enjoys considerable public support, but it also has its critics, who have publicised their concerns that the sounds continuously emitted from wind turbines cause adverse health effects. In response to those concerns, the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations established a scientific advisory panel in 2009 to conduct a review of current literature available on the issue of perceived health effects of wind turbines (Colby et al. 2009). After a thorough review, analysis and discussion of current knowledge, the review panel reached consensus that there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects (Colby et al. 2009). However, the review panel accepted that protracted annoyance with the noise produced by wind turbines may, however, undermine coping and progress to stress related physiological and psychological effects (e.g. headaches, sleep disturbance, anxiety). It was concluded that this is the main mechanism for effects on health of a small number of people from prolonged exposure to low levels of noise. Controlled scientifically rigorous studies have not yet been published to confidently show a causative relationship between wind turbine noise and direct adverse physiological effects on humans. However, research published by Pedersen et al. 2009 showed that wind turbine noise was more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable levels, possibly due to specific sound properties such as “swishing”, temporal variability, and lack of night-time abatement. The study found that high turbine visibility enhances negative response and having wind turbines visible from the dwelling significantly increased the risk of annoyance. The study further demonstrates that people who benefit economically from wind turbines have a significantly decreased risk of annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels. Given the research on human responses to noise emitted by wind turbines, it is recommended that wind turbines are only installed where they are not visible from the R355 and the town of Kleinzee to minimise annoyance and potentially associated physiological and psychological adverse health effects.

74 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Other measures to prevent and control noise are mainly related to engineering design standards and turbine siting. With modern turbines, mechanical noise is usually significantly lower than aerodynamic noise, and continuous improvement in airfoil design is reducing the latter. The Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy World Bank Group Additional recommended noise management measures might include:

• Operating turbines in reduced noise mode; • Building walls/appropriate noise barriers around potentially affected buildings (only an option in hilly terrain, due to the height of turbines); and • Curtailing turbine operations above the wind speed at which turbine noise becomes unacceptable in the project-specific circumstances.

It must be noted that the impact assessment as shown in Table 28 was not based on site-specific noise modelling results and has therefore been given a low confidence level. Based on available literature, site and project information, the impact significance has been rated as MEDIUM without mitigation measures. However, essential mitigation measures (as described above and in the table) are anticipated to be very effective within the context of this development, which reduce the impact significance to VERY LOW. Finally, the 1.5 km buffer zone is no longer applicable if a detailed noise study compiled by a specialist shows that a smaller or no buffer zone is acceptable.

Table 28 Operation phase socio-economic impact 10b: Significance of noise generation by the proposed wind farm.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Definite MEDIUM - ve Low mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Turbines are to be situated only on the most northern part of the proposed development site (i.e. at least 1.5 km from the northern boundary of the town of Kleinzee). (Only applicable if a detailed noise study is NOT conducted). • Operating turbines are to be in reduced noise mode. • Curtailing turbine operations above the wind speed at which turbine noise becomes unacceptable in the project- specific circumstances. With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW - ve Low mitigation 1 1 3 5

Potential impact OP-SE11: Access to coastal public property Access to coastal public property could potentially be impacted by the upgrades to the existing sea water intake infrastructure and the construction of new effluent outfall infrastructure. This infrastructure leads from the low tide water mark across the beach and could potentially hinder access to the beach north of the Buffels Estuary. However, this beach does not experience high numbers of visitors and the intensity of the impact without mitigation measures was therefore rated as LOW. If pipes are buried as far as possible and safe crossings are provided for pedestrians the probability of the impact occurring is reduced to ‘improbable’ and impact significance drops to VERY LOW.

75 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Table 29 Operation phase socio-economic impact 11: Impact on the access to coastal public property.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long-term Low Definite LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 1 3 5 Essential mitigation measures: • Burry intake and outfall pipes wherever possible. If this is not possible provide a safe crossing for pedestrians and their dogs. • Outfall infrastructure must be closed (i.e. pipe instead of an open channel). • Maintain access across seawater intake and effluent outfall structures. With Local Low Long-term Low Improbable VERY LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 1 3 5

3.4.2.3 Summary of mitigation measures Essential socio-economic mitigation measures during the design phase as follows:

• No discharge of seawater (including effluent) above the low water mark; • Effluent intake and outfall pipelines must be buried as far as possible; • The footprint of the maintenance access area is to be kept as small as possible; • No more than five wind turbines are to be visible from Kleinzee; • Turbines are to be situated only on the most northern part of the proposed development site (i.e. at least 1.5 km from the northern boundary of the town of Kleinzee). (Only applicable if a detailed noise study is NOT conducted); • If pipes cannot be buried provide a safe crossing for pedestrians and their dogs; • Outfall infrastructure must be closed (i.e. pipe instead of an open channel).The proposed development is to blend with the surrounding area as far as possible (e.g. colour of infrastructure, screening using landscaping or indigenous vegetation).

Essential socio-economic mitigation measures during the construction phase as follows:

• Procure goods and services from local, provincial or South African suppliers as far as possible, giving preference to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) suppliers; • Preferentially use local and regional labour (Nama Khoi Municipality, Namakwa District Municipality); • Preferentially employ previously disadvantaged individuals; and • Implement best management practice and compliance with the Environmental Management Programme.

Essential socio-economic mitigation measures during the Operation phase as follows:

• Procure goods and services from local, provincial or South African suppliers as far as possible, giving preference to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) suppliers; • Procure ancillary services for goods purchased overseas, such as installation, customisation and maintenance, from South African companies as far as possible; • Preferentially use local and regional labour (Nama Khoi Municipality, Namakwa District Municipality);

76 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

• Preferentially employ previously disadvantaged individuals; • Security lighting must be angled downward; • Maintain structures on state land to reduce visual impact and to ensure public safety; • Ensure minimal disturbance of dune habitat; • Rehabilitate disturbed parts with vegetation indigenous to the area and suitable for dune habitat; • No driving on the beach and through the dunes without a permit; • Implement best management practice and compliance with the Environmental Management Programme. • Operating turbines are to be in reduced noise mode; • Curtailing turbine operations above the wind speed at which turbine noise becomes unacceptable in the project-specific circumstances.

3.4.3 The No-Go alternative The No-Go alternative entails no change in the status quo and the Diamond Coast Aquaculture will continue to operate at currently authorised capacity of 150 t abalone. No significant socio-economic benefits (i.e. employment) are associated with the No-Go alternative. Overall negative socio- economic impacts are very low and avoiding those will not justify the loss of potential employment to the Kleinsee area where unemployment is very high.

77 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.5 Potential heritage impacts Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA) requires that any person who intends to undertake certain categories of development must notify the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and furnish details of the location, nature and extent of the proposed development. Section 38 also makes provision for the assessment of heritage impacts as part of an EIA process.

As the proposed development is undergoing an Environmental Authorisation (EA) application process in terms of NEMA, it is incumbent on the developer to ensure that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is done as per section 38(3) and 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, Act 25 of 1999 (NHRA). This must include an archaeological component, maritime archaeology component, palaeontological component and any other applicable heritage components. The HIA must be conducted as part of the EA Application in terms of NEMA and the 2017 NEMA EIA Regulations.

3.5.1 Introduction, terms of reference and methodology Anchor Environmental submitted a Notice of Intent to the SAHRA in November 2017 and received Interim Comment from SAHRA on 8 December 2017. The letter has been attached in Appendix J of the Basic Assessment Report. SAHRA requested that an HIA is done as per section 38(3) and 38(8) of the NHRA. SAHRA requested that this must include an archaeological component, maritime archaeology component, palaeontological component and any other applicable heritage components.

ACRM was appointed to manage the HIA. ACRM completed the archaeological impact assessment in house. ACRM sub-contracted ACO Associates and a qualified geological and paleontological consultant (John Pether, M.Sc., Pr. Sci. Nat. (Earth Sci.)) to conduct the maritime heritage and paleontological impact assessments respectively. Declarations of independence by these specialists have been included in Appendix I of the Basic Assessment Report.

The executive summaries of all three studies are presented below. The full studies have been attached in Appendix D of the Basic Assessment Report.

3.5.2 Preferred alternative – Identification and nature of impacts 3.5.2.1 Archaeological study Introduction ACRM was appointed to conduct an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) for the proposed expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm at Kleinzee in the Northern Cape Province. Kleinzee is located about 60kms north of Hondeklipbaai at the mouth of the Buffels River. Currently, Diamond Coast Aquaculture operates a land-based marine aquaculture farm on Portion 1 of the Farm Kleinzee 654, a little north of the town, on land previously owned and mined by De Beers Consolidated Mining.

78 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

The AIA forms part of a wider Heritage Impact Assessment (or HIA) requested by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA Case Id: 11907), which includes a Maritime Archaeological Impact Assessment and a Palaeontological Impact Assessment (PIA).

Anchor Environmental is the appointed independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) responsible for facilitating the Basic Assessment process for Environmental Authorization.

The development proposal Diamond Coast Aquaculture (DCA) is proposing to increase production of aquaculture products by expanding their existing facilities. The proposed expansion includes the construction of new hatcheries, finfish production ponds, expansion of the abalone growing tanks, and the construction of buildings to accommodate staff facilities. A new pump house will be built adjacent to the existing one near the beach. Additional sea water intake pipes will be installed at the existing pump house, while the new pump house will be fitted with new intake pipes. A new outfall pipeline will be constructed on the northern side of the aquaculture farm to ensure that effluent is released below the low tide mark on the shore.

DCA are also proposing to construct a small wind energy facility (a maximum of 28 turbines totalling no more than 20 MW in capacity), in an area of mostly overburden mine dumps and tailings in the currently restricted decommissioned area east of the abalone farm.

Aim The overall purpose of the AIA is to assess the sensitivity of archaeological resources in the proposed development footprint area(s), to determine the potential impacts on such resources, and to avoid and/or minimise such impacts by means of management and/or mitigation measures.

The significance of archaeological resources was assessed in terms of their content and context. Attributes considered in determining significance include artefact and/or ecofact types, rarity of finds, exceptional items, organic preservation, potential for future research, density of finds and the context in which archaeological traces occur.

Results A field assessment of the proposed activities (i.e. the aquaculture farm & wind energy facility), was undertaken by ACRM in January 2018 in which the following findings were made.

Proposed aquaculture farm Traces of archaeological resources were recorded on the slightly consolidated sands close to the existing pump station, where additional pipelines will traverse the seaside dune area. These comprise mostly dispersed scatters of marine shellfish, dominated by limpets (Scutellastra argenvillei & Cymbula granatina). One or two more dense patches of shellfish were also noted, that included several quartzite flakes and unworked beach cobbles on the flat, degraded sandy plain alongside the gravel road. No pottery, ostrich eggshell or any other organic remains were found despite a detailed search of the surrounding near shore area.

79 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

A displaced scatter of marine shellfish and a few round beach cobbles and quartzite flakes were recorded on a berm adjacent the proposed supply line, alongside the gravel road between the DCA site office and the Kleinzee Oyster farm.

Several isolated patches of weathered marine shellfish and non-artefactual stone was recorded in the mined out and degraded footprint area of the proposed fish farm south east of the DCA site office.

Apart from one or two ephemeral scatters of displaced shellfish on large tailings adjacent the effluent channel, and some isolated shell, stone flakes and chunks in the footprint of the proposed abalone farming area, no other archaeological traces were found, where almost the entire area has been heavily mined for diamonds.

The archaeological remains have been rated as having low (Grade 3C) significance.

Proposed wind energy facility A few isolated stone flakes, a miscellaneous grindstone, and several dispersed and eroded scatters of shellfish, were located in the northern portion of the proposed footprint area, east of the existing aquaculture farm. The entire area has been, heavily mined for diamonds, comprising an irrevocably transformed landscape of un-rehabilitated and rehabilitated mine dumps. A few quartzite flakes and chunks, and isolated fragments of limpet shell were also found on degraded tailings alongside the gravel road in the southern portion of the proposed footprint area.

An ephemeral scatter of marine shellfish (limpets), imported stone cobbles, and limited numbers of quartz, silcrete and quartzite flakes were recorded on a high, degraded dune overlooking the Buffels River in the south western portion of the proposed footprint area. A few fragments of Cape Coastal pottery were also found. A nearby patch of surface quartz may have been targeted as a source of raw material by Later Stone Age hunter-gatherers.

The archaeological remains have been rated as having low (Grade 3C) significance.

Impact Statement Potentially significant impacts are likely to be limited, and where they do occur, will be confined to the shore near the existing pump station, where additional pipelines will traverse the seaside dune area.

However, the overall results of the study indicate that the proposed activities (i.e. expansion of the existing DCA aquaculture farm & a wind energy facility), will not have a significant impact on any important archaeological heritage.

The impact significance of the proposed development on archaeological heritage is therefore assessed as LOW.

80 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Conclusion Traces of archaeological deposits were recorded in both the proposed footprint area of the aquaculture farm, and the proposed wind energy facility, but indications are that, in terms of archaeological heritage, the affected environment is not a threatened landscape. Almost the entire area has been heavily mined for diamonds, and archaeological resources have either been destroyed, or are degraded as a result.

Fortunately, many of the archaeological sites in the areas previously owned and mined by De Beers, have been mitigated by archaeologists from the Archaeology Contracts Office (ACO), and therefore much is known about the precolonial history of this dry and arid landscape.

Recommendations 1. No archaeological mitigation is required prior to construction activities commencing. 2. Excavations for any underground pipelines in the area around the pump station (i. e. the aquaculture farm) must be carefully monitored by the Environmental Control Officer (ECO). The ECO must be briefed by the archaeologist prior to any excavations commencing. 3. Should any unmarked human burials/remains or ostrich eggshell water flask caches for example, be uncovered, or exposed during construction activities, these must immediately be reported to the archaeologist (Jonathan Kaplan 082 321 0172), or the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Ms Natasha Higgit 021 462 4502). Burials, etc. must not be removed or disturbed until inspected by the archaeologist. 4. The archaeologist must be consulted on the final placement of wind turbines in the southern portion of the proposed development site. 5. The above recommendations must be included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed aquaculture and wind energy farm development

3.5.2.2 Paleontological study Anticipated impacts on paleontological heritage resources The early Pliocene Avontuur Formation maximum palaeoshoreline at ~50 m asl is in the north- eastern corner of the Project Area, where gullied granite bedrock and a low cliff are present, and these marine deposits mantled the bedrock slope to lower elevations. The Late Pliocene Hondeklipbaai Formation lapped in from the west over the bedrock and preceding deposits and mainly occupied the flatter marine platform area formed on the Vredefontein quartzites bedrock. The mid-Quaternary (~400 ka) raised beach just lapped into the western edge of the Project Area. The Last Interglacial and Holocene High raised beaches are under the coastal dune cordon just outside the Project Area in State Land.

81 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

However, the entire area of Farm 654/1 has been mined for diamonds and in situ deposits with fossils are unlikely to remain. Furthermore, the marine deposits exposed in trenches just north of the Project Area, including both the Hondeklipbaai Formation and the mid-Quaternary (~400 ka) raised beach, are very decalcified and consequently of low to negligible fossil shell potential (personal observations) and this condition likely applied to most of the mined-away deposits of the Project Area.

It is possible that fossil bones in the various deposits ended up in the overburden dumps and could be discovered during earth moving for construction and rehabilitation. The context of the Project Area, directly adjacent to the mouth of a major drainage, renders it more probable that the fossil bones of terrestrial animal carcasses were present in the deposits in greater abundance than is generally the case. Indeed, the first major fossil bone find on the Namaqualand coast was discovered in this area. Stromer (1931) described a small vertebrate assemblage from river deposits overlying the early Pliocene marine beds at ~35 m asl. on the immediate north bank of the Buffelsrivier, i.e. in the vicinity of the south-eastern corner of the Project Area. The extinct species included a hyaena, a giant otter and a mongoose, fossils of which were later also found in the early Pliocene deposits at Langebaanweg. Only the illustrations of the Kleinzee fossils remain as the material was taken to Germany and was lost during WW II (Hendey, 1984; Pickford & Senut, 1997).

A new pump station will be constructed at the shore and additional pipelines will traverse the dune- covered State Land area (Figure 2). The shell content of the underlying raised beaches of low palaeontological sensitivity. Here the concern is the possible occurrence of bones in the beach deposits and in the overlying dunes where archaeological material also occurs.

Recommendations In summary, there is a distinct possibility that displaced, scientifically valuable fossil bones may occur in the overburden dumps. Fossil bones and archaeological material may be exposed in the seaside dune area, but intended subsurface disturbance there is limited. It is recommended that a requirement to be alert for possible fossil materials and buried archaeological material be included in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed construction operations.

As part of pre-prospecting Environmental and Health & Safety awareness training, personnel must be instructed to be alert for the occurrence of fossil bones, archaeological material and of unrecorded burials. In the event of a find of fossil bones in the overburden heaps or in the seaside dunes, work must cease at the site and the works foreman and the Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for the project must be informed immediately. Scattered, unearthed parts/fragments of the find must be retrieved and returned to the main find site which must be protected from further disturbance. The ECO or representative must then inform SAHRA immediately and provide:

• A description of the nature of the find. • Detailed images of the finds (with scale included). • Position of the find (GPS) and depth. • Digital images of the context. i.e. the excavation (with scales).

SAHRA and an appropriate specialist palaeontologist will assess the information and liaise with the developer, the environmental consultants and the ECO and a suitable response will be established.

82 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.5.2.3 Maritime Heritage Impact Assessment Introduction ACO Associates cc was appointed by ACRM to undertake an archaeological assessment of the marine elements (i.e. below the high water mark) of the proposed expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm at Kleinzee in the Northern Cape Province. This maritime archaeological assessment forms part of a wider Heritage Impact Assessment of the project requested by the South African Heritage Resources Agency which is being managed by ACRM.

The proposed expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm facilities and infrastructure includes two marine elements: new seawater intake pipes at a proposed and an existing pump house which will extend approximately 30m seaward of the low water mark, and a new effluent outfall on the northern side of the aquaculture farm.

Findings The desk-based assessment highlighted the presence of a now submerged Buffels River palaeo- channel on the southern border of the aquaculture farm with the potential for associated submerged prehistoric archaeological resources. Six shipwrecks, five of them historical, within a study area extending 10km along the coast north and south of the aquaculture farm were also assessed, as was the potential, albeit low, for the presence of currently unknown or unrecorded shipwrecks within the study area.

In respect of the submerged prehistoric archaeological potential, the very limited seaward extent of the proposed new intake pipes, and their placement on an exposed rocky point north of the current river mouth, makes the potential for any interaction with or impact on submerged prehistoric archaeological material unlikely.

Similarly, the two wrecks closest to the marine elements of the proposed project activities both are sufficiently far offshore to be unaffected by the proposals. One of these wrecks, the Poseidon Cape, is also so recent that it does not fall within the ambit of the National Heritage Resources Act.

Impact Statement In maritime archaeological terms the proposed expansion of the aquaculture farm is considered acceptable and there are no objections to the proposed marine elements of the project.

Recommendations Should a previously unknown or unrecorded wreck be encountered during the proposed works, the assessment recommends that all work must cease until the project archaeologist and SAHRA have been notified, the significance of the material has been assessed and a decision has been taken as to how to deal with it.

83 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

3.5.3 The No-Go alternative The no-go alternative entails no change to the status quo. Provided that the recommendations of the HIA are implemented during the construction phase, no significant impact will occur on archaeological (maritime and terrestrial) or paleontological resources.

84 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

4 REFERENCES Armstrong, A.J., Siegfried, W.R., 1990. Selective use of heuweltjie earth mounds by sheep in the Karoo. South African Journal of Ecology 1, 77–80. Arnett EB, Brown WK, Erikson WP, Fiedler JK, Hamilton BL, Henry TH, Jain A, Johnson GD, Kerns J, Koford RR, Nicholson CP, O’Connell TL, Piorkowski MD and Tankersley RD. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 61-78. Aronson JB, Thomas AJ, Jordaan SL. 2013. Bat fatality at a wind energy facility in the Western Cape, South Africa. African Bat Conservation News, 31: 9-12. Bachére E, Mialhe E, Noël D, Boul V, Morvan A and Rodrigues J. 1995. Knowledge and research prospects in marine mollusc and crustacean immunology. Aquaculture 132: 17-32. Baerwald EF, D’Amours GH, Klug BJ, Barclay RMR. 2008. Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology, 18(16). Barbour T. 2007. Guideline for involving social assessment specialists in EIA processes. Prepared for Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province. BioInsight 2014. Blue Wind Energy Facility – Bat Monitoring. Pre-construction phase. Report July 2013-March 2014. Report prepared for Diamond Wind (Pty) Ltd. Brouwer SL, Mann BQ, Lamberth SJ, Sauer WHH, Erasmus C. 1997. A survey of the South African shore-angling fishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18: 165-177. Clark BM, Hauck M, Harris JM, Salo K & Rusel E. 2002. Identification of subsistence fishers, fishing areas, resource use and activities along the South African coast, South African Journal of Marine Science, 24: 425-437. Colby WD, Dobie R, Leventhall G, Lipscomb DM, McCunney RJ, Seilo MT, Søndergaard B. 2009. Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects. An Expert Panel Review. Report prepared for the American Wind energy Association. December 2009. Available [Online] http://msue.anr.msu.edu/resources/wind_turbine_sound_and_health_effects_an_expert_ panel_review [Accessed on 01 December 2017]. CSIR (2016) Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Programme for the Port of Cape Town: Surveys made in 2015/2016. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECOS/IR /2016

Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF). 1995. South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters. Volume 1 - Natural Environment. Pretoria. Doty AC and Martin AP. 2013. Assessment of bat and avian mortality at a pilot wind turbine at Coega, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40:75- 80. Driver A, Desmet P, Rouget M, Cowling RM & Maze K. 2003. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan: Biodiversity Component. Technical Report CCU 1/03, Cape Conservation Unit, Botanical Society of South Africa, Kirstenbosch.

85 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Driver A & Maze K. 2002. The Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan: An introduction to SKEP. Veld & Flora 88, 1:12-13. FieldWork 2016. Situation Assessment Report Towards Development of an Estuary Management Plan for the Buffels Estuary. Report prepared by Pete Fielding for the Nama Khoi Local Municipality. Draft Report October 2016. Ford JS and Myers RA. 2008. A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biology 6(2). Friedman J and Daly B. 2004. Red Data Book of Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment (eds CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), and Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) South Africa). Heydorn AEF & Grindley JR. 1981. Buffels (CW3) in Estuaries of the Cape Part II: Synopses of Available Information on Individual Systems. Report No 2. Council for Scientific Research Institute and Industrial Research, Estuarine and Coastal Research Unit – ECRU. National Research Institute for Oceanology. 15 October 1980. Hendey, Q.B. 1984. Southern African late Tertiary vertebrates. In: Klein, R.G. (ed.), Southern African Prehistory and Paleoenvironments: 81 106. Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema. Heuch PA, Bjorn PA, Finstad B, Holst JC, Asplin L and Nilsen F. 2005. A review of the Norwegian ‘National plan of Action against salmon lice on salmonids’: the effect on wild salmonids. Aquaculture 246: 79-92. Howe B, Gastmeier B, McCabe 2007. Wind Turbines and Sound: Review and Best Practice Guidelines. Submitted to: Can WEA Canadian Wind Energy Association. February 2007. Jenkins AR, Smallie JJ and Diamond M. 2010. Avian collisions with power lines: a global review of causes and mitigation with a South African perspective, Bird Conservation International, 20(3): 263-278. Krkošek M, Ford JS, Morton A, Lele S, Myers RA, and Lewis MA. 2007. Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farmed salmon. Science 318(5857): 1772. Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, Johnson GD, Larking RP, Strickland MD, Thresher RW and Tuttle MD. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 315-324. Lehman RN, Kennedy PL and Savidge JA. 2007. The state of the art in raptor electrocution research: a global review. Biological Conservation, 136: 159-174. Marais 2011. Scoping phase assessment with regards to bat (chiroptera) sensitivity for the proposed Kleinzee wind energy facility in the Northern Cape. Prepared by Animalia Zoological & Ecological Consultation for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. July 2011.

Masterson P, Arenas FA, Thompson, RC and Jenkins, SR. 2008. Interaction of top down and bottom up factors in intertidal rockpools: Effects on early successional macroalgal community composition, abundance and productivity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 363(1): 12-20.

86 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

Mialhe E, Bachére E, BBoulo V and Cadoret JP. 1995. Strategy for research and international cooperation in marine invertebrate pathology, immunology and genetics. Aquaculture 132: 33-41. Midgley, J., 2002. Heuweltjie age and vegetation change based on C-813 and C-14 analyses. South African Journal of science 98, 202–204 Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Robles G & Mittermeier CG. 2000. Hotspots: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico. Monadjem A, Taylor PJ, Cotterill FPD and Schoeman MC. 2010. Bats of Southern and Central Africa – a Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis, Ultra Litho (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg. Mucina L, Jürgens N, le Roux A, Rutherford MC, Schmiedel U, Esler KJ, Powrie LW, Desmet PG and Milton SJ. 2006. Succulent Karoo Biome. Chapter 5 in: The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Publisher: SANBI, Pretoria, Editors: Ladislav Mucina, Michael C. Rutherford, pp.220-299. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Donseca GAB & Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, Nature 403: 853-858. Pedersen E, van der Berg F, Bakker R, Bourma J. 2009. Response to noise from modern wind farms in the Netherlands. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(2): 2009. Pickford, M. & Senut, B. 1997. Cainozoic mammals from coastal Namaqualand, South Africa. Palaeontologia Africana., 34, 199-217. Richardson WJ. 2000. Bird migration and wind turbines: Migration timing, flight behaviour and collision risk. In Proceedings of the National Avian wind Power Planning Meeting III, San Diego, California, May 1998. Schnitzler HU and Kalko EKV. 2001. Echolocation by Insect-Eating Bats. BioScience, 51: 557-569. Simmons 2011. Kleinzee 300MW Wind Farm Avian Impact Assessment – Scoping Phase. Prepared by Dr Rob Simmons Bird & Biodiversity Consultant for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Sowler S & Stoffberg S. 2012. South African Good Practice Guidelines for Surveying Bats in Wind Farm Developments – Pre-Construction. Taylor PJ 2000. Bats of Southern Africa, University of Natal Press, Petermaritzberg. Vanclay F. 2003. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal for IAIA, 21(1):5-12. Van Rooyen CS, 2004. Investigations into culture electrocutions on the Edwardsdam-Mareetsane 88kV feeder, Unpublished report, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg. Vernon CJ. 1999. Biogeography, endemism and diversity of animals in the karoo. In: Dean WRJ & Milton SJ (eds), The Karoo: ecological patterns and processes, pp.57-85. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Weir RD. 1976. Annotated Bibliography of Bird Kills at Manmade Obstacles: A Review of the State of the Art and Solutions. Canadian Wildlife Services, Ontario Region, Ottawa.

87 Pre-application BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure F: Impact Assessment

World Bank Group 2015. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy. August 7, 2015. Available [Online] at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/2c410700497a7933b04cf1ef20a40540/FINAL_Aug +2015_Wind+Energy_EHS+Guideline.pdf?MOD=AJPERES [Accessed on 4 December 2017]. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 2017. Succulent Karoo. Available [Online] http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/land/succulent_karoo2/ [Accessed on 8 December 2017).