APPENDIX A.

MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Infrastructure Development at Second Beach, Port St Johns, South Africa

PREPARED FOR:

REPORT REF.: LT-503-Marine Specialist Report_CES-v3.0

June 2017

MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Conditions of Use of This Report

1. This report is the property of the client who may publish it provided that: a) Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd is acknowledged in the publication; b) The report is published in full or, where only extracts therefrom or a summary or an abridgment thereof is published, prior written approval is obtained from Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd for the use of the extracts, summary or abridged report; and c) Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd is indemnified against any claims for damages that may result from publication. 2. Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd will not publish this report or the detailed results without the client's prior consent. Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd is, however, entitled to use technical information obtained from the investigation but undertakes, in doing so, not to identify the sponsor or the subject of this investigation. 3. The contents of the report may not be used for purposes of sale or publicity or in advertising without prior written approval of Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd.

Report Version and Quality Control:

Date Report No. and Revision No. Created Reviewed Authorised for Release 15/03/2017 LT-503-Marine Specialist Report_CES- Laura Weston, Sue Lane Robin Carter v1.0 Diandra Kuyler, Gemma Rashley 11/05/2017 LT-503-Marine Specialist Report_CES- Laura Weston Sue Lane Robin Carter v2.0 14/06/2017 LT-503- Marine Specialist Report_CES- Laura Weston Sue Lane Robin Carter v3.0

LWANDLE TECHNOLOGIES (PTY) LTD POSTNET SUITE # 50, PRIVATE BAG X 3,PLUMSTEAD, 7801, SOUTH AFRICA DIRECTORS: C.P. MATTHYSEN, B.J. SPOLANDER, DR R.A. CARTER CO REG. NO. 2003/015524/07

MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd. (Lwandle) has been contracted by EOH Coastal and Environmental Services (EOH CES) to carry out a marine ecology specialist study as part of the EIA study process for the development of beach infrastructure (specifically a tidal pool) at Port St Johns Second Beach, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

The proposed project site is located on the east coast of South Africa, in a region known as the Wild Coast, which is characterised by wave-cut rocky outcrops interspersed with pocket beaches (ASCLME 2012). It occurs within South Africa’s east coast subtropical biogeographic region (Stephenson and Stephenson 1972; ASCLME 2012), and, according to the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment, it lies in the Natal Exposed Rocky Coast benthic and the Cb2 pelagic regions, which both fall within the Natal Shelf Ecozone (Sink et al. 2012).

Offshore the east coast of South Africa, the oceanographic environment is defined by the warm southward flowing Agulhas Current (Lutjeharms 2006). Offshore of Port St Johns and the proposed Project Site, the continental shelf narrows to 8 km. In this region, the Agulhas Current flows close to the shore, with shelf currents flowing predominantly in a south-westerly direction. At Second Beach, the current is predominantly southward flowing and is forced offshore at the southern side of the beach due to its pocket shape (PRDW 2017a). A rip current occurs at the northern section of the beach (PRDW 2017a). Waves in the region are predominantly driven by winds and the main wave direction at Second Beach is southerly to south-easterly with significant wave height ranging between 1 to 1.5 m. Tides are semi-diurnal, with a tidal range at Second Beach of 2.18 m.

Bathymetry in the nearshore region of Port St Johns is steep, with a narrow adjacent continental shelf. At Second Beach, the bathymetry of the embayment decreases gradually, dropping to a depth of ~5 m. Further than this, and within approximately 800 m, the depth drops to 20 m. Longshore sediment transport along the coastline in the vicinity of the proposed project site is predominantly northward. Closer inshore, however, due to its pocket shape and orientation, Second Beach is a closed cell not influenced by this longshore transport. Instead the sediments move in circular patterns resulting in the majority of sand being held within the embayment (PRDW 2017a).

In terms of the inter-tidal and sub-tidal marine ecology of the region, Port St Johns Second Beach falls within an important transitional zone in sandy beach faunal composition. It is expected that it would have higher faunal diversity and biomass compared to beaches further north in the Natal Ecoregion, with, however, less diversity than beaches further south. The rocky shore habitat present in the region showed typical east coast zonation, with most indicator species present. At Second Beach, there was a notable absence of the Oyster Belt, and other shellfish. This is presumably because of the high level of subsistence collection that takes place on the beach. This altered the rocky shore zonation observed in these areas.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT I MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The pelagic environment in the region is characterised by warm waters, with moderate to high plankton productivity with high seasonal and spatial variability (Sink et al. 2012). Generally, productivity is greater closer inshore, where the influence of the Agulhas Current is reduced. From June to August, during the winter months, persistent upwelling can occur in the inshore waters (shoreward of the Agulhas Current) along the South African east coast. During this time, thousands of tonnes of sardine utilise the cooler waters and migrate up the coast from the southern Cape, towards Port St Johns, and can reach as far north as Kwazulu-Natal if conditions are favourable (O’Donoghue et al 2010b). This phenomenon, known as the sardine run, results in an influx of other predatory species into the region during the winter months, including a variety of marine mammals, turtles, sharks and other fish.

Based on the regional baseline description and the sensitive marine ecology receptors identified, nine impacts of the tidal pool infrastructure on the surrounding marine ecology at Port St Johns Second Beach were identified and assessed using the methodology stipulated by EOH CES. These are detailed in Chapter 3 and summarised in the table below.

Effect Pre-/Post- Impact Impact Description Temporal Spatial Likelihood Significance mitigation Severity Scale Scale 1 Effects of Without Short term Localised Moderate Probable LOW construction of the Mitigation diaphragm wall on With Unlikely – Short term Localised Slight LOW marine fauna Mitigation May Occur 2 Effects of pile Without Short term to Localised Moderate Definite MODERATE driving on marine Mitigation long term fauna With Short term Localised Slight Probable LOW Mitigation 3 Effects of the tidal Slight - Without/with pool on coastal Permanent Localised Moderat Definite MODERATE mitigation processes e 4 Effects of the tidal Without/with pool on sandy shore Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW mitigation ecology 5 Effects of the tidal Without Permanent Localised Slight May Occur MODERATE pool on rocky Mitigation shore ecology With Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW Mitigation 6 Effects of pool Without Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW cleaning Mitigation chemicals on With marine water and NO IMPACT Mitigation ecology 7 Effects of Without Moderat Permanent Regional Definite HIGH increased litter on Mitigation e marine ecology With NO IMPACT Mitigation

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT II MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8 Effects of Without Moderat Probable- Permanent Localised MODERATE increased sewage Mitigation e definite and other With wastewater on NO IMPACT Mitigation marine ecology 9 Effects of Without Study Moderat Permanent Probable MODERATE increased Mitigation area e demand for Slight With LOW seafood on Short term Localised Beneficia May Occur Mitigation (POSITIVE) marine ecology l

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT III MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EXPERTISE & DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

SUE LANE, PROJECT REVIEWER

Sue is certified with the Interim Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners South Africa (CEAPSA), and is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist in Environmental Science (Pr.Sci.Nat #113902).

She has 36 years of experience in environmental planning and management obtained mainly while working in the National Department of Environment Affairs, with the Environmental Evaluation Unit at the University of Cape Town and in her own micro business.

Since 1996 she has been running an independent environmental consultancy called Sue Lane & Associates Environmental Services cc. and providing a range of professional services in environmental planning and management. Her focus has been on marine and coastal environments, and also on fresh water systems. Work has been undertaken for private companies, governments and environmental and international agencies.

Since 2005 Sue has been working primarily with Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd, advising about and assisting with integrating marine specialist information into baseline reports, environmental assessments and management and monitoring programmes.

LAURA WESTON, PROJECT MANAGER AND MARINE SCIENTIST

Laura has a background in zoology and marine biology, with particular interest in fisheries science. She completed her MSc in 2013 at the University of Cape Town, where her thesis looked at the temporal and spatial variability in the infection by a specific type of parasite in the South African sardine, and the utility of this parasite as a stock identification tool. Prior to that, Laura was based in Grahamstown, where she completed her undergraduate and BSc(Hons) degrees.

Following the completion of her Masters degree, Laura volunteered for an NGO doing a tour around the South African coastline, educating underprivileged children about the marine environment. She took up her post with Lwandle Technologies in July 2013, where she became a member of the scientific team, working as a marine scientist. Since joining Lwandle, Laura has been involved in the management and reporting aspects of a variety of marine specialist studies, and the fieldwork related to these. Typically, this work has comprised the development of marine environmental baseline reports for oil and gas and other offshore and port development projects, in Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa, as well as the characterization of water and sediment quality in some of these areas.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IV MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Neither Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd nor any of the authors of this report have any beneficial interest in the outcome of the assessment that could affect their independence in performing their specialist functions.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT V MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i EXPERTISE & DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ...... iv Sue Lane, Project Reviewer ...... iv Laura Weston, Project Manager and Marine Scientist ...... iv Declaration of Independence ...... v 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Description...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 4 1.3 Scope of Work ...... 5 1.4 Assumptions and Limitations ...... 6 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ...... 6 2.1 Biogeography and Important Marine Habitats ...... 6 2.2 Geology and Sediment Dynamics ...... 10 2.3 Regional and Local Oceanographic Conditions ...... 16 2.4 Marine and Littoral Ecology ...... 18 2.4.1 Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Ecology ...... 18 2.4.2 Nearshore and Offshore Marine Ecology ...... 26 3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 31 3.1 Methodology ...... 31 3.1.1 Defining the Nature of the Disturbance and the Sensitivity of the Receptors ...... 31 3.1.2 Significance of Impacts ...... 33 3.2 Marine Ecology Impact Assessment ...... 33 3.3 Construction Phase ...... 34 3.3.1 Impact 1: The effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna ...... 34 3.3.2 Impact 2: The effects of pile driving on marine fauna ...... 35 3.4 Operation Phase ...... 38 3.4.1 Impact 3: The effects of the tidal pool on coastal processes ...... 38 3.4.2 Impact 4: The effects of the tidal pool on sandy shore ecology ...... 41 3.4.3 Impact 5: The effects of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology...... 43 3.4.4 Impact 6: The effects of pool cleaning chemicals on the marine water quality and ecology 44 3.4.5 Impact 7: The effects of increased litter on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool...... 44

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT VI MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.4.6 Impact 8: The effects of increased sewage and other wastewater on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool ...... 46 3.4.7 Impact 9: The effects of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool ...... 47 4 CONCLUSION ...... 49 5 REFERENCES ...... 51 6 APPENDIX A: NEMA REQUIREMENTS ...... 55 7 APPENDIX B: SPECIALIST CVs ...... 57 8 APPENDIX C: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLES ...... 63 8.1 Construction Phase ...... 63 8.1.1 Impact 1: The effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna ...... 63 8.1.2 Impact 2: The effects of pile driving on marine fauna ...... 65 8.2 Operation Phase ...... 67 8.2.1 Impact 3: The effects of the tidal pool on coastal processes ...... 67 8.2.2 Impact 4: The effects of the tidal pool on sandy beach ecology ...... 68 8.2.3 Impact 5: The effects of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology...... 69 8.2.4 Impact 6: The effects of pool cleaning chemicals on marine water quality and ecology ...... 70 8.2.5 Impact 7: The effects of increased litter on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool...... 71 8.2.6 Impact 8: The effects of increased sewage and other wastewater on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool ...... 72 8.2.7 Impact 9: The effects of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool ...... 73

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT VII MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figures

Figure 1.1: Schematic overlay showing proposed beach infrastructure at Port St Johns Second Beach (PRDW 2016). Note: the tidal pool design has since been updated, according to PRDW (2017b), and is describe below...... 2 Figure 1.2: Proposed design of tidal pool at Port St Johns Second Beach (PRDW 2017b)...... 3 Figure 1.3: Map showing the study area at Port St Johns Second Beach, Eastern Cape, South Africa. The Bulolo and Mtumbane Rivers are shown as well as the rocky shore habitat present at the beach...... 4 Figure 1.4: Map showing the spatial scales referred to throughout this report. The regional area (inset), the Study area and the localised area are shown...... 5 Figure 2.1: Map showing the ecoregions and related ecozones of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The Natal shelf ecozone present at Port St Johns Second Beach is expanded in the figure inset...... 7 Figure 2.2: Map showing the benthic habitats of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The location of the Project Site at Second Beach within the Natal Exposed Rocky Coast Benthic Region is shown in the figure inset...... 8 Figure 2.3: Map showing the pelagic habitats of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The location of the Project Site at Second Beach within the Cb2 pelagic region is shown in the figure inset...... 8 Figure 2.4: Map showing the current and planned Marine Protected Areas off of South Africa’s east coast, as well as the protection status of the marine environment in this area, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The position of the Project Site at Second Beach in relation to the Pondoland MPA is shown in the figure inset...... 9 Figure 2.5: Map showing the habitat threat status off of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The habitat status off of the Project Site at Second Beach is shown in the figure inset...... 10 Figure 2.6: Highlighted coast types and beach morphodynamic types on the east coast of South Africa (Harris 2012)...... 11 Figure 2.7: Nearshore baseline model bathymetry (PRDW 2017a)...... 12 Figure 2.8: Time series photographs showing changes in beach morphology of Second Beach, Port St Johns, over a period of 13 years, from January 2004 to February 2017...... 16 Figure 2.9: Wave roses showing modelled wave data offshore of Port St Johns Second Beach, extracted along the -7.5 m CD and the -15 m CD depth contours respectively (CSIR 2014 in PRDW 2016)...... 18 Figure 2.12: Table showing typical east coast rocky shore zonation by Branch and Branch (1981), supplemented with pictures of each zone taken at Port St Johns Second Beach and Third Beach, during the Lwandle site visit in March 2017...... 20

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT VIII MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.13: Pictures showing the patches of rocky shore present on Port St Johns Second Beach. Picture a). Rocky shore to the south of the proposed tidal pool site; b). Rocky shore at the proposed tidal pool site; c). Rocky shore to the north of the proposed tidal pool site...... 22 Figure 2.14: Limpet scars seen in the upper Balanoid zone of transect 1, south of the proposed tidal pool site...... 23 Figure 2.15: The presence of an oyster shell on the rocky shore to the south of the proposed Project Site, where the rest of the organism had been pulled off the rock...... 24 Figure 2.16: Subsistence fisherman collecting organisms off the rocks at the rocky shore to the south of the proposed Project Site...... 24 Figure 2.17: The rocky shore habitat present at Third Beach, Port St Johns, showing clear east coast zonation and higher biomass and diversity than that observed at Second Beach...... 25 Figure 2.18: Primary production, as represented by chlorophyll-a concentrations, for the period 1998-2005, between Port Elizabeth and Richards Bay, on South Africa’s east coast. The location of Port St Johns is shown (O’Donoghue et al. 2010)...... 26 Figure 3.1: Model data showing change in sea bed level after one year, with the presence of the tidal pool structure...... 39 Figure 3.2: Relative sea bed level change between the baseline conditions and those including the tidal pool structure, after one year...... 40

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IX MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Tables

Table 2.1: Table listing the marine mammals that are expected to occur within the region of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016)...... 28 Table 2.2: Table listing the marine turtles that are expected to occur within the region offshore of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016)...... 29 Table 2.3: Table listing the seabirds that are expected to occur within the region of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016).30 Table 3.1: Ranking of assessment criteria...... 32 Table 3.2: Ranking matrix to provide and Environmental Significance...... 33 Table 3.3: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna...... 35 Table 3.4: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effects of pile driving on marine fauna...... 37 Table 3.5: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on coastal processes...... 41 Table 3.6: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on sandy shore ecology...... 42 Table 3.7: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology...... 43 Table 3.8: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the use of chemical contamination from pool cleaning chemicals on the marine water quality and ecology. .... 44 Table 3.9: Pre- and post- mitigation impact significance rating of increased marine litter due to increased tourism resulting from the establishment and presence of the tidal pool...... 46 Table 4.1: A summary of impacts associated with the development of the tidal pool on marine ecology that were identified and assessed...... 49 Table 8.1: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna...... 63 Table 8.2: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of noise from pile driving on auditory function and behaviour in marine mammals and fish...... 65 Table 8.3: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on coastal processes...... 67 Table 8.4: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on sandy beach ecology...... 68

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT X MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 8.5: Pre-mitigation and Port-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology...... 69 Table 8.6: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect of pool cleaning chemicals on marine ecology...... 70 Table 8.7: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect increased litter on the marine environment as a result of use of the tidal pool...... 71 Table 8.8: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of increased sewage and other wastewater on the marine environment as a result of use of the tidal pool...... 72 Table 8.9: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology, as a result of an increase in tourism as a result of the tidal pool...... 73

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT XI MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1 INTRODUCTION

The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) Oceans and Coasts Branch, with the support of the Port St Johns Local Municipality, is considering the development of beach infrastructure at Port St Johns Second Beach. Second Beach is a popular recreational swimming and surfing beach, however it has experienced a significant number of shark attacks in recent years. The proposed beach infrastructure involves the establishment of shark deterrent infrastructure to create a safe swimming zone, in the form of a tidal pool. Other beachside infrastructure is also proposed, including a life-saver’s building, a beach access ramp, a commercial market area, recreational areas, parking areas and ablution facilities. The proposed development aims to allow for safe swimming conditions, reduce shark attacks and increase tourism in the area.

EOH Coastal and Environmental Services (EOH CES) have been appointed as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioners to undertake the required Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) associated with this development, and have contracted Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd. (Lwandle) to carry out the marine ecology specialist study as part of the EIA study process.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development at Second Beach includes the construction of new facilities, as well as the upgrade of existing facilities. A pre-feasibility assessment was conducted at the end of 2016 and an updated feasibility assessment was conducted in the first half of 2017. These assessments have resulted in the selection of the preferred layouts of each component of the development. This is presented below in Figure 1.1. This is described in the sections below, and is based on the pre- feasibility assessment (PRDW 2016), the coastal processes study (PRDW 2017a) and the feasibility assessment (PRDW 2017b).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 1.1: Schematic overlay showing proposed beach infrastructure at Port St Johns Second Beach (PRDW 2016). Note: the tidal pool design has since been updated, according to PRDW (2017b), and is describe below.

The preferred site for the tidal pool is located between the north and south beaches of Second Beach, surrounding a vegetated rocky outcrop. The preferred preliminary tidal pool design covers an area of approximately 3 600 m2, with space for approximately 1 200 bathers, and uses the existing beach gradient to naturally create depth. The maximum depth of the proposed tidal pool is 1.6 m, but this may be reviewed in the detailed design stage. The outer wall is designed with wave attenuator fins, and concrete waveforms will protrude vertically out of the wall at strategic positions. The location of the proposed tidal pool has been chosen to ensure that seawater replenishment will be achieved through tidal action. In addition, drainage pipes will be fitted at the lowest level of the pool so as to facilitate the drainage thereof for maintenance purposes. Maintenance of the proposed tidal pool is likely to require the removal of sand build up and algal growth, approximately every three months. Sand can potentially be removed, once the pool is drained, with a front-end loader, while the marine growth can be removed either mechanically or with chemicals.

Within the tidal pool, a central island is proposed, as well as an elevated lifesavers chair. It is proposed that the outer pool walls are constructed with reinforced concrete diaphragm walls, and the island is constructed with a sheet pile foundation, using reinforced concrete and natural rock. The pool floor will be natural sand. The proposed design is illustrated in Figure 1.2 below.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 2 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 1.2: Proposed design of tidal pool at Port St Johns Second Beach (PRDW 2017b).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 3 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This report is primarily concerned with the impacts of the construction and the operation of the tidal pool, and therefore, a detailed description of the other development components are not provided here.

1.2 STUDY AREA

The preferred location for the beach infrastructure development (Project Site) is at Port St Johns Second Beach, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The proposed Project Site is located in a region known as the Wild Coast - a 270 km long section of coastline extending from the Mtamvuna River in the north to the Kei River in the south, on the east coast of South Africa (ASCLME 2012).

Second Beach is 3.8 km south of Port St Johns and is the most popular public recreational beach in the area. It is 580 m long and consists of a north and south beach that are separated by a vegetated rocky outcrop. It is bordered by the Mtumbane River to the north, and the Bulolo River in the south, both of which are periodically open to the sea (Figure 1.3). The northern portion of Second Beach acts as the floodplain for the Mtumbane Estuary.

Figure 1.3: Map showing the study area at Port St Johns Second Beach, Eastern Cape, South Africa. The Bulolo and Mtumbane Rivers are shown as well as the rocky shore habitat present at the beach.

Throughout this report reference will be made to the regional conditions along the east coast of South Africa, with focus on the Eastern Cape and the Wild Coast region. Local conditions will also be referred to, which are classified as those conditions occurring within the Study Area, which incorporates the area within a 5 km radius from the proposed Project Site. As mentioned above,

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 4 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

the Project Site is referred to as the localised area on Second Beach, a few hectares in extent (within a 1 km radius), where the proposed beach infrastructure is to occur. These are shown in Figure 1.4. The spatial scales discussed above are further described in relation to the impact assessment methodology in Section 3.1.1.

Figure 1.4: Map showing the spatial scales referred to throughout this report. The regional area (inset), the Study area and the localised area are shown.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The defined scope of work for the marine ecology specialist study to be conducted by Lwandle involves the following:

o A description of the existing marine ecology baseline conditions in the area. This includes a description of those conditions in the regional and local coastal and offshore areas in the vicinity of Second Beach, but not those related to the surrounding estuaries and mangroves, as it is understood that those aspects are being covered in other specialist studies related to this project. o An identification of marine fauna and flora within the regional and local areas described above that may be potentially sensitive to the construction and operation of the tidal pool infrastructure specifically (receptors). o An assessment of the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the tidal pool infrastructure on the identified marine ecology receptors, pre- and post- mitigation.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 5 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Based on the above scope of work, this document provides a desktop review of the existing and relevant marine ecology information for the area, and draws on observations and findings from a site visit conducted by Lwandle from 15 to 17 March 2017. This information is used to compile a descriptive coastal and offshore marine ecology baseline, identifying potentially sensitive receptors in the marine environment. Based on this, an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed tidal pool on the marine ecology is conducted, using the EIA methodology stipulated by EOH CES. Potential mitigation measures for each impact are suggested and where necessary impacts are assessed both pre- and post-mitigation.

1.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The assessment of the receiving marine environment was based on the project design detailed in the following documentation provided by PRDW:

o Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Design. PRDW Report No. S2041-1-RP-PSJ Pre-feasibility Report-GA-002-R1 o Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Design. PRDW Report No. S2014-2-RP-PSJ Feasibility Report-GA-002-R0

It is assumed that any significant changes made to the above mentioned project design will be conveyed to Lwandle to allow for reassessment of the related impact on the receiving environment, should this be necessary.

Field observations were limited to one site visit, and no quantitative marine ecology data was collected. The baseline description was therefore primarily reliant on existing information for the area.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

The proposed Project Site is located on the east coast of South Africa, in an area known as the Wild Coast, which is characterised by wave-cut rocky outcrops interspersed with sandy beaches (ASCLME 2012). This section of the report provides a baseline description of the intertidal and subtidal sandy and rocky shore ecosystems as well as insights into the broader marine ecology and dynamics of the regional and local area surrounding the proposed Project Site.

2.1 BIOGEOGRAPHY AND IMPORTANT MARINE HABITATS

Broadly speaking, based on the distribution of intertidal species, Port St Johns, and the proposed Project Site, occurs within South Africa’s east coast subtropical biogeographic region (Stephenson and Stephenson 1972; ASCLME 2012). Further to this, the marine and coastal component of the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment reclassified the South African marine environment into six

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 6 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ecoregions with 22 finer-scale ecozones nested within these. Each ecozone is considered to have distinct species assemblages (Sink et al. 2012). Port St Johns and the proposed Project Site occurs within the Natal Ecoregion, of the Natal Shelf Ecozone (Figure 2.1). The Natal Ecoregion is subtropical, with a mix of temperate and tropical species. It has high riverine input, and is strongly influenced by the southward flow of the Agulhas Current, particularly where the shelf narrows offshore of Port St Johns (Lombard et al. 2004).

Figure 2.1: Map showing the ecoregions and related ecozones of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The Natal shelf ecozone present at Port St Johns Second Beach is expanded in the figure inset.

The ecozones are further refined according to habitat type. The coastal shoreline habitat in the vicinity of the project site at Second Beach is characterised by rocky coast interspersed with sandy beaches, whilst the nearshore is dominated by sandy inshore and shelf habitats. The pelagic habitat is characterised by warm waters, under the influence of the Agulhas Current, with moderate to high primary productivity with high seasonal and spatial variability. According to the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment, the site falls within the Natal Exposed Rocky Coast benthic region (Figure 2.2) and the Cb2 pelagic region (Figure 2.3) (Sink et al. 2012).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 7 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.2: Map showing the benthic habitats of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The location of the Project Site at Second Beach within the Natal Exposed Rocky Coast Benthic Region is shown in the figure inset.

Figure 2.3: Map showing the pelagic habitats of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The location of the Project Site at Second Beach within the Cb2 pelagic region is shown in the figure inset.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 8 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The closest existing Marine Protected Area (MPA), the Pondoland MPA, is located 4.5 km north of the project site, with its southern boundary occurring on the northern bank of the Mzimvubu River mouth. The Hluleka MPA is located 26 km to the south of the project site. The coastal region of both of these areas is classified as being moderately protected (Sink et al. 2011). 47.8% of the Pondoland MPA is fully protected under no take zones, while the remainder of the area still allows for commercial linefishing, recreational shore and boat based linefishing and subsistence fishing. The majority of the coastal area outside of the MPA and surrounding Port St Johns is also classified as being moderately protected, however, there is a small area within Port St Johns itself that is classified as poorly protected (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Map showing the current and planned Marine Protected Areas off of South Africa’s east coast, as well as the protection status of the marine environment in this area, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The position of the Project Site at Second Beach in relation to the Pondoland MPA is shown in the figure inset.

According to the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment, the coastal habitat surrounding Port St Johns and the proposed project site is classified as least threatened, however, further offshore, the habitat is classified as vulnerable (Figure 2.5).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 9 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.5: Map showing the habitat threat status off of South Africa’s east coast, as classified by the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment. The habitat status off of the Project Site at Second Beach is shown in the figure inset.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEDIMENT DYNAMICS

The Wild Coast is characterised by a predominance of almost vertical coastal cliffs and rocky inlets that terminate at the shoreline. These are interspersed with a number of pocket beaches. The nearshore zone is steep with a narrow adjacent continental shelf, which allows deep water and large waves to break in the inshore. The area has geomorphic properties of both erosional and depositional landforms, however, it is erosional landforms that predominate in the Wild Coast. This is due to a high density of joints and bedding planes that can be exploited by coastal erosion. Several of the headlands are Molteno sandstone capped by Lower Cretaceous sedimentary rocks due to faulting that has brought the Beaufort Group sediments to sea level (Knight and Grab 2015).

The northern portion of the Wild Coast, between Port St Johns and Port Edward, is underlain by Palaeozoic msikaba formation with sandstones and associated mudstones (Knight and Grab 2015). Port St Johns itself is dominated by a fault block of Table Mountain sandstone, and the rocky coastline is comprised of Ecca sediments with intrusions in the form of sheets of Karoo dolerite. The continental shelf around Port St Johns narrows significantly to approximately 8 km, compared to approximately 32 km width off of Durban (Mallory 2015). The narrow nature of this shelf has a major influence on the ocean dynamics in the area.

Just north of Port St Johns the continental margin is displaced westwards by the Egosa fault, forming an offset to the coastline with precipitous cliffs and a 60 m waterfall plunging into the ocean, known

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 10 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

as Waterfall Bluff. Further south, the shelf continues to be narrow and shallow, with a well-defined shelf break at about 100 m depth, and a steep, locally rugged continental slope (Dingle et al. 1978 in ASCLME 2012).

Sandy beaches along the Wild Coast are described as estuarine pocket and embayed beaches (Harris 2012) and are usually associated with coastal sand dunes (Knight and Grab 2015). Sediments in this region have been classified as fine to medium sand, with substrate becoming increasingly coarser at beaches in the north, compared to on the southern Wild Coast (Wooldridge et al. 1981). Sediment at Second Beach in particular has a median grain size of 0.35mm (PRDW 2017a), classifying it as medium to fine sand (Wentworth 1922). The beaches that occur in the region tend to be of an intermediate to reflective morphodynamic type (Harris et al. 2010) (Figure 2.6). Reflective beaches are narrow with steep slopes, a limited surf zone, with waves that break directly on the shore, and coarser sediment (Harris et al. 2010; Harris 2012), while intermediate beaches are generally comprised of medium-grained sand and are defined by the presence of sand bars and rip currents (Harris 2012).

Figure 2.6: Highlighted coast types and beach morphodynamic types on the east coast of South Africa (Harris 2012).

The bathymetry at Second Beach was surveyed between 29 November and 5 December 2016, using a combination of beach LIDAR and bathymetric survey, and was used as input into a baseline model produced by PRDW (2017a) (Figure 2.7). Nearshore bathymetry, to the 24 m depth contour was modelled, showing that approximately 200 m offshore of the proposed tidal pool site, the depth of

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 11 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

the embayment at Second Beach is ~5 m. Further than this, and within approximately 800 m, the water depth increases to 20 m.

Figure 2.7: Nearshore baseline model bathymetry (PRDW 2017a).

Along the coastline, in the vicinity of Port St Johns, the longshore transport of sediment is expected to be predominantly northward, driven by the southerly direction of the waves (PRDW 2016). Inshore, however, Second Beach is a closed cell not influenced by this northward sediment transport (PRDW 2017a). Instead the sediments move in circular patterns resulting in the majority of sand being held within the embayment (PRDW 2017a). This is due to the shape and orientation of Second Beach (PRDW 2017a). The wave direction along the coast at Port St Johns is southerly to south easterly, which influences the cross-shore movement of sediment. Seasonal variations in the wave climate will likely result in cross-shore variations of the beach profile. This can be seen in the form of cyclic patterns on sandy shores, in the formation of ridges and berms (Knight and Grab 2015). Typically, during the winter months, when there is greater wave energy, it is expected that there will be greater offshore sediment transport, while in summer, when the wave conditions are calmer, it is expected that there will be onshore sediment movement (PRDW 2016). Modelled baseline conditions of Second Beach shows sediment erosion to occur off the rocky headland to the south of Second Beach, and accretion to occur further offshore than this (PRDW 2017a).

Conditions associated with climate change and extreme storm events are likely to influence sediment transport at Second Beach. Climate change may lead to sea level rise, an increase in wave heights and an increase in storm surge (PRDW 2017a). At Second Beach, these factors may result in increased beach erosion. This may be exacerbated by the downward tilting of the eastern side

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 12 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

of the south African subcontinent. On a larger scale, the coastline at Port St Johns has already been classified as eroding (Tinley 1985), and so this has the potential to increase with climate change.

In addition to the cross-shore movement of sediment as a result of wave action and the orientation of the two bordering headlands, from the satellite time series below (Figure 2.8), it is clear that the two rivers on either side of Second Beach, namely the Bulolo River (south) and the Mtumbane River (north), also have a significant influence on the sediment dynamics and beach morphology. This is particularly the case in the far north and far south sections of the beach respectively. River channel movement across the beach is observed as well as changes in freshwater input to the sea. The tidal influence on beach size can also be seen.

It has been noted by Harris (2012) that sediments in front of river mouths are not as stable as those on dynamic sandy beaches, and are therefore susceptible to erosion during estuary breaching events. The beach however maintains its sediment dynamics through the replenishment of eroded sediment by fluvial supplies from the rivers and estuaries and, therefore, maintains its equilibrium (Harris 2012). If these supplies are not maintained, the area could lose more sand than it is able to replenish. This can cause a rapid loss of beach if the underlying bed-rock is shallow or a gradual loss of the beach over longer time periods (Harris 2012).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 13 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

a) 01/2004

b) 12/2005

c) 11/2010

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 14 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

d) 11/2010

e) 08/2012

f) 08/2013

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 15 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

g) 03/2016

h) 02/2017

Figure 2.8: Time series photographs showing changes in beach morphology of Second Beach, Port St Johns, over a period of 13 years, from January 2004 to February 2017.

2.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS

The offshore oceanographic environment on South Africa’s east coast is defined by the warm southward flowing Agulhas Current (Lutjeharms 2006). It flows along the coast at speeds > 1 m/s, following the edge of the continental shelf (Beckley and Van Ballegooyen 1992). Offshore of Port St Johns, the continental shelf narrows to 8 km. In this region, the Agulhas Current flows close to the shore, with shelf currents flowing in a south-westerly direction, at speeds reaching 1.5 m/s (Roberts et al. 2010). Closer inshore, between Port St Johns and Waterfall Bluff, a semi-permanent cyclonic feature occurs, which results in a north-easterly flowing counter-current, ranging in velocity between 20 and 60 cm/s. Temperature data has shown that this counter-current is associated with shelf-edge upwelling that occurs within inshore shelf waters in this region, where

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 16 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

inshore surface temperatures are cooler than those in adjacent shelf waters (Roberts et al. 2010). At Second Beach, it is expected that within the surf zone, currents are predominantly wave-driven and include longshore and rip currents (PRDW 2016). A baseline model produced by PRDW (2017a) shows a predominantly southerly flowing current, which is then forced offshore at the southern side of the beach due to its pocket shape. There is also a possible rip current at the northern section of the beach due to waves breaking over the rocks (PRDW 2017a).

As mentioned, further offshore, shelf waters along South Africa’s east coast are warmer, ranging between 24 and 26°C, however, closer inshore at Port St Johns, the effects of the cyclonic flow and shelf-edge upwelling are apparent, where surface temperatures are reduced, being 2 to 4°C cooler on average than the adjacent shelf waters (Roberts et al. 2010). At Second Beach, a study by DEA (2016) showed temperatures from November 2015 to March 2016 to range between 17.2 and 24.6°C.

On average surface salinities of the northern Agulhas, which incorporates the region offshore Port St Johns, are 35.3 PSU (ASCLME 2012), but salinity of the nearshore region in the vicinity of the project development was shown to be reduced, averaging 32.65 PSU between November 2015 and March 2016 (DEA 2016). This is likely due to the high freshwater input from multiple estuaries in the area, including the Mzimvumbu River.

Tides along the South African coast are semi-diurnal, with a maximum tidal range of between 1.8 and 2 m (ASCLME 2012). Predicted tidal levels for Second Beach have been interpolated using known levels from East London and Durban, and range from -0.81 to 1.37 m relative to MSL (PRDW 2016), resulting in a tidal range of 2.18 m. The maximum tidal range observed during the site visit to Port St Johns Second Beach, during spring tide, in mid-March 2017 was 1.8 m.

Waves in the region are predominantly driven by winds. A study conducted by CSIR in 2014 modelled nearshore wave data in two locations near Second Beach. The study showed predominant wave direction to be southerly to south-easterly and significant wave height to be 1 to 1.5 m (Figure 2.9).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 17 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.9: Wave roses showing modelled wave data offshore of Port St Johns Second Beach, extracted along the -7.5 m CD and the -15 m CD depth contours respectively (CSIR 2014 in PRDW 2016).

Further than that, and related to this project specifically, waves and currents were measured at two locations offshore of Second Beach, between 23 December 2016 and 15 January 2017. This information was used to calibrate a nested wave model, using the MIKE 21 Spectral Waves Flexible Mesh model. Baseline model data of the wave climate during a typical representative year also showed Second Beach as having a southerly to south-easterly wave condition. This is detailed in PRDW (2017a).

As mentioned earlier, with climate change, an increase in wave height is expected. PRDW (2017a) predicts an increase in wave height of 8.5% by 2050 and an increase of 17% by 2100. This should be considered in any coastal development.

2.4 MARINE AND LITTORAL ECOLOGY

2.4.1 Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Ecology

2.4.1.1 Beach Ecology

Beaches along the Wild Coast are characterised as being relatively small, isolated embayments and are often associated with estuarine systems (Wooldridge et al. 1981). This is the case for Port St Johns Second Beach, which occurs between two rocky headlands and is bordered on the north and south by two estuaries. As mentioned, Port St Johns occurs in the Natal Ecoregion (Sink et al. 2012), but for sandy shore ecology specifically, it occurs in an area that is considered to be a transitional zone between the warm-temperate Agulhas Ecoregion and the subtropical Natal Ecoregion

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 18 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

(Wooldridge et al. 1981; Harris et al. 2010). Beaches in the north of this transitional zone are characterised by coarser sediments and reduced macro- and meiofaunal diversity and biomass, with crustaceans being the most abundant, while southwards, beaches are characterised by medium to fine sediments and increased diversity and biomass, with molluscs replacing crustaceans as the most abundant group (Wooldridge et al. 1981).

Analysis of beach macrofauna at Mpande Beach, 50 km south of Port St Johns Second Beach, showed the presence of both species characteristic of the Natal Ecoregion, as well as species characteristic of the Agulhas Ecoregion. At Mpande Beach, seven macrofaunal species were identified. These included the ghost crabs Ocypode ryderi and O. ceratophthalma, which are common in the Natal Ecoregion (Branch and Branch 1981), mysid shrimps Gastrosaccus longifissura and G. bispinosa, Nemerteans of the genus Cerebratulus, polychaetes of the genus Nephtys, the isopod Eurydice longicornis, and the gastropod Bullia rhodostoma (Wooldridge et al. 1981). A similar species assemblage is expected for Port St Johns Second Beach. During the site visit conducted in March 2017, Bullia spp. and Ocypode spp. were seen.

Overall, Port St Johns Second Beach falls within an important transitional zone in sandy beach faunal composition. It is expected that it would have higher faunal diversity and biomass in comparison to beaches further north in the Natal Ecoregion, but, however, less diversity than beaches further south.

2.4.1.2 Rocky Shore Ecology

The most diverse coastal habitats in the region occur in the intertidal zone, where flora and fauna have had to adapt to the harsh and variable conditions associated with the daily fluctuation in the tides and wave energy. Plants and animals are subjected to varying degrees of desiccation and high temperatures during low tide and wave action at high tide. The ability of the plant or animal to adapt to these extreme conditions and the amount of time exposed to air determines their location on the shore. Hence rocky shores exhibit zonation, where distinct horizontal bands or zones form on the rocks. Zones can be classified by the presence or absence of dominant indicator species.

On a larger scale, along the South African coastline, zonation, and the suite of indicator species found in a particular zone, differs according to the biogeographic region/ecoregion in which the rocky shore is present. Port St Johns occurs within the subtropical Natal Ecoregion (Sink et al. 2011), and so it is expected that rocky shores in this area would show typical east coast zonation. Five zones can be identified on a typical east coast rocky shore (Branch and Branch 1981), and as illustrated in Figure 2.10 below include (from the high water mark to the low water mark):

o the Littorina zone o the Oyster belt o the Upper Balanoid zone o the Lower Balanoid zone o the Infratidal zone

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 19 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.10: Table showing typical east coast rocky shore zonation by Branch and Branch (1981), supplemented with pictures of each zone taken at Port St Johns Second Beach and Third Beach, during the Lwandle site visit in March 2017.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 20 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

At the proposed Project Site on Second Beach, there are small patches of rocky shore habitat present to the north and south of the proposed tidal pool site and at the proposed tidal pool site. These are described based on transect assessments undertaken during the site visit on the 15th, 16th and 17th March 2017. The location of the transects are shown in Figure 1.3.

The patches of rocky shore on the northern and southern edges of second beach are characterised by steep, high rocky platforms and outcrops, dropping down to multiple gullies (Figure 2.11 a). The surveyed rocky shore habitat closer and to the south of the proposed tidal pool site is more fragmented in nature, and is characterised by smaller boulder sized rocks (Figure 2.11 c). This area of rocky shore is low-lying, with a more gradual gradient, resulting in it being fully inundated during high tide. At the proposed tidal pool site, there is a smaller patch of rocky shore habitat which is characterised by larger rocks, with steeper slopes, interspersed with sand (Figure 2.11 b).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 21 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.11: Pictures showing the patches of rocky shore present on Port St Johns Second Beach. Picture a). Rocky shore to the south of the proposed tidal pool site; b). Rocky shore at the proposed tidal pool site; c). Rocky shore to the north of the proposed tidal pool site.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 22 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

For the most part, zonation of the rocky shore habitat at Port St Johns Second beach seemed to be typical of the east coast. This was particularly the case at the rocky shore to the north of the proposed tidal pool site, where the steeper slopes of the rocky platforms resulted in zonation occurring over a much smaller distance.

The Infratidal zone was found to be only semi exposed during spring high tides and dominated by species that cannot withstand long periods of desiccation including, algal beds and coralline algae. Slightly further up the shore, the lower Balanoid zone was found. This zone is characterised by the presence of zooanthids, which are among the most typical of east coast rocky shore organisms (Branch and Branch 1981). Zooanthids were only observed on the rocky shore to the north of the proposed tidal pool site. At the proposed site, and to the south of this, zooanthids were not present, however various species of algae were present. This made it difficult to differentiate between the Infratidal and lower Balanoid zones in these areas. Above this zone, the upper Balanoid zone gives way to high densities of barnacles. These were present on all three patches of rocky shore observed. Other species characteristic of this zone, such as limpets, were not present, however, limpet scars were observed (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12: Limpet scars seen in the upper Balanoid zone of transect 1, south of the proposed tidal pool site.

Above this zone, on typical east coast rocky shores, the Oyster belt occurs. At the three rocky shores surveyed on Second Beach, this however was not the case, where there were no oysters found. In some cases, oyster shells were found, where the organisms had been pulled off the rocks (Figure 2.13). This is presumably due to collection by subsistence fishermen, which has been well documented to occur along the Wild Coast, and may explain the absence of other typical east coast rocky shore species, such as mussels and limpets. During the site visit, subsistence collection off

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 23 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

the rocky shore at Second Beach was observed, and fishermen offered to sell oysters and mussels collected from the surrounding beaches.

Figure 2.13: The presence of an oyster shell on the rocky shore to the south of the proposed Project Site, where the rest of the organism had been pulled off the rock.

Figure 2.14: Subsistence fisherman collecting organisms off the rocks at the rocky shore to the south of the proposed Project Site.

Highest on the shore was the Littorina zone, where very few species were present. The snail, Afrolittorina africana was the most prominent species in this zone. The Littorina zone was not apparent in the rocky shore surveyed to the south of the proposed tidal pool site. This is presumably due to the low-lying orientation of the rocks resulting in them being fully inundated during high tide. This was not the case for the rocky shore patches at the proposed tidal pool site

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 24 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

and to the north of this, where, as mentioned, the slopes of the rocks are steeper, resulting in zonation occurring over a smaller distance.

During the site visit, the rocky shore at Third Beach, to the south of Second Beach and the proposed Project Site, was inspected. Third Beach falls within the Silaka Nature Reserve, and so road access is restricted, however, access along the coast is still possible during spring low tide. The rocky shore at Third Beach seemed to show higher biomass and diversity than at those rocky shore habitats observed at Second Beach, with typical east coast zonation clearly shown (Figure 2.15). Numerous oysters and mussels were also present. This observed difference may be due to the variations in levels of subsistence collection between the two beaches. Subsistence collection still does occur at Third Beach, however it is likely that it occurs at lower levels due to the difficulties in gaining access.

Figure 2.15: The rocky shore habitat present at Third Beach, Port St Johns, showing clear east coast zonation and higher biomass and diversity than that observed at Second Beach.

Overall, the rocky shore habitat present in the region showed typical east coast zonation, with most indicator species present. At Second Beach, there was a notable absence of the Oyster Belt, and other shellfish. This is presumably because of the high level of subsistence collection that takes place on the beach. This altered the rocky shore zonation observed in these areas.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 25 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.4.2 Nearshore and Offshore Marine Ecology

2.4.2.1 Plankton

The pelagic biozone Cb2, in which the proposed Project Site occurs, is characterised by warm waters, with moderate to high primary productivity with high seasonal and spatial variability (Sink et al. 2012).

The shelf waters off the South African east coast are notoriously nutrient poor, resulting in less primary production in comparison to waters off the west coast (O’Donoghue et al. 2010). There are, however, two persistent upwelling cells, located to the north (at the Natal Bight) and to the south (at Port Alfred) of the proposed Project Site that result in enhanced phytoplankton growth, which thus drive the pelagic ecosystem in the region (O’Donoghue et al. 2010). Further than this, the existence of smaller-scale features along the coast between these two upwelling cells also contributes to the primary production along the east coast. These oceanographic features show strong interannual and seasonal variability, which results in temporal variance in phytoplankton growth.

In the vicinity of Port St Johns, further offshore, where the influence of the Agulhas Current is stronger, primary production is reduced. Closer inshore, where the semi-permanent cyclonic flow and shelf-edge upwelling occurs between Port St Johns and Waterfall Bluff, there are enhanced phytoplankton concentrations (Coetzee et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2010). These concentrations however vary significantly between seasons, and between years (O’Donoghue et al. 2010). This variation is shown in Figure 2.16 below, where chlorophyll-a concentrations are elevated in the summer months, and high productivity was especially seen in 2001-2002.

Figure 2.16: Primary production, as represented by chlorophyll-a concentrations, for the period 1998-2005, between Port Elizabeth and Richards Bay, on South Africa’s east coast. The location of Port St Johns is shown (O’Donoghue et al. 2010).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 26 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Little information is available on the zooplankton assemblages off the Wild Coast, in the vicinity of Port St Johns and the proposed Project Site. However, zooplankton studies conducted further north, on the continental shelf off the coast of KwaZulu Natal, show that the region only supports a moderate biomass of zooplankton, with higher biomass occurring inshore, where the influence of the Agulhas Current is less (Carter and Schleyer 1988). A similar pattern in zooplankton distribution would be expected off Port St Johns, where the presence of the counter-current and upwelled water between Port St Johns and Waterfall Bluff, enhancing inshore primary production, would have the same effect on zooplankton production.

This inshore upwelling and primary production is also associated with abundant ichthyoplankton in the area. Whilst little is known about Port St Johns coast in particular, surveys in 1990/91 give insight into the compilation of ichthyoplankton assemblages along the South African east coast in general. During these surveys, high volumes of sardine, round herring and anchovy larvae were found. Sardine larvae were the most abundant, comprising 46% of all clupeoid larvae found (Beckley and Hewitson 1994). Clupeoids were found to comprise approximately 28.4% of all ichthyoplankton found. Perciformes and myctophiformes comprised a further 25.5% and 26.9% respectively, but no further details were given on species composition (Beckley and Hewitson 1994).

2.4.2.2 Fish

The waters off the east coast are considered to host the highest level of biodiversity and endemism of fish for southern Africa (O’Donoghue, 2010b). South Africa holds approximately 2,200 species of fish, of which 13% are possibly endemic (Van der Elst 1993). Whilst the greatest mass of fish are found in pelagic waters, the greatest diversity of fishes are found in the coastal zone. Most of the inhabitants of the coastal area are found in the littoral zone in a variety of habitats including coral reefs, rocky shores and tidal pools (Van der Elst 1993). It is these areas that are popular for recreational fishing.

The dusky kob (Argyrosomus japonicus) is abundant in the warm waters between Cape Agulhas and northern KwaZulu Natal. It is a valued food source due to its large size and palatability. They mainly inhabit inshore areas (10-100m deep) with juveniles moving to the upper reaches of estuaries. Since juveniles rely on estuarine water flow, anthropogenic activities reducing this flow can have negative impacts on those populations (Griffiths 1996). The Eastern Cape waters also provide spawning grounds for sardines, herrings and anchovy, with high levels of larvae found during the summer months (Beckley & Hewitson 1994, Crawford & Shelton 1978)

The inshore waters along the South African east coast can reach a temperature range of 14-20°C during the winter, from June to August, due to persistent upwelling in the region. During this time, thousands of tonnes of sardines utilise this strip of cool water, shoreward of the Agulhas current, and move up the coast from the southern Cape, towards Port St. Johns and can reach as far north as Kwazulu-Natal if conditions are favourable (O’Donoghue et al 2010b). This annual migration is known as the sardine run, and is a phenomenon unique to the east coast of South Africa.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 27 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.4.2.3 Marine Mammals and Megafauna

Thirty seven species of marine mammal have been found to occur off the coast of South Africa (Findlay 1989). Of these, 27 are expected to occur off Port St Johns. These are detailed in Table 2.1. The majority of the larger cetaceans are found in deep offshore waters, while the smaller cetaceans are found closer inshore (Findlay 1989).

Table 2.1: Table listing the marine mammals that are expected to occur within the region of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016). Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edeni Data deficient Dwarf Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata subsp. Least concern Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis Least concern Pygmy Right Whale Caperea marginata Data deficient Sperm Whale Physeter microcephalus Vulnerable Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps Data deficient Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia sima Data deficient Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris Least concern Southern Bottlenose Whale Hyperoodon planifrons Least concern Layard’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon layardii Data deficient Blainville’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon densirostris Data deficient True’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon mirus Data deficient Killer Whale Orcinus orca Data deficient Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuata Data deficient Long-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala melas Data deficient Short-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Data deficient Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus Least concern Short-beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis Least concern Long-beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis Data deficient Fraser’s Dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Least concern Common Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus Least concern Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops aduncus Data deficient Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis Near threatened Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata Least concern Spinner Dolpin Stenella longirostris Data deficient Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Least concern

Not much more is known about the distribution and occurrence of the marine mammals around Port St Johns due to a lack of sufficient data on many of the species. Bryde’s whales, pygmy right whales and dwarf minke whales are rare on the east coast of southern Africa but may be seen in the area during the summer months (Best 2001, Best 2007, Findlay 1989). Frequent residents are

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 28 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

humpback whales that migrate from the Antarctic up the South African east coast to breed in the tropics during the winter months. These species are likely to be seen off Port St Johns. Indo-Pacific Bottlenose dolphins are inshore coastal residents (< 30m deep), ranging from Cape Agulhas to southern Mozambique (Best 2007), and so may also be seen.

Five turtle species occur in southern African waters, with all five frequenting the waters off of Port St Johns (Branch et al. 2010) (Table 2.2). The leatherback, the loggerhead, the green and the hawksbill turtles may all be encountered, however, the olive ridley is a rare visitor. None of these species have been known to utilise the beaches near Port St Johns for nesting.

Table 2.2: Table listing the marine turtles that are expected to occur within the region offshore of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016). Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Vulnerable Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Vulnerable Green turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Critically endangered Olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Vulnerable

There are up to 100 species of sharks found in southern African waters including small cat sharks, bronze whalers, ragged tooth sharks, mako sharks and blue sharks. Of these, 14 are considered to be large shark species (Dudley 2010). Within the vicinity of Port St Johns, there are three large shark species that are known to occur, and which may be responsible for shark attacks in the area. These include the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) and the Zambezi shark (Carcharhinus leucas). Zambezi sharks occur all year round along the east coast of South Africa but are more common in summer. This species utilises major rivers along the coast as nursery grounds. Individuals of this species have been tagged and recorded to occur at Port St Johns Second Beach, and utilise the Umzimvubu River slightly north of the Project Site as a nursery area. The great white shark occurs more abundantly along the south east coast of South Africa, however, they have been recorded to occur in the Port St Johns area, where they are more likely to be transient visitors to the region.

As mentioned, during the winter months, the waters off of Port St Johns host the sardine run. Many predatory species, including marine mammals and sharks, are associated with this phenomenon, with an increase in abundance being observed in waters surrounding Port St Johns at that time of year. A survey conducted during the sardine run in 2005 found humpback whale, dwarf minke whale, long-beaked common dolphin and the indo-pacific bottlenose dolphins to occur offshore Port St Johns, with the long-beaked common dolphin and the humpback whale being the most abundant mammal species (O’Donoghue et al 2010b). Seven of the 14 large shark species (e.g. smooth hammerhead, dusky shark and ragged-tooth shark) found around southern Africa have an increases in abundance associated with the sardine run. The bronze whaler shark (Carcharhinus

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 29 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

brachyurus) is the most commonly associated shark with the sardine run. The highest encounter rates for all the marine predators identified during the 2005 sardine run survey was between Port St Johns and Hamburg to the south (O’Donoghue et al 2010b).

2.4.2.4 Seabirds

Southern Africa is home to many species of seabird. Those that may occur in the vicinity of Port St Johns are detailed in Table 2.3. The 2005 sardine run survey identified 16 different species of seabirds along the east coast of South Africa (O’Donoghue et al 2010b). Resident sardine in Eastern Cape waters provide a main food source for many of these birds, particularly the cape gannet (Morus capensis) (Cockcroft & Peddemors 1990). The cape gannet is the most commonly encountered bird during the sardine run, with the highest concentrations offshore Port St Johns (O’Donoghue et al. 2010b). African penguins have been seen along the Eastern Cape coast during the sardine run, but are rarely further north than Algoa Bay, and so are unlikely to occur near Port St Johns.

Table 2.3: Table listing the seabirds that are expected to occur within the region of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach. The IUCN status of each species is also listed (IUCN 2016). Common Name Scientific Name IUCN Status Cape gannet Morus capensis Vulnerable White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis Vulnerable Swift turn Thalasseus bergii Least concern Antarctic tern Sterna vittata Least concern Indian yellow-nosed albatross Thalassarche certeri Endangered Black-browed albatross Thalassarche melanophris Near threatened Shy albatross Thalassarche cauta Near threatened Sooty shearwater Ardenna grisea Near threatened Subantarctic skua Catharacta Antarctica Least concern Antarctic prion Pachyptila desolata Least concern Cape cormorant Phalacrocorax capensis Endangered Great-winged petrel Pterodroma macroptera Least concern Soft-plumaged petrel Pterodroma mollis Least concern Wilson’s storm petrel Oceanites oceanicus Least concern Feral pigeon Columba livia Least concern

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 30 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EOH CES is undertaking an assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed beach infrastructure development at Port St Johns Second Beach.

The focus of this component of the impact assessment is on the coastal and offshore marine ecology in the vicinity of the Project Site at Port St Johns Second Beach, described in the baseline above, and which may be affected by project activities, specifically, the construction and operation of the tidal pool.

3.1 METHODOLOGY

The impact rating methodology applied is that specified by EOH CES. This assessment process consists of two steps: defining the nature of the disturbance and the sensitivity of the receptors using a prescribed rating scale and then determining the significance of the impacts of this disturbance on the receptors. The significance of each impact is determined pre-and post- mitigation i.e. before and then after the implementation of measures designed to avoid or reduce the severity of impacts.

3.1.1 Defining the Nature of the Disturbance and the Sensitivity of the Receptors

EOH CES’ rating scale used here adopts four key factors. These are detailed below:

o Temporal Scale: This scale defines the duration of any given impact over time. This may extend from the short- term (less than five years or the duration of the construction phase) to permanent. Generally, the longer the impact occurs the more significant it is. o Spatial Scale: This scale defines the spatial extent of any given impact. This may extend from the local area (within the confines of Second Beach) to an impact that crosses international boundaries and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The wider the impact extends the more significant it is considered. o Severity/Benefits Scale: This scale defines how severe negative impacts would be, or how beneficial positive impacts would be. This negative/positive scale is critical in determining the overall significance of any impact. The Severity/Benefits Scale is used to assess the potential significance of impacts prior to and after mitigation in order to determine the overall effectiveness of any mitigation measures. o Likelihood Scale: This scale defines the risk or chance of any given impact occurring. While many impacts generally do occur, there is considerable uncertainty about others. The scale varies from unlikely to definite, with the overall impact significance tending to increase as the likelihood increases.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 31 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

For each identified impact, these four scales are ranked and assigned a score, as shown in Table 3.1. These scores are then taken forward to determine impact significance. It must be noted that the definitions of each of the ranks within each scale have been modified to be more meaningful to local marine ecology specifically.

Table 3.1: Ranking of assessment criteria. Temporal scale Score Short term Less than 5 years 1 Medium Between 5 and 20 years 2 term Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation), and from a human 3 perspective, almost permanent. Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change 4 that will always be there. Spatial scale Localised At a localised scale and a few hectares in extent. 1 Study Area The proposed site and its immediate environs. Within 5 km of 2 the activity/construction. Regional District and Provincial level. Limited to the Eastern Cape and 3 the Wild Coast (between the Mtamvuna River in the north and the Kei River in the south) in particular, on the east coast of South Africa.

Effect National Country level. The entire South African EEZ. 3 International Across international boundaries and beyond the 200 nm EEZ. 4 Severity Benefit Slight / Slight impacts on the affected Slightly beneficial to the 1 Slight system(s) or party(ies) affected system(s) or Beneficial party(ies) Moderate / Moderate impacts on the An impact of real benefit to 2 Moderate affected system(s) or the affected system(s) or Beneficial party(ies) party(ies) Severe / Severe impacts on the A substantial benefit to the 4 Beneficial affected system(s) or affected system(s) or party(ies) party(ies) Very Severe Very severe impacts on the A very substantial benefit to 8 / Very affected system(s) or the affected system(s) or beneficial party(ies) party(ies) Likelihood Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight 1

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible 2

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable 3

Likelihood

Definite The likelihood is that this impact will definitely occur 4

LIK ELIHOOD

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 32 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.1.2 Significance of Impacts

The overall significance of each impact is determined by combining each score from the assessment criteria above. This score is ranked in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Ranking matrix to provide and Environmental Significance.

Environmental Significance Positive Negative LOW An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable 4-7 4-7 but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to prevent development.

These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment MODERATE An important impact which requires mitigation. The 8-11 8-11 impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which, in conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation.

These impacts will usually result in either positive or negative medium to long term effect on the social and/or natural environment. HIGH A serious impact which, if not mitigated, may prevent 12-15 12-15 the implementation of the project.

These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major and usually long term change to the natural and/or social environment and result in severe negative or beneficial effects. VERY HIGH A very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself 16-20 16-20 to prevent the implementation of the project.

The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts are unmitigable and usually result in very severe effects or very beneficial effects.

3.2 MARINE ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The proposed tidal pool and the activities involved in its construction and operation will result in various interactions with particular receptors in the marine environment. Disturbances that have the potential to result in significant impacts have been assessed and are detailed below. These were identified in the Scoping Study conducted by EOH Coastal and Environmental Services (2017). Additional impacts identified by Lwandle have also been included, while the impacts of coastal processes on the tidal pool, identified in the scoping phase, have been excluded, as it is assumed that these issues would be addressed in the engineering feasibility study and detailed design phase. For the purposes of this assessment, impacts have been grouped according to the respective phases

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 33 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

i.e. construction and operation. Detailed assessments of each impact, explaining more of the reasoning behind our predictions, are provided in Section 8 Appendix C.

3.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

3.3.1 Impact 1: The effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna

At the preferred location of the proposed tidal pool, limited rock is visible on the surface. Jetprobe investigations have shown that the founding conditions are likely to consist of sand, a cobble layer and relatively deep bedrock. To provide stability and water retention, a diaphragm wall foundation has been proposed for the outer walls of the tidal pool (PRDW 2017b). Installation will include excavation of a trench, temporarily filled with bentonite and subsequently filled with a cement slurry and steel reinforcement. The concrete displaces the bentonite slurry, which is pumped out and recycled for reuse. The wall will be constructed using a mobile crane with clam grab and reverse circulation milling machine.

The use of diaphragm walls is often a preferred method of construction due to it being more cost effective, the flexibility that it allows in terms of layout and the reduced vibration and noise that is caused during construction, compared to other construction methods (e.g. pile driving). Having said this, some noise disturbance can be expected (mainly from engine noise), but this is expected to be minimal, and to only affect marine fauna within close proximity to the sound source.

Other potential disturbances from the construction of the diaphragm wall include waste contamination from overflowing bentonite and cement slurry. This may result in toxicity effects on the surrounding benthic and pelagic marine fauna, and smothering of benthic fauna once the slurry settles. The impact of these disturbances is assessed below.

Bentonite is non-toxic, non-corrosive and non-flammable, and it is also inert. The use of this type of slurry means that the risk of it entering the water column and becoming toxic to surrounding marine biota is minimal. If the slurry settles on the seabed, smothering of local benthic organisms may occur. In terms of the cement slurry, the cement used is designed to set in the marine environment, and therefore this in itself should prevent widespread dispersion. The impact of the discharge will therefore be limited to the immediate area around the tidal pool.

3.3.1.1 Significance Statement

The impacts of bentonite and cement slurry contamination during construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna will probably occur and will have a moderate short term impact on a limited number of individuals. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is LOW NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures, this remains unchanged. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.1.2.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 34 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 3.3: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 1: The impacts of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna Without Short term Localised Moderate Probable LOW Mitigation Unlikely- With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight LOW May Occur

3.3.1.2 Mitigation and Management

To mitigate the impacts of waste contamination from the bentonite and cement slurry from overflows during construction, non-toxic bentonite is to be used. The bentonite should be reused during construction and should be removed for disposal once construction is complete. Cement chemicals with low toxicity should also be used. The volume of slurry used should be calculated so as to ensure structural integrity, but to minimise excess discharges. Discharges that do occur should be contained as much as possible.

3.3.2 Impact 2: The effects of pile driving on marine fauna

Pile driving is potentially needed to construct the island inside the pool. The feasibility design indicates that the island should be supported by 400 mm diameter, 16 mm wall thickness bearing steel piles driven to a depth of 10.0 m below MSL or to bedrock level. Installation will require pile driving into the sand, which is achieved through the use of either an impact or vibratory hammer. In the event of this, the use of either of these methods has the potential to create noise and vibration in the surrounding sediment, air and adjacent water. Other potential disturbances including an increase in turbidity and potential waste contamination from oil leaks are considered to be insignificant, and are unlikely to occur.

A hydroacoustic monitoring study conducted by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory (2004) measured the sound pressure levels of the impact driving of three 24” diameter steel piles, using an open diesel hammer, on a beach within the adjacent water body. Hydrophones were positioned between 70 and 120 m away from the sound source in water depths of 1 to 2 m. Most of the sound energy was in the 100 – 300 Hz range, with energy greatly diminished by 1200 Hz. Mean peak sound

pressure levels for three separate piles ranged between 166.3 and 179.8 dBpeak re. 1µPa and

maximum peak sound pressure level reached 183.5 dBpeak re. 1µPa. Mean rms sound pressure

levels for three separate piles ranged between 147.6 and 167.4 dBrms re. 1µPa and maximum rms

sound pressure level reached 174.9 dBrms re. 1µPa. The study therefore showed a complex path travelled by sound from the piles through the sediment and into the adjacent water.

In order to calculate the sound attenuation of the potential pile driving to be done at the proposed tidal pool, a more detailed description of the construction methodology is needed. This will allow

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 35 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

for the calculation of the sound produced, which in turn, will allow for the application of a sound attenuation curve to calculate sound pressure level with distance from the sound source. Even with this information, it must be noted that sound attenuation varies greatly with environmental conditions such as bathymetry, substrate type and water column characteristics. In the absence of a detailed description of the methodology and the surrounding environment, but based on the findings of Battelle Marine Science Laboratory (2004), it can be assumed that within 100 m from the pile driving, peak sound pressure level within the adjacent water may reach

183.5 dBpeak re. 1µPa and 174.9 dBrms re. 1µPa. Further than 100 m from the source, sound pressure level will be reduced to harmless levels, however the precise degree of reduction is unknown.

The sensitive marine receptors to the effects of noise from pile driving at the proposed tidal pool would be marine mammals, marine turtles and fish. To a certain extent, benthic invertebrates may also be impacted by the noise and vibration from pile driving, however evidence is limited, and the impact in relation to the development of the tidal pool is likely to be insignificant, and so it is not discussed here. There is no known effect on plankton species from anthropogenic noise and no harmful effects have been observed (Moriyasu et al. 2004).

During the site visit, juvenile fish species were observed in the rock pools in the intertidal zone of Second Beach and fishermen indicated that they were catching small fish off the rocks bordering the north and south of Second Beach. Additionally, it is known that large quantities of small pelagics enter the Study Area during the annual sardine run in the winter months, however, these species are generally observed further offshore (> 1 000 m) (O’Donoghue et al. 2010a). Common dolphins are abundant offshore of Port St Johns, and humpback whales are known to migrate through the area between June and September. Zambezi and tiger sharks have been recorded in the inshore area of Second Beach, while great white sharks have been recorded passing through the area (KwaZulu Natal Shark Board 2013). During the sardine run, there is an influx of marine mammals, sharks and other large megafauna off the coast of Port St Johns and Second Beach. Many of these species have been observed between 100 and 1 000 m off the coast, however, bottlenose dolphins were observed within 100 m from the shore (O’Donoghue et al. 2010a).

In order to assess the environmental effects that impact piling will have on sensitive marine receptors, noise criteria are required. Multiple studies have been conducted characterising noise metrics for different groups of species (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006; Di Lorio and Clark 2009; Southall et al. 2016). This process is complicated by the variability in hearing sensitivity between different species (McCauley and Kent 2008).

Southall et al. (2007) presents a set of noise criteria for marine mammals based on four different species groups. Low, mid and high frequency cetaceans are grouped together. For these species, peak SPL effect criterion for a permanent threshold shift (PTS) (permanent damage to hearing) is

230 dBpeak re. 1µPa, while for a temporary threshold shift (TTS) (temporary damage to hearing) or

a behavioural effect it is 224 dBpeak re. 1µPa. For fish, physical injury is seen above 206

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 36 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

dBpeak re. 1µPa with behaviour effects seen above 168 dBpeak re. 1µPa (Collet and Mason 2014). In

the study conducted by Battelle Marine Science laboratory (2004), the criteria of 180 dBpeak re. 1µPa

and 150 dBrms re. 1µPa were set for the protection of fish in the vicinity of the activity. Exceedance depended on proximity to the noise and the individual pile, where certain piles appeared to generate more noise than others.

Based on these criterion values, and the example of beach piling described by Battelle Marine Science laboratory (2004), it can be expected that within 100 m from the piling activity, effects on fish, and possibly marine mammals, will be seen. The type of effects (behavioural, injury etc.) within this zone will be highly dependent on the distance from the source and the nature of the sound. Further than 100 m from the sound source, it is unlikely that any effects on marine mammals will occur.

3.3.2.1 Significance Statement

The impacts of pile driving during construction of the tidal pool on marine fauna will definitely occur and will have a moderate short term to long term impact on a limited number of individuals. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures, this will be reduced to LOW NEGATIVE. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.1.2.

Table 3.4: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effects of pile driving on marine fauna. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 2: The impacts of pile driving on marine fauna Without Short term to Localised Moderate Definite MODERATE Mitigation long term With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight Probable LOW

3.3.2.2 Mitigation and Management

Industry guidelines and best practice should be followed to mitigate the impact of noise from pile driving on marine mammals and fish. The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the construction activities.

o No piling should take place at night or in poor visibility conditions; o A safety exclusion zone should be established around the piling operations. This zone will not include any physical barriers and rather will comprise the area of sea which is visible from the shore at Second Beach. This is the zone within which the presence of marine mammals would mean piling should not be started. o Ensure compliance with international best practice for detecting and communicating about the presence of cetaceans or turtles while pile driving is underway. Prior to the

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 37 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

commencement of any piling operations, or if breaks between consecutive operations exceed 10 minutes, the presence of cetaceans and turtles within the safety zone (defined above) is to be diligently checked and signed off upon by the responsible project officer (e.g. ECO). If such fauna are present the commencement of piling is to be delayed until they have moved seawards out of the zone; o All piling operations are to employ a soft start procedure if possible (to allow disturbed animals to move away from the noise source). A possible way of doing this is to reduce the cycle rate at the beginning of piling; o If large fauna are affected by piling operations to the point where they become disoriented and do not of their own volition move or attempt to move out of the safety zone they are to be assisted to do so if possible and safe; o All dead and or disabled large fauna found in the construction and immediately adjacent areas are to be logged, photographed and the relevant local and national authorities notified before disposal of carcasses; o Where possible, piling should not be undertaken during the sardine run in the winter months.

3.4 OPERATION PHASE

3.4.1 Impact 3: The effects of the tidal pool on coastal processes

The preferred location for the proposed tidal pool is between the north and south beaches on Port St Johns Second Beach, surrounding a vegetated rocky outcrop. The pool is designed to be semi- enclosed, with reinforced concrete diaphragm walls, south and sea sides of the pool. The wall crest level is +2.2 m MSL. This is a conservative design to accommodate for higher wave crest levels typically experienced at more exposed tidal pools. The outer wall is designed with wave attenuator fins, and concrete waveforms will protrude vertically out of the wall at strategic positions. The pool is designed to utilise the natural gradient of the beach to create depth.

The presence of a hard engineering structure within the intertidal zone has the potential to affect wave and sediment dynamics by creating the reflection of waves off the wall and creating a barrier to the movement of sediment within the tidal zone. This may cause rough wave conditions outside of the tidal pool, with the possibility of creating rip currents, and may cause changes in erosion and accretion of sediments along Second Beach. In turn, changes in sediment dynamics may have the potential to alter the beach morphology of Second Beach.

Sediment movement in the inshore area of Second Beach is expected to be primarily circular, influenced by the predominant wave climate and the orientation of the bordering rocky headlands. A sediment transport modelling study was conducted by PRDW (2017a). Baseline conditions show erosion to occur off the rocky headland to the south of Second Beach, and accretion to occur further offshore than this. The position of the tidal pool between the northern and southern beaches can potentially influence the circular transport of sand, especially during winter when wave climate is more energetic. With the inclusion of the tidal pool structure, the sediment transport model

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 38 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

showed that the existing erosion and accretion remained the same, however, additional accretion occurred on the northern and southern extents of Second Beach, and additional erosion occurred along the northern wall of the tidal pool due to constant scouring from the currents occurring along the pool wall (Figure 3.1). When taking extreme storm events and climate change into account, with the inclusion of the tidal pool structure, the sediment transport and erosion and accretion patterns are similar to what is modelled to occur under present day conditions, however, the changes occur on a greater scale. Significant erosion is seen on the seaward side of the northern and southern walls of the tidal pool.

Figure 3.1: Model data showing change in sea bed level after one year, with the presence of the tidal pool structure.

The relative modelled sea bed level change observed between the baseline conditions and those including the tidal pool structure show additional accretion on both the northern and southern beaches of Second Beach. These changes are, however, less than 0.5 m, and thus do not significantly influence the shape or morphology of Second Beach (Figure 3.2).

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 39 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.2: Relative sea bed level change between the baseline conditions and those including the tidal pool structure, after one year.

In addition to sediment transport, the presence of the tidal pool may affect the waves and currents at Second Beach. Due to the orientation of the two bordering headlands, the waves at Second Beach, for the most part, propagate from the south and south-easterly direction. Currents are predominantly wave driven, resulting in a longshore southerly current and rip currents (PRDW 2016; PRDW 2017a). The wave and hydrodynamic modelling study conducted by PRDW (2017a) showed that obstruction of the tidal pool in the intertidal zone causes reflection of the waves back into the southerly and south-easterly swell, which increases significant wave height around the pool slightly, causing rough conditions and turbulence on the perimeter of the tidal pool. The changes are however, relatively small, and do not affect the beaches on either side of the pool (PRDW 2017b). With climate change, an increase in wave height is expected, and so these conditions are expected to be heightened. Additionally, the presence of the tidal pool displaces the southerly current offshore, however, it does not influence the speed of this current. Baseline conditions show the presence of a significant rip current off the north beach, due to waves breaking over the rocks in this area. This is present in both southerly and south-easterly wave conditions. With the presence of the tidal pool structure the hydrodynamic model showed that the rip current is still present, however, the speed is not increased, and no additional rip currents are identified (PRDW 2017a).

3.4.1.1 Significance Statement:

The impacts associated with the presence of the tidal pool on the coastal processes within the study area will definitely occur and will have a moderate, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 40 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

remains unchanged. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.1.

Table 3.5: Pre-and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on coastal processes. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 3: Change in coastal processes Without Slight - Permanent Localised Definite MODERATE Mitigation Moderate Slight - With Mitigation Permanent Localised Definite MODERATE Moderate

3.4.1.2 Mitigation and Management:

In order to mitigate the impacts of the presence of the proposed tidal pool on currents, the pool has been designed to be round in shape, to reduce rip currents along the outside of the pool. At this stage, no other mitigation measures are proposed.

The impacts of the tidal pool on sediment transport are more difficult to mitigate, with no mitigation measures proposed at this stage.

3.4.2 Impact 4: The effects of the tidal pool on sandy shore ecology

The presence of the tidal pool will result in the removal of a portion of beach habitat on the south beach, and also may affect the beach morphology of both the north and south beaches at Second Beach. Both of these factors may have an impact on the ecological functioning of the beach area.

Among other ecological functions, sandy beaches provide habitat for a number of intertidal species and can provide important nesting areas for turtles and seabirds (Defeo et al. 2008). Port St Johns Second Beach is not a known turtle nesting ground, however, it does provide habitat for a variety of intertidal organisms. The beach falls within a transitional zone with regard to its sandy beach faunal composition, where it has characteristics of both beaches to the north (in the subtropical Natal Ecoregion) and to the south (in the warm-temperate Agulhas Ecoregion) of it, with an intermediate level of diversity and biomass. The species assemblage is expected to be dominated by a mix of crustaceans, which are characteristic of beaches further north, and molluscs which are characteristic of the more dissipative beaches, which have a flatter gradient and finer sediment, as found further south.

With the change in beach morphology, there may be an impact on the intertidal organisms occurring on Second Beach, and a change in sandy beach community structure. On a small portion of the north beach, on the perimeter of the tidal pool wall, where there is potential for sediment erosion, the beach may become more reflective and steeper in nature, with an increase in swash

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 41 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

and a coarser sediment size. This may result in an intertidal community more characteristic of the Natal Ecoregion, with lower diversity and biomass, being dominated by crustacean species, which are generally more robust (Defeo et al. 2008). Additionally, with a more reflective beach, there will be a reduction in the supralittoral zone, which is that which occurs highest on the beach, and which is important for nesting habitats and for invertebrates that require a more stable habitat, and an increase in the lower beach habitat, which is dominated by species that are more resilient to wave action and can extend their distribution seaward, such as zooplankton, shrimps and prawns (Defeo et al. 2008). At the south beach, there will be removal of a large portion of sandy beach habitat which will impact the species that occur there. The remaining beach at the south beach may become more dissipative in nature due to the accretion that will occur there, which will allow for an increase in diversity in biomass, characteristic of the beaches further south down the coast.

These areas, both on the north beach and south beach, however, will be very small. Additionally, the changes in beach morphology have been shown to be insignificant (with a change in sea bed level less than 0.5 m a year), and so changes in the ecology as a result of changes to beach morphology are unlikely.

3.4.2.1 Significance Statement

The impacts associated with the presence of the tidal pool on sandy shore ecology within the study area are unlikely to occur, but if they do, will have a slight, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is LOW NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this remains unchanged. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.2.

Table 3.6: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on sandy shore ecology. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 4: Change in sandy shore ecology Without Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW Mitigation With Mitigation Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW

3.4.2.2 Mitigation and Management

As mentioned, the impacts of the tidal pool on sediment transport are difficult to mitigate, with no mitigation measures proposed at this stage. Therefore, the changes in beach ecology will not be mitigated.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 42 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.4.3 Impact 5: The effects of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology

The preferred location for the proposed tidal pool, between the north and south beaches on Port St Johns Second Beach, may result in the removal of a small amount of rocky shore habitat. In addition to this, the presence of the tidal pool may affect the beach morphology of Second Beach, where there is potential for sand deposition to occur on the south beach. Increased sand deposition may result in a decrease in the rocky shore habitat immediately south of the proposed pool.

The rocky shore habitat present at Second Beach showed typical east coast zonation, with most indicator species present. There was a notable absence of the Oyster Belt, and other shellfish. This is presumably because of the high level of subsistence collection that takes place on the beach.

3.4.3.1 Significance Statement:

The impacts associated with the presence of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology within the study area will possibly occur and will have a slight, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this will be reduced to LOW NEGATIVE. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.3.

Table 3.7: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 5: Change in rocky shore ecology Without Permanent Localised Slight May Occur MODERATE Mitigation With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW

3.4.3.2 Mitigation and Management:

As mentioned, the impacts of the tidal pool on sediment transport are difficult to mitigate, with no mitigation measures proposed at this stage. Therefore, the removal of rocky shore habitat immediately south of the proposed tidal pool, as a result of a change in beach morphology, if it occurs, will not be mitigated. However, the removal of the rocky shore habitat at the proposed tidal pool site can be mitigated in the design of the pool, by incorporating the rock that occurs within the boundary of the pool. Additionally, the concrete walls of the tidal pool will provide a hard surface for the colonisation of rocky shore species, which can be considered as a mitigation measure.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 43 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.4.4 Impact 6: The effects of pool cleaning chemicals on the marine water quality and ecology

From time to time, on approximately a three month basis, maintenance of the tidal pool may require the use of chemicals to clean marine algal growth. Previously, at other tidal pools in South Africa the growth of slippery algae has been controlled by applying lime, carbide or copper sulphate to the concrete and rock surfaces within the pool (Bosman and Scholtz 1982). For the proposed tidal pool, the type of chemicals to be used, if required, have not been finalised, however there is potential for these chemicals to impact the surrounding ecology through a reduction in water quality.

3.4.4.1 Significance Statement

The impacts associated with the pool cleaning chemicals on the marine water quality and ecology within the study area will possibly occur and will have a slight, short-term impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is LOW NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures (no chemical usage) this will be reduced to NO IMPACT. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.4.

Table 3.8: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the use of chemical contamination from pool cleaning chemicals on the marine water quality and ecology. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 6: Chemical contamination from pool cleaning chemicals Without Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW Mitigation With Mitigation No chemical usage NO IMPACT

3.4.4.2 Mitigation and Management

Mitigation measures primarily involve the avoidance of the use of chemicals to combat algal growth. This can either be done by preventing algal growth altogether through the design of the pool and ensuring that the inflow of water is sufficient, or through the use of other methods to remove algal growth, such as manually scraping it off the rocks.

3.4.5 Impact 7: The effects of increased litter on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

One of the objectives of the proposed beach infrastructure at Port St Johns Second Beach is to increase tourism to the area. An increase in tourism will likely result in an increased generation of waste. This waste, in the form of litter and debris, may accumulate on the shoreline and in the intertidal zone, and can eventually end up in the marine environment, and contribute to the global marine litter problem.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 44 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Marine litter is a global issue which is largely thought to be as a result of the rise in manufacture of cheap durable plastic as an alternative to biodegradable materials (Irwin 2012). Some of the most common contributors to marine litter include plastic bottles, plastic bags and other plastic packaging. Other contributors include Styrofoam, cigarette butts, wrappers, glass bottles and beverage cans (Irwin 2012).

The issue of marine litter has received increased attention in recent years, where there are a variety of ecological impacts which are well documented in the literature. In the marine environment, these include habitat loss and wildlife entanglement and ingestion. Marine debris can physically impact benthic habitats by settling on the seabed and causing reduced light and smothering (Irwin 2012). Entanglement is often caused by discarded fishing gear, but other items such as ropes, plastic bags and six-pack rings can have the same effect. The entanglement of marine mammals and other large fauna such as turtles has received the most attention, however smaller animals are also affected. Ingestion of litter is hard to identify, but it affects a large number of taxonomic groups where ingested material includes both large and small items (microplastics have been shown to have a significant impact). In addition to this, the problem of marine litter can be exacerbated by extreme weather events. In the case of Port St Johns Second Beach, increased tourism is likely to cause a persistent increase in litter, which, if not managed correctly, is likely to result in the above mentioned ecological impacts occurring. With an extreme weather event, such as heavy rainfall, the flooding of the Mtumbane and Bulolo Rivers will cause an influx of land-based litter from upstream which is likely to exacerbate the already persistent pollution, and thus exacerbate the impacts on the marine ecology in the region.

The amount of increased waste that potentially may be deposited in the sea will depend on the adequacy of waste removal services provided to cater for the increase in the number of people visiting Second Beach. An increase in waste is however likely to occur and will have effects on a regional scale.

3.4.5.1 Significance Statement

The impacts associated with increased marine litter on marine ecology within the study area will definitely occur and will have a moderate, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is HIGH NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this will be reduced to NO IMPACT. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.5.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 45 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table 3.9: Pre- and post- mitigation impact significance rating of increased marine litter due to increased tourism resulting from the establishment and presence of the tidal pool. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 7: Increased marine litter Without Permanent Regional Moderate Definite HIGH Mitigation With Mitigation No marine litter NO IMPACT

3.4.5.2 Mitigation and Management:

The solution to mitigating the marine ecological impacts of marine litter lies in waste prevention and better waste management. Mitigation measures should be detailed in a waste management plan, and should include: sufficient functioning rubbish bins, the deployment staff to regularly pick up loose litter items on Second Beach and surrounding the proposed infrastructure, especially during peak seasons, as well as signage to increase awareness. The increased generation of waste is an important issue that will need to be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan for the development. The focus should be on ensuring effective recycling and then disposal of the remainder in a registered municipal waste disposal site, to prevent the litter from getting into the sea. Funding provisions for implementing the mitigation measures will need to be accommodated in municipal budgeting processes.

3.4.6 Impact 8: The effects of increased sewage and other wastewater on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

In addition to an increase in litter, an increase in tourism and numbers of people visiting Port St Johns because of the tidal pool, will result in an increase in sewage production. Additionally, with the development of the tidal pool, the area of hard surfaces (paving, stairs etc.) will increase, thus increasing storm water runoff. This input is likely to occur frequently during high usage times, if not managed correctly, but will be limited to a local level, as with mixing and the prevailing oceanographic conditions, it will dissipate quickly.

Untreated municipal wastewaters and storm water runoff contain high levels of microbial contaminants, suspended matter and nutrients (UNEP/Nairobi Convention Secretariat 2009). An increase in the marine environment can contribute to eutrophication, which will affect the marine ecology. In addition, microbial contamination, observed as high concentrations of faecal bacteria can occur. With the ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated seafood (filter feeders), this can result in human health issues.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 46 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.4.6.1 Significance Statement

The impacts associated with increased sewage and other wastewater on marine ecology within the study area will probably occur and will have a moderate, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this will be reduced to NO IMPACT. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.6.

Table 3.9: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of increased sewage and other wastewater due to increased tourism resulting from the establishment and presence of the tidal pool. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 8: Increased wastewater and storm water runoff Without Probable- Permanent Localised Moderate MODERATE Mitigation definite With Mitigation No sewage and other wastewater runoff NO IMPACT

3.4.6.2 Mitigation and Management

Ablution facilities to cater for the increase in tourism need to be designed appropriately, and effluent being discharged needs to undergo extensive treatment at a licensed waste water treatment facility. An appropriate storm water management plan will be required, and hard surfaces should be designed so as to prevent excessive storm water runoff.

3.4.7 Impact 9: The effects of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

With an increase in tourism to the area there may be an increased demand for seafood. This may result in greater harvesting of marine resources off the rocky shore as well as from subtidal habitats.

The occurrence of subsistence fishing and seafood collection along the Wild Coast has been well documented. During the site visit subsistence fishing and collecting of shellfish off the rocks was observed, and oysters, mussels and crayfish were being sold. With an influx of tourists, demand for these species may increase and so increased harvesting will occur. This would affect Second Beach and other beaches in the region, including those within the Pondoland MPA. This has the potential to have a detrimental effect on regional populations.

Section 20 of the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998, addresses the rights of recreational fishermen, whereby it is stated that “no person shall sell, barter or trade any fish caught through recreational fishing”. Permitting therefore plays an important role in the legality of such activities.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 47 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

3.4.7.1 Significance Statement:

The impacts associated with the increased demand for seafood on marine ecology within the study area will probably occur and will have a moderate, permanent impact. The environmental significance of this unmitigated impact is MODERATE NEGATIVE. With mitigation measures this could be reduced to LOW POSITIVE. A detailed assessment of the impact, with and without mitigation is provided in Section 8.2.7.

Table 3.10: Pre- and post-mitigation impact significance rating of increased demand for seafood due to increased tourism resulting from the establishment and presence of the tidal pool. Effect Risk or Overall Impact Temporal Severity of Spatial Scale Likelihood Significance Scale Impact Impact 9: Increased demand for seafood Without Permanent Study area Moderate Probable MODERATE Mitigation With Mitigation Short term Localised Slight Beneficial May Occur LOW (POSITIVE)

3.4.7.2 Mitigation and Management

In order to prevent increased harvesting of marine resources, appropriate regulation and policing, and permitting needs to be implemented. In addition to this, signage raising consumer awareness should be erected. If this is successful, the current levels of illegal harvesting should be reduced, thus a positive impact on the environment may be seen.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 48 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4 CONCLUSION

Nine impacts of the tidal pool infrastructure on the surrounding marine ecology at Port St Johns Second Beach were identified and assessed. The findings of each are presented below (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: A summary of impacts associated with the development of the tidal pool on marine ecology that were identified and assessed. Effect Pre-/Post- Impact Impact Description Temporal Spatial Likelihood Significance mitigation Severity Scale Scale 1 Effects of Without Short term Localised Moderate Probable LOW construction of the Mitigation diaphragm wall on With Unlikely – Short term Localised Slight LOW marine fauna Mitigation May Occur 2 Effects of pile Without Short term to Localised Moderate Definite MODERATE driving on marine Mitigation long term fauna With Short term Localised Slight Probable LOW Mitigation 3 Effects of the tidal Slight - Without/with pool on coastal Permanent Localised Moderat Definite MODERATE mitigation processes e 4 Effects of the tidal Without/with pool on sandy shore Permanent Localised Slight Unlikely LOW mitigation ecology 5 Effects of the tidal Without Permanent Localised Slight May Occur MODERATE pool on rocky Mitigation shore ecology With Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW Mitigation 6 Effects of pool Without Short term Localised Slight May Occur LOW cleaning Mitigation chemicals on With marine water and NO IMPACT Mitigation ecology 7 Effects of Without Moderat Permanent Regional Definite HIGH increased litter on Mitigation e marine ecology With NO IMPACT Mitigation 8 Effects of Without Moderat Probable- Permanent Localised MODERATE increased sewage Mitigation e definite and other With wastewater on NO IMPACT Mitigation marine ecology 9 Effects of Without Study Moderat Permanent Probable MODERATE increased Mitigation area e demand for Slight With LOW seafood on Short term Localised Beneficia May Occur Mitigation (POSITIVE) marine ecology l

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 49 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Should the project be carried out as stipulated in the feasibility study (PRDW 2017b), and in line with international best practice, the effects on the marine ecology of the region will be minimal in most cases. No fatal flaws were identified and the impact of highest significance is that predicted to be associated with an increase in litter because of an increase of tourism to the tidal pool. The pre-mitigation significance of this impact was rated as high, however, with appropriate mitigation, in the form of suitable and effective waste management, no impact will occur.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 50 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5 REFERENCES

BATTELLE .2004. Hydroacoustic monitoring during beach pile driving at Hood Canal Bridge on June 14th. Summary field report prepared by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory. 13pp. BECKLEY L.E. 1986. The ichthyoplankton assemblage of the Algoa Bay nearshore region in relation to coastal zone utilization by juvenile fish. African Zoology 21: 244-252. BECKLEY L.E., and J.D. HEWITSON. 1994. Distribution and abundance of clupeoid larvae along the east coast of South Africa in 1990/91. South African Journal of Marine Science 14: 205- 212. BECKLEY L.E., and R.C. VAN BALLEGOOYEN. 1992. Oceanographic conditions during three ichthyoplankton surveys of the Agulhas Current in 1990/91. South African Journal of Marine Science 12: 83-93. BEST P.B. 2001. Distribution and population separation of Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni off southern Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 220: 277-289. BEST P.B., and P.A. FOLKENS. 2007. Whales and Dolphins of the southern African subregion. Cambridge University Press, Cape Town. 338pp. BOSMAN, D.E., and D.J.P. SCHOLTZ. 1982. A survey of man-made tidal swimming pools along the South African coast. International Conference of Coastal Engineering. 10pp. BRANCH, G., and M. BRANCH. 1981. The Living Shores of Southern Africa. C Struik, Cape Town. 261pp. BRANCH, G.M., GRIFFITHS, C.L., BRANCH, M.L., and L.E. BECKLEY. 2010 .Two Oceans. Struik Nature, Cape Town. 456pp. CARTER R., and M. SCHLEYER. 1988. Plankton distributions in Natal coastal waters. Coastal ocean studies off Natal, South Africa 1: 152-177. COCKCROFT V.G., and V.M. PEDDEMORS. 1990. Seasonal distribution and density of common dolphins Delphinus delphis off the south-east coast of southern Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 9: 371-377. COETZEE, J.C., MERKLE, D., HUTCHINGS L., VAN DER LINGEN, C.D., VAN DEN BERG, M. and M.D. DURHOLTZ. 2010. The 2005 KwaZulu-Natal sardine run survey sheds new light on the

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 51 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ecology of small pelagic fish off the east coast of South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 32: 337-360. COLLETT, A., and T. MASON. 2014. York potash project harbour facilities: underwater noise impact assessment. Subacoustech Report No. E473R0205. 42pp. CRAWFORD R.J.M., and P.M. SHELTON. 1978. Pelagic fish and seabird interrelationships off the coasts of South West and South Africa. Biological Conservation 14: 85-109. DEA. 2016. Water Quality Monitoring Pilot Project in Port St Johns, Eastern Cape. Cape Town: Deparment of Environmental Affairs – Oceans and Coasts. DEFEO, O., MCLACHLAN, A., SCHOEMAN, D.S., SCHLACHER, T.A., DUGAN, J., JONES, A., LASTRA, M., and F. SCAPINI. 2008. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81: 1-12. DI LORIO, L., and C.W. CLARK. 2009. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biology letters, 6: 51-54. DINGLE, R.V., GOODLAD, S.W. and A.K. MARTIN.1978. Bathymetry and stratigraphy of the northern Natal Valley (SW Indian Ocean): a preliminary account. Marine Geology 28: 89-106. DUDLEY S.F.J., and G. CLIFF. 2010. Influence of the annual sardine run on catches of large sharks in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and the occurrence of sardine in the shark diet. African Journal of Marine Science, 32: 383-397. EOH Coastal and Environmental Services. 2017. Proposed Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Project, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, Draft Scoping Report. EOH CES, Cape Town. FINDLAY, K.P. 1989. The distribution of cetaceans off the coast of South Africa and South West Africa/Namibia (Doctoral dissertation). GRAB, S., and J. KNIGHT. 2015. Landscapes and landforms of South Africa. Springer International Publishing. 187pp. GRIFFITHS, M.H. 1996. Life history of the dusky kob Argyrosomus japonicas (Sciaenidae) off the east coast of South Africa. Journal of Marine Science 17: 135-154. HARRIS, L.R., RONEL, N., and D. SCHOEMAN. 2011. Mapping beach morphodynamics remotely: A novel application tested on South African sandy shores. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92: 78-89. HARRIS, L.R. 2012. An ecosystem-based spatial conservation plan for the South African sandy beaches (Doctoral dissertation). IRWIN, K. 2012. The impacts of marine debris: A review of synthesis of existing research. Prepared for Living Oceans Society. 38pp. IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 06 April 2017. KWAZULU-NATAL SHARKS BOARD. 2013. Improving bather safety at second beach, Port St Johns. 24pp. LOMBARD, A.T., STRAUSS T., HARRIS, J., SINK, K., ATTWOOD, C., and L. HUTCHINGS. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment – Technical Report. 4: South African National Biodiversity Institute. LUTJEHARMS, L.R.E. 2006 .The Agulhas current. Springer International Publishing, Berlin. 330pp.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 52 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

MCCAULEY, R.D. and C.S. KENT. 2008. Pile driving underwater noise assessment, proposed Bell Bay pulp mill wharf development. Report prepared for Gunns Limited. MEDA. 2012. Agulhas and Somali current large marine ecosystems (ASCLME) project. National Marine Ecosystem Diagnostic Analysis. 103pp. 39pp. MORIYASU, M., ALLAIN, R., BENHALIMA, K., and R. CLAYTOR. 2004. Effects of seismic and marine noise on invertebrates: A literature review. Fisheries and Oceans Research Document No. 2004/126. 21pp + Appendices. O’DONOGHUE, S.H., DRAPEAU, L., and V.M. PEDDEMORS. 2010a. Broad-scale distribution patterns of sardine and their predators in relation to remotely sense environmental conditions during the KwaZulu-Natal sardine run. African Journal of Marine Science 32: 279-291. O’DONOGHUE, S.H., WHITTINGTON, P.A., DYER, B.M., and V.M. PEDDEMORS. 2010b. Abundance and distribution of avian and marine mammal predators of sardine observed during the 2005 KwaZulu-Natal sardine run survey. African Journal of Marine Science 32: 361-378. POPPER, A.N. 2003. Effect of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, 28: 24-31. PRDW. 2016. Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Design. PRDW Report No. S2041-1-RP-PSJ Pre- feasibility Report-GA-002-R1. 36pp + Appendices. PRDW. 2017a. Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Design. PRDW Report No. S2041-RP-CE-001-RO Coastal Processes Study, Feasibility Study. 86pp. PRDW. 2017b. Port St Johns Beach Infrastructure Design. PRDW Report No. S2041-2-RP-PSJ Feasibility Report-GA-002-R0. 271 pp.

ROBERTS, M.J., VAN DER LINGEN, C.D., WHITTLE, C., and M. VAN DEN BERG 2010 Shelf currents, lee-trapped and transient eddies on the inshore boundary of the Agulhas Current, South Africa: their relevance to the KwaZulu-Natal sardine run. African Journal of Marine Science 32: 423-447. RUTHERFORD, M.C., MUCINA, L., and L.W. POWRIE. 2006. Biomes and bioregions of southern Africa. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. 30-51pp. SINK, K.J., ATTWOOD, C.G., LOMBARD, A.T., GRANTHAM, H., LESLIE, R., SAMAAI, T., KERWATH, S., MAJIEDT, P., FAIRWEATHER, T., HUTCHINGS, L., and C. VAN DER LINGEN. 2011. Spatial planning to identify focus areas for offshore biodiversity protection in South Africa. SOUTHALL, B.L., BOWLES, A.E., ELLISON, W.T., FINNERAN, J.J., GENTRY, R.L., GREENE, C.R., JR., KASTAK, D., KETTEN, D.R., MILLER, J.H., NACHTIGALL, P.E., RICHARDSON, W.J., THOMAS,

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 53 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

J.A., and P.L. TYACK. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33: 411-521. SOUTHALL, B.L., NOWACEK, D.P., MILLER, P.J.O., and P.L. TYACK. 2016. Experimental field studies to measure behavioural responses of cetaceans to sonar. Endangered Species Research, 31: 293-315. STEPHENSON, T.L., and A. STEPHENSON. 1972. Life Between Tidemarks on Rocky Shores. Freeman, San Francisco. 425pp. STONE, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters, 1998-2000. JNCC Report No. 323. 42pp + Appendices. STONE, C.J., and M.L. TASKER. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8: 255-263. TINLEY, K.L. 1985. Coastal Dunes of South Africa. FRD, CSIR, South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 109. 300pp. VAN DER ELST, R. 1993. A guide to the common sea fishes of Southern Africa. Struik. 398pp. WENTWORTH, C.K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of Geology, 30(5): 377- 392. WOOLDRIDGE, T., DYE, A.H. and MCLACHLAN, A. 1981. The ecology of sandy beaches in Transkei. African Zoology 16: 210-128.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 54 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6 APPENDIX A: NEMA REQUIREMENTS

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA; Act No. 107 of 1998) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (as amended in 2014) specify, in Appendix 6, that a Specialist Report must contain all the information necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of issues identified, and must include:

1. Section NEMA 2014 Regs - Appendix 6(1) Requirement Position in report 1 A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must Appendix A contain— (a) details of- (i) the specialist who prepared the report; and Before table of contents (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report Appendix B including a curriculum vitae; (b) a declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be Before table of specified by the competent authority; contents and on a form supplied by the competent authority if required (c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the Chapter 1: report was prepared; Introduction to report (d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance Chapter 1: of the season to the outcome of the assessment; Introduction to report (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report Chapter 1: or carrying out the specialised process; Introduction to report (f) the specific identified sensitivities of the site related to the activity Chapter 3: start of and its associated structures and infrastructure; impact assessment chapter (g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Chapter 3 (h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated Chapter 1 and structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitive of Chapter 3 the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or Chapter 1: gaps in knowledge; Introduction to report (j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such Chapter 3 findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment; (k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Chapter 3 (l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorization; Chapter 3 (m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or Chapter 3 environmental authorisation;

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 55 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. Section NEMA 2014 Regs - Appendix 6(1) Requirement Position in report (n) a reasoned opinion- Chapter 4 (i) as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorized and (ii) if the opinion is that the proposed activity of portion thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken Not applicable during the course of preparing the specialist report; (p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any Not applicable consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and (q) any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 56 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7 APPENDIX B: SPECIALIST CVS

LANE, SUE

Name of organization: Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd Profession: Environmental Scientist and Assessment Practitioner Position in Firm: Associate Date of Birth: 25/07/1951 Years with Firm: 11 years

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I carried out postgraduate studies in education at the University of Natal (Pietermaritzburg) (UED) and in environmental science at the University of Cape Town (MSc).

Subsequent to this, I was employed by the Transvaal Department of Nature Conservation for a year and then the Department of Environmental Affairs oceans and coasts division of government. During this period (1980 – 1990) I was responsible for promoting the adoption of integrated environmental management in the private and public sectors in the coastal zone of South Africa. My responsibilities included reviewing environmental evaluations and management programmes for all activities in marine and coastal areas of the country; developing environmental legislation and resource use policy; advising on the allocation of funds for natural research institute programmes, and on legal and administrative procedures for environmental conservation measures in the coastal zone. During this period I also successfully completed the course work component of a post graduate diploma in Marine Law at the University of Cape Town.

After leaving government I was employed for six years as a senior environmental consultant at, and during 1994 and 1995 as co-manager of, the Environmental Evaluation Unit at the University of Cape Town. I made specialist contributions to and /or managed Environmental Evaluations and audits from the project to policy levels. Responsibilities also included contributing to the development of the Integrated Environmental Management procedure, and undertaking some teaching.

Since 1996 I have been running an independent environmental consultancy called Sue Lane & Associates Environmental Services cc. and providing a range of professional services in environmental planning and management. My focus has been on marine and coastal environments, and also on fresh water systems. Work has been undertaken for private companies, governments and environmental and international agencies.

Since 2005 I have been working primarily with Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd, advising about and assisting with integrating marine specialist information into baseline reports, environmental assessments and management and monitoring programmes.

EDUCATION MSc Environmental Studies University of Cape Town 1980 BSc Entomology, Zoology, & UED Natal University (Pmb) 1974 & 5

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 57 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION I am registered as Professional Natural Scientist in environmental science with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (registration #113902) and am registered as an environmental assessment practitioner with the interim certification board (EAPSA).

EMPLOYMENT RECORD 2005-present Associate of Lwandle Technologies, Pty. Ltd., Marine Environmental Services, Cape Town. 1996-present Director of my own company Sue Lane & Associates, an independent specialist consultant in environmental planning and management, Cape Town. 1990-1996 Senior environmental consultant at the Environmental Evaluation Unit of the Environmental and Geographical Sciences Department of the University of Cape Town. 1981-1990 Professional officer with the National Department of Environment Affairs - Marine and Coastal Management, Cape Town. 1980 Professional officer with the (former) Provincial Department of Transvaal Nature Conservation, Pretoria. 1976-1978 Research assistant for SANCOR programme, identifying estuarine and sub- Antarctic zooplankton, Cape Town. 1976 Maths, Biology and English teacher at Manenberg High School, Cape Town 1975 Technician at the Department of Agriculture’s Domestic Waterfowl Breeding Unit, Cedara, KwaZulu Natal.

RECENT EXPERIENCE RECORD – CONTRACTS (2010 to date) current Review of marine input to a BAR and CWDP (Coastal Waters Discharge Permit in terms of NEM:ICMA) for Aqunion’s abalone hatchery and grow-out facility, between Gouritzmond and Stilbaai on the Cape South Coast. 2016 Internal review of report on a marine discharge assessment in support of Eskom’s Coastal Waters Discharge Permit application for Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. PRDW and Eskom. 2016 Marine and estuarine baseline description and EIA for a proposed port for the export of coal, at the Macuse River mouth, near Quelimane. Zambezia Province, central Mozambique. ItalThai. 2016 Evaluation of location options for High Frequency Radar base stations on the coast for marine sea surface observation. RSA south coast. Actimar and Lwandle. 2016 Review of marine baseline reports and marine component of EIAs and EMPs for Floating Power Plants (short term options) in Richards Bay and in Saldanha Bay. RSA Department of Energy. 2016 Compilation of a Stakeholder Analysis, and participation in the development and review of a Strategic Workflow to enable oilfield decommissioning. Block 9 offshore Mossel Bay, South Africa. PetroSA. 2015 IFC Performance Standard 6, marine Critical Habitat s assessment for Palma Bay. Northern Mozambique. Anadarko. 2015 Quantitative baseline survey of the benthic communities and sediments for a proposed Conventional Buoy Mooring (CBM) and new quay in Luanda Bay, and a management

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 58 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

plan for invasive alien species which may be introduced. Luanda Bay, Angola. Puma Energy Angola (Pumangol). 2015 Post ESHIA marine environmental baseline surveys for an LNG plant development at Palma. Northern Mozambique. Anadarko. 2014 EIS Addendum for Blocks 12/13/30/45 (MinAmb instruction to reduce extent of area for seismic survey i.e. to cover a portion of the original survey area. Southern Angola. WesternGeco. 2014 Marine ecology assessments for proposed berth extension in the Port of Ngqura. Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape, RSA. Transnet. 2014 Marine baseline component of EA for exploratory drilling. Block 19 offshore Angola. BP Angola. 2013 Marine component of EIA and EMP for exploratory drilling. Block 23 offshore Angola. Maersk Oil, Angola. 2013 Mpungi Field offshore Angola marine environmental baseline and EA. Block 15/06 offshore Angola. Eni Angola. 2013 Marine component of EIA and EMP for Sonangol’s Offshore Optical Cable system. Central and northern Angola. Sonangol. 2013 East Hub offshore Angola marine environmental baseline and EA. Block 15/06 offshore Angola. Eni Angola. 2013 West Hub offshore Angola marine EA. Block 15/06 offshore Angola. Eni Angola. 2013 Marine baseline component of EA for exploratory drilling. Block 24 offshore Angola. BP Angola. 2013 Marine ecology assessment for proposed development of gas field and LNG plant. Mozambique offshore Block 1. Anadarko. 2013 Marine component of EIA and EMP for seismic survey. Block 23 offshore Angola. Maersk Oil, Angola. 2012 Marine ecology assessment for proposed development of an Iron Ore export facility in the port of Monrovia. Liberia, Monrovia. China-Union Investment Co. 2012 Marine component of EIA and EMP: exploration drilling of Curoca-1, Mulavi, Caporolo- 2. Block 16 offshore Angola. Maersk Oil, Angola. 2012 Marine ecology assessments for proposed Manganese terminal in the Port of Ngqura. Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape, RSA. Transnet. 2012 Marine component of EIA and EMP: seismic survey. Angola offshore Namibe Basin Blocks. WesternGeco. 2012 Marine ecology assessments for Liquid bulk storage and handling facility in the Port of Ngqura. Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape, RSA. Oiltanking Grindrod Calulo (PTY) Ltd. 2012 Marine component of EIA and EMP: seismic survey. Angola offshore Blocks UtraDeepNW, 49 & 50. WesternGeco. 2012 Marine ecology assessment for oil spills in Saldanha Bay: for development of a crude oil storage facility. Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, RSA. MOGS (Pty) Ltd. 2012 Proposed LPG Bulk Importation into Saldanha Bay. Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, RSA. Sunrise Energy (Pty) Ltd. 2012 Compiled a generic risk assessment and aspects and impacts, and commitments, registers for a range of seismic survey types. Blocks 18 & 31 offshore Angola. BP Angola. 2012 Specialist assessment of risks to marine life in the water column from dredging for phosphates on Namibia’s continental shelf. Offshore Walvis Bay. Namibian Marine Phosphate. 2012 2nd draft: Upgrade of Bulk Water Supply facilities (Muldersvlei component) to the Cape Metropolitan Area, for the City of Cape Town Municipality. Cape Town, RSA. Chand Environmental/ City of Cape Town.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 59 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2011 Marine input to EIA for deep-water seismic survey. Blocks 21 & 22 offshore Angola. Sonangol/ WesternGeco. 2011 Development of west hub: FPSO site and pipelines. Block 15/06 offshore Angola. ENI. 2011 EMPrs for FA-EM, SCG, Sable and Oribi-Oryx production areas, with risk assessment and broad cost estimates for decommissioning. Block 9 offshore Mossel Bay, South Africa. PetroSA. 2011 Marine component of EIA and EMP: seismic survey. Block 16 offshore Angola. Maersk Oil, Angola. 2011 Environmental baseline study for the transhipment of coal through the Zambezi River mouth. Zambezi River, Mozambique. Riversdale, Mozambique. 2011 Marine water and sediment quality baseline for the establishment and operation of an oil refinery at Lobito Bay. Lobito Bay. Sonaref, Angola. 2010 Marine component of EIA and EMP: Ogonga+ Onguari drilling 2 wells. Angola offshore Block 26. Petrobras. 2010 Marine component of EIA and EMP: MOW-Canuku decommissioning pipelines. Angola offshore Block 2. Sonangol P&P. 2010 Marine component of EIA and EMP: Ultra-deep seismic 1 survey. Angola offshore Blocks 35- 38. TGS. 2010 Environmental baseline study for the establishment of a coal export facility. Nacala Bay, Mozambique. Vale Mozambique. 2010 Marine component of EIA and EMP: Coastal seismic 1 survey. Angola offshore Block 9. WesternGeco. 2010 Marine component of EIA and EMP for seismic survey. Angola offshore Blocks 19 & 20. WesternGeco.

20/07/2016

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 60 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

WESTON, LAURA

Name of Organisation: Lwandle Technologies (Pty) Ltd Profession: Marine Biologist Position in Firm: Marine Scientist Date of Birth: 07/03/1990 Years with Firm: 3.5 years

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Laura has a background in zoology and marine biology, with particular interest in fisheries science. She completed her MSc in 2013 at the University of Cape Town, where her thesis looked at the temporal and spatial variability in the infection by a specific type of parasite in the South African sardine, and the utility of this parasite as a stock identification tool. Prior to that, Laura was based in Grahamstown, where she completed her undergraduate and BSc(Hons) degrees.

Following the completion of her Masters, Laura volunteered for an NGO doing a tour around the South African coastline, educating underprivileged children about the marine environment. She took up her post with Lwandle Technologies in July 2013, where she became a member of the scientific team, working as a marine scientist. Since joining Lwandle, Laura has been involved in the management and reporting aspects of a variety of marine specialist studies, and the fieldwork related to these. Typically, this work has comprised the development of marine environmental baseline reports for oil and gas and other offshore and port development projects, in Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa, as well as the characterization of water and sediment quality in some of these areas.

EDUCATION MSc Applied Marine Science University of Cape Town, Cape Town 2013 BSc(Hons) Marine Biology Rhodes University, Grahamstown 2011

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Laura is registered as Professional Natural Scientist in zoological science with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (registration # 116173)

EMPLOYMENT RECORD 2013- 2015 Marine Scientist, Lwandle Technologies, Cape Town, South Africa 2015 – current Senior Marine Scientist, Lwandle Technologies, Cape Town, South Africa

KEY EXPERIENCE An abridged list of Laura Weston’s project experience is presented below:

Current Development of a pollution monitoring program at hotspot locations within the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, for the Benguela Current Commission. 2016 Baseline Report and Marine Mammal Impact Assessment for a seismic survey offshore of central Mozambique, for EOH Coastal and Environmental Services. 2016 Marine Ecology Baseline Description for a proposed pipeline development offshore of the Inhambane Province, Mozambique, for ERM on behalf of Sasol. 2015 Marine Ecology IFC PS6 Critical Habitats Assessment on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in Palma Bay, Mozambique. 2015 Baseline report for oil and gas infrastructure development in Luanda Bay, Angola for ARC on behalf of Pumangol. 2015 Coral identification guide for the Quirimbas Archipelago, northern Mozambique, on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. 2015 Environmental survey, baseline reporting and marine ecology impact assessment

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 61 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

for a port development, for ERM on behalf of ItalThai, Mozambique. 2015 Metocean data collection for the proposed dig out port at the Old Durban International airport site on behalf of Transnet in Durban, South Africa. 2014 ROV shallow water pipeline survey on behalf of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in Palma Bay, Mozambique. 2014 Environmental survey report for oil and gas exploration for ARC on behalf of Statoil in Blocks 38 & 39, Angola. 2014 Marine component of an EIA for proposed phosphate mining for Namibian Marine Phosphates, Namibia. 2014 Environmental survey report and fieldwork associated with the bio monitoring programme on the effects of dredging and dredge spoil behaviour for the Port of Cape Town on behalf of Transnet. 2013 Marine baseline reports for the Angola Block 19 and Block 24 exploration drilling for, ARC, on behalf of BP. 2013 Environmental report outlining the gaps present in data previously collected for the Sonaref oil refinery development in Lobito Bay, for ERM, on behalf of Sonangol, Angola.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 62 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8 APPENDIX C: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLES

8.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

8.1.1 Impact 1: The effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna

Table 8.1: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the construction of the diaphragm wall on marine fauna. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Short term The construction is envisioned to last for one year, during which the 1 construction of the diaphragm wall will only last for a small portion of the time, after which it will cease. Effects on the surrounding biota from overflow of the bentonite and cement slurry will only last as long as the construction of the diaphragm walls. With mitigation, the temporal scale will remain the same. Spatial Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Localised The effects of the construction of the diaphragm wall, particularly the 1

effects from the overflow of bentonite and cement slurry, will be limited to the area immediately adjacent to the Project Site. With

Effect mitigation, the spatial scale will remain the same. Severity Pre-mitigation Moderate This depends on the proximity of the marine species to the 2 construction. Benthic animals in close proximity may be smothered by bentonite and cement slurry that settles on the seabed, and toxicity effects may kill benthic and pelagic organisms in the area surrounding the proposed tidal pool. However, this will only affect a small number of individuals of regional populations, and therefore the severity is ranked as moderate. Post-mitigation Slight Through the use of non-toxic bentonite and cement chemicals of low 1 toxicity, the effects of toxicity on surrounding marine biota will be avoided. Additionally, if the slurry is contained as much as possible, and excess discharges are avoided during construction, the smothering of benthic organisms will also be avoided. With the adopted of mitigation measures, the severity is ranked as slight.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 63 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Likelihood Pre-mitigation Probable Overflow or discharge of bentonite and cement slurry will probably 3 occur during the construction phase of the project. Additionally,

benthic and pelagic marine fauna will probably occur in close proximity to the Project Site during construction and so will be exposed to slurry. This may result in smothering and toxicity. Post-mitigation

Likelihood Unlikely - May With mitigation, and the containment of slurry the likelihood of 1 - 2 occur overflow and discharge into the marine environment is reduced and may occur. Additionally, if non-toxic chemicals are used, the likelihood of contamination and toxicity effects on marine biota is slight. TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 7 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 4 - 5

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 64 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1.2 Impact 2: The effects of pile driving on marine fauna

Table 8.2: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of noise from pile driving on auditory function and behaviour in marine mammals and fish. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Short term to The construction is envisioned to last for one year, during which the 1-3 long term pile driving will only last for a small portion of the time, after which it will cease. Auditory damage could last beyond the duration of the survey. Post-mitigation Short term With the adoption of the mitigation measures, a safety exclusion zone 1 will be established around piling operations. Operations are not to begin if a marine mammal is detected within this zone, negating the risk of causing long term auditory damage. Mitigation for the presence of fish will be more difficult, however, if a large “bait ball” or some such is present within the safety zone, the same procedure should be followed. This will prevent the risk of causing injury to a large number of fish.

Spatial Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation

Effect Localised The effects of the pile driving will be limited to the area immediately 1 adjacent to the Project Site. Auditory effects in marine mammals and fish will be observed up to 100 m from the sound source. This is highly dependent on the characteristics of the sound, and so this may need to be reassessed once more information on the construction methodology used is available. With mitigation, the spatial scale will remain the same. Severity Pre-mitigation Moderate This depends on the proximity of the marine mammal or fish species 2 to the sound source. Should the animal be present within 100 m, the effect on the individual could be severe, where a TTS, PTS or injury may be observed. However, this will only affect a small number of individuals of regional populations, and therefore the severity is ranked as moderate. Post-mitigation Slight With the adoption of the mitigation measures, a safety exclusion zone 1 will be established around piling operations. Operations are not to begin if a marine mammal is detected within this zone, negating the risk of causing long term auditory damage. Mitigation for the presence of fish will be more difficult, however, if a large “bait ball” or some such is present within the safety zone, the same procedure

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 65 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

should be followed. This will prevent the risk of causing injury to a large number of fish. Additionally, if piling operations are not conducted during June to August, the sardine run will be avoided, reducing the risk of injuring mammals, fish and sharks which occur in large numbers in association with the run. Likelihood Pre-mitigation Definite Marine mammals and fish will occur in the vicinity of the Project Site 4 during operations and so will be exposed to the noise. This will especially be the case during the sardine run, where higher than usual numbers of species will most likely be observed in the area. Post-mitigation Probable Noise is a by-product of pile driving operations, and so is guaranteed 3 to occur with construction. Marine mammals and fish will occur in the

vicinity of the Project Site during operations and so will be exposed to the noise, however, if operations are limited between July and September, interaction with the sardine run, when large amounts of

Likelihood fauna are seen, will be avoided. TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 10 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 6

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 66 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2 OPERATION PHASE

8.2.1 Impact 3: The effects of the tidal pool on coastal processes

Table 8.3: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on coastal processes. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Permanent The tidal pool is a permanent feature, and thus the effects on coastal 4 processes associated with its presence will be permanent. Spatial Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Localised The effects of the presence of the tidal pool will be limited to the 1 coastal processes within the inshore area at Second Beach. This area falls within the 1 km radius from the Project Site. Severity

Pre- and Post-mitigation Slight to For the most part, changes to coastal processes, including changes in 1-2

Effect Moderate sediment transport, beach morphology, wave conditions and currents, will be slight. There is a change in accretion and deposition patterns on the north and south beaches, however, these changes in sea bed level are less than 0.5 m in a year, and so will not significantly change beach morphology. Significant wave height increases only slightly near the tidal pool structure, and current patterns are shown to change, but currents do not increase in speed with the presence of the tidal pool structure. However, with severe weather events, such as storms and with climate change, changes may be more severe. These changes will be very localised, and so severity is ranked as moderate. Likelihood

Pre- and Post-mitigation Definite Alterations of the coastal processes at Second Beach will occur with 4 the presence of the tidal pool.

Likelihood TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 10-11 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 10-11

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 67 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.2 Impact 4: The effects of the tidal pool on sandy beach ecology

Table 8.4: Pre-mitigation and post-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on sandy beach ecology. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Permanent The tidal pool is a permanent feature, and thus the effects on beach 4 ecology associated with its presence will be permanent. Spatial Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Localised The effects of the presence of the tidal pool will be limited to the 1 ecology of the northern and southern sections of beach at Second Beach. This area falls within the 1 km radius from the Project Site.

Severity Pre- and Post-mitigation

Effect Slight At the localised level, within the vicinity of Second beach, the impacts 1 on beach ecology may be moderate to severe, where there may be a localised loss of certain species. However, Second Beach is not extraordinarily diverse and not unique in the region. An alteration in community structure will only occur within the vicinity of the Project Site at the northern and southern sections of Second Beach, and therefore, at a larger scale, the impacts will not be felt. The severity is therefore ranked as slight. Changes in sediment transport are difficult to mitigate against, with no mitigation measures proposed at this stage, and so there will be no change in severity with mitigation. Likelihood Pre- and Post-mitigation Unlikely Alterations of the beach morphology at Second Beach will probably 1 occur with the presence of the tidal pool. However, the changes related to this will be slight, where there will only be a 0.5 m per year

change in sea bed level. Alterations in community structure as a result in changing slope and zonation of the beach is therefore unlikely to occur.

kelihood

Li TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 7 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 7

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 68 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.3 Impact 5: The effects of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology

Table 8.5: Pre-mitigation and Port-mitigation impact significance rating of the establishment and presence of the tidal pool on rocky shore ecology. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Permanent The tidal pool is a permanent feature, and thus the effects on the rocky 4 shore associated with its presence will be permanent. Post-mitigation Short term Considering the mitigation of additional rocky shore habitat being 1 provided in the form of the concrete walls of the tidal pool, the impact is likely to be short term, where the colonisation of the artificial substrate will likely take quicker than 5 years. Spatial Scale Pre- and Post-mitigation Localised The effects of the presence of the tidal pool will be limited to the rocky 1 shore present at the proposed tidal pool site, as well as that to the

south of the project. This area falls within the 1 km radius from the Project Site. It is unlikely that any of the other rocky shore patches on

Effect Second Beach will be affected. The spatial scale will not change with mitigation. Severity Pre- and Post-mitigation Slight At the localised level, within the vicinity of Second beach, the impacts 1 on the rocky shore will be moderate, where there may be removal of entire patches. However, this will only affect a small portion of the rocky shore at Second Beach, and therefore, at a larger scale, the impacts will not be felt. Additionally, the rocky shore habitats at Second Beach are not pristine, where collection of shellfish by subsistence fishermen has resulted in the removal of many species that would be expected to occur. The rocky shores at Second Beach are also not unique in the region. The severity is therefore ranked as slight. This ranking remains with mitigation. Likelihood Pre- and Post-mitigation

May occur - Removal of the rocky shore habitat at the proposed tidal pool site will 2-3 Probable probably occur, however, this needs to be confirmed with the design of the pool. Removal of the rocky shore habitat immediately south of

kelihood

Li the proposed pool may occur. TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 8-9 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 5-6

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 69 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.4 Impact 6: The effects of pool cleaning chemicals on marine water quality and ecology

Table 8.6: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect of pool cleaning chemicals on marine ecology. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Short term Maintenance cleaning will need to take place approximately every 3 1 months (PRDW 2016). With the dilution of the cleaning chemicals with the seawater, it is likely that the reduction in water quality will last for a time period of days. The temporal scale of the impact is therefore short term. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Spatial Scale Pre-mitigation

Localised Owing to the dilution with seawater, the effects of the cleaning 1 chemicals on the water quality and in turn on the marine ecology will

Effect be localised in nature, only affecting water quality within the pool and its immediate vicinity. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Severity Pre-mitigation Slight There is likely to be a reduction in water quality with the use of 1 chemicals, however, if used in small quantities, the effect will be very slight. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Likelihood Pre-mitigation May occur Cleaning of the algal growth may need to happen, depending on the 2 design of the pool and its flushing rates. The methodology of cleaning

has not been finalised and so the likelihood is rated as possible.

Post-mitigation

kelihood

Li No impact N/A TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 5 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION N/A

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 70 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.5 Impact 7: The effects of increased litter on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

Table 8.7: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect increased litter on the marine environment as a result of use of the tidal pool. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Permanent Litter is likely to be present in the marine environment for as long as 4 the pool is used and whenever waste removal practices are inadequate. Waste generation is likely to be worse during peak seasons, when tourism to the area will increase. Plastic wastes persist in the marine environment for centuries, so potential impacts are permanent. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Spatial Scale Pre-mitigation Regional The effects of the increase in litter as a result of the presence of the 3

tidal pool will likely be felt on a regional scale. The prevailing oceanographic conditions may result in shoreline generated litter

Effect being washed out to sea, which potentially may affect fauna and habitats in the Wild Coast region. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Severity Pre-mitigation Moderate On the individual scale, the impact of marine litter can be severe 2 where entanglement or ingestion can cause death. It is however unlikely that litter from Second Beach this will cause population wide effects, and so the severity is ranked as moderate. (But it would add to regional, national and global cumulative effects) Post-mitigation No impact N/A Likelihood Pre-mitigation Definite Without adequate waste removal and treatment, the increase in 4 waste, with an increase in tourism, will definitely occur and the

likelihood of some of this waste washing into the ocean and impacting marine ecology is definite. Post-mitigation

kelihood

Li No impact N/A TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 13 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION N/A

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 71 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.6 Impact 8: The effects of increased sewage and other wastewater on marine ecology as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

Table 8.8: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of increased sewage and other wastewater on the marine environment as a result of use of the tidal pool. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Permanent Untreated wastewater and storm water runoff, if not appropriately 4 treated, are likely to be present in the marine environment, for as long as the pool is used. Effluent is likely to be increased during peak seasons when tourism increases. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Spatial Scale Pre-mitigation Localised The effects of the increase in untreated wastewater and storm water 1 runoff will likely be felt on a localised scale. The prevailing oceanographic conditions will result in the effluent being diluted

before effects are observed on a larger scale. Post-mitigation

Effect No impact N/A Severity Pre-mitigation Moderate On a localised scale, the impact of untreated wastewater and storm 2 water runoff can be severe where eutrophication can result in excessive algal growth and subsequent oxygen depletion, which can affect populations within the area. This is especially the case in closed environments. It is however likely that the prevailing oceanographic conditions will results in the dilution of effluent within the bay at Second Beach. This will reduce the effects of eutrophication if it was to occur, and so the severity is ranked as moderate. Post-mitigation No impact N/A Likelihood Pre-mitigation Definite Without adequate wastewater treatment, the increase in sewage and 3-4 storm water runoff, with an increase in tourism, will definitely occur

and the likelihood of some of this waste washing into the ocean and impacting marine ecology is probable. Post-mitigation

kelihood

Li No impact N/A TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 10-11 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION N/A

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 72 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.2.7 Impact 9: The effects of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology, as a result of increased tourism to the tidal pool

Table 8.9: Pre-mitigation and Post-mitigation impact significance rating of the effect of increased demand for seafood on marine ecology, as a result of an increase in tourism as a result of the tidal pool. Designation Reasoning Score Temporal Scale Pre-mitigation Permanent The tidal pool is a permanent feature, and thus the effects on the 4 marine environment as a result of increased demand for seafood from tourists associated with its presence will be permanent. Demand is likely to increase during peak seasons, when tourism to the area will increase. Continued harvesting is likely to impact population recovery times, where unregulated harvesting will result in the complete removal of organisms. Post-mitigation Short term The implementation of regulations and permitting should allow for 1 sufficient population recovery times, within 5 years, and therefore effects on resources will be felt on short term time scales. Spatial Scale Pre-mitigation Study Area The effects of the increased demand for seafood as a result of 2 increased tourism from the presence of the tidal pool will likely be felt

within 5 km from Second Beach. Baseline conditions showed that harvesting already occurs on the rocky shores on Second Beach. To

Effect meet an increased demand, harvesting is likely to expand and target resources at other beaches near Second Beach . Post-mitigation Localised With mitigation and a reduction in demand for seafood, harvesting 1 may still occur, however it would be on a more localised scale. Severity Pre-mitigation Moderate On the individual scale, and at regional population levels, the impact 2 of increased harvesting can be severe where regional populations can be affected. This, however, is likely to only affect select species groups which are unlikely to be rare or endangered. Additionally, current harvesting is already taking place. The severity is therefore ranked as moderate. Post-mitigation Slight If harvesting is prevented, or is permitted sufficiently owing to 1 beneficial development of the tidal pool, therefore would be a slightly beneficial impact on marine life as there is already excessive harvesting occurring.

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 73 MARINE ECOLOGY SPECIALIST STUDY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Likelihood Pre-mitigation Probable An increase in harvesting of marine resources as a result of increased 3 seafood demand from tourists will probably occur.

Post-mitigation May occur An increase in harvesting of marine resources as a result of increased 2 seafood demand from tourists is still possible, even with appropriate

kelihood

Li regulation. TOTAL PRE-MITIGATION 11 TOTAL POST-MITIGATION 5

CES, PORT ST JOHNS, SECOND BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 74