APPENDIX D Specialist Reports and Terms of Reference

Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Appendix D: Specialist Reports

Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd Reg. no. 2014/038279/07

•marine, estuarine & freshwater ecology • environmental management • resource economics • • natural resources management • conservation planning•

Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Appendix D: Specialist Reports

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT OUTPUTS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT AND APPENDICES

Basic Assessment Pre-Application BAR, Draft BAR, Final Draft BAR Report (BAR)

Appendix A Site Maps

Appendix B Site Photos and Descriptions

Appendix C Facility Illustrations

Appendix D 1. Marine Specialist Study 2. Heritage Impact Assessment – Archaeology 3. Heritage Impact Assessment – Palaeontology 4. Heritage Impact Assessment - Maritime Archaeology

Appendix E E1-E6: Stakeholder Consultation Report 1. Proof of the placement of the relevant advertisements and notices. 2. Proof that the key stakeholders (other than organs of state identified in terms of Regulation 41(2)(b) of GN 733 received written notification of the proposed activities. 3. Comments and response report. 4. Proof that the Authorities and Organs of State received written notification of the proposed activities. 5. A list of registered Interested and Affected Parties. 6. Copies of any correspondence and minutes of any meetings held. E7: Background Information Document

Appendix F Impact Assessment

Appendix G Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Appendix H Details of EAP and Expertise

Appendix I Specialist Declaration of Interest

Appendix J Additional Information 1. Nama Khoi Municipal Services Confirmation Letter 2. De Beers Waste Disposal Consent 3. De Beers Mining Rehabilitation Letter 4. Environmental Authorisation dated 25 January 2016 5. Department of Public Works permission to conduct Environmental Impact Assessment 6. Operation Phakisa inclusion letter 7. Coastal Waters Discharge Permit Application

Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd Reg. no. 2014/038279/07

•marine, estuarine & freshwater ecology • environmental management • resource economics • • natural resources management • conservation planning•

PROPOSED UPGRADES TO THE

DIAMOND COAST AQUACULTURE FACILITY

KLEINZEE, NORTHERN CAPE

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

APPENDIX D: MARINE SPECIALIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Anchor Environmental Consulting Report No, 1758/3

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

DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX D: MARINE SPECIALIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT

June 2018

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

Authors: Vera Massie and Barry Clark

Citation: Massie V & Clark B, 2018. Proposed upgrades to the Diamond Coast Aquaculture facility Kleinzee, Northern Cape – Draft basic assessment report: Appendix D Marine Specialist Impact Assessment. Supporting documentation for the Basic Assessment process conducted in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998). June 2018.

Cover Photo: Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT OUTPUTS BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT AND APPENDICES

Basic Assessment Pre-Application BAR, Draft BAR, Final Draft BAR Report (BAR)

Appendix A Site Maps

Appendix B Site Photos and Descriptions

Appendix C Facility Illustrations

Appendix D 1. Marine Specialist Study 2. Heritage Impact Assessment – Archaeology 3. Heritage Impact Assessment – Palaeontology 4. Heritage Impact Assessment - Maritime Archaeology

Appendix F Impact Assessment

Appendix G Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)

Appendix H Details of EAP and Declaration

Appendix I Specialist Declaration of Interest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Diamond Coast Aquaculture (hereinafter referred to as DCA) owns and operates an aquaculture farm on Farm 654 Portion 1 near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape, which is situated on land previously owned and mined by the DeBeers Group. DCA now owns this land and has environmental authorisation and an aquaculture right for this facility, which has an annual production capacity of 150 t of abalone and 200 t of seaweed. DCA is registered as an Operation Phakisa: Oceans Economy (Aquaculture) project1. DCA intends to expand their annual production capacity to 1000 t of abalone, 2000 t of finfish, 5000 t of seaweed, 300 t of oysters, sea urchins and/or sea cucumbers using an Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) system. The IMTA system will combine fed aquaculture (i.e. finfish and abalone) with inorganic extractive (seaweed) and organic extractive (oysters, sea cucumbers and sea urchins) aquaculture to create balanced systems for environmental remediation (biomitigation), economic stability (improved output, lower cost, product diversification and risk reduction) and social acceptability (better management practices).

The expansion of the DCA farm triggers a number of Listed Activities in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014 (as amended by Government Notice No. 40772 of 7 April 2017), promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). DCA is therefore required to apply for Environmental Authorisation to the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation. DCA appointed Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd (Anchor) to undertake the Basic Assessment (BA) process.

The production levels of the proposed aquaculture farm will be associated with considerable amount of effluent discharges of moderate quality. Anchor therefore recommended a desktop marine ecology specialist study to adequately assess the potential impacts on the inshore marine ecology at the impact site and beyond.

Impact Assessment Impacts during the construction phase (and decommissioning phase) include the direct losses of intertidal and subtidal habitats and biota in the development footprint, impaired water quality and pollution, and noise and vibration. During the operational phase, the following potential impacts were identified as being of concern: Impingement and entrainment of marine organisms in the seawater abstraction infrastructure; impaired water quality (TSS, nutrients and temperature) around the effluent outfall; waste disposal; maintenance and pipeline repair; the introduction of disease, parasites and alien species to the marine environment; and chemical pollution. When assessing impacts after implementing mitigation measures, one impact was rated as ‘insignificant’, five as ‘very low’ and four as ‘low’. No mitigation measures were required for six impacts rated as ‘very

1 Aquaculture is one of the sectors which form part of Operation Phakisa under the Ocean’s Economy in South Africa. Operation Phakisa is an initiative of the South African government which aims to implement priority economic and social programmes better, faster and more effectively. Operation Phakisa was launched by the President of the Republic in October 2014. The sector offers significant potential for rural development, especially for marginalised coastal communities. Kleinsee is a derelict mining town and unemployment is high in this area. The proposed development will provide employment opportunities for the local and regional communities.

low’ or ‘insignificant’. The impacts are summarised in the tables below (Refer to the specialist report in Appendix D for the detailed impact assessment).

iii

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

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

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

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

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

Recommended mitigation measures Construction phase

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

Operational phase

• To minimise waste load in the effluent the following mitigation measures must be implemented: 1. Feed conversion ratios should be carefully calculated and optimised 2. Effluent should be bio-remediated and partially recirculated using the Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture system targeted at nutrient and solid removal; 3. A screen for solids removal should be installed between the finfish and seaweed tanks; 4. Solids mobilised during tank cleaning are not to be diverted into the effluent stream without treatment (multi-trophic treatment, screening, settlement pond etc.); • To ensure that ambient water quality is not negatively affected, physico-chemical parameters of the effluent quality should be monitored daily (dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, pH) and other constituents such as nutrients, TSS, ammonia, hydrocarbons, chlorine, anti-biotics should be analysed at the frequency specified in the CWDP; • To minimise impacts of pipeline maintenance and repair, fouling should be removed by mechanical rather than chemical means; • To decrease the likelihood of disease and parasite transmission to wild fish stocks, strict biosecurity measures must be maintained. Incoming water and effluent water must be treated to prevent the proliferation of naturally occurring diseases and pathogens, all organisms

must be obtained from certified disease, pathogen and parasite free sources, and all fry must undergo a health examination prior to stocking. All organisms introduced to the facility should be isolated in a quarantine system for a period of six weeks and subject to regular health inspections to monitor for disease. Stock should be regularly inspected for disease and parasites as part of a formalised stock health monitoring programme and necessary action to eliminate pathogens through the use of therapeutic chemicals or improved farm management must be taken immediately. This will require focused research effort into the identification, pathology and treatment of diseases and parasites infecting farmed species. Comprehensive records of all pathogens and parasites detected as well as logs detailing the efficacy of treatments applied must be kept. These records should be publically available to facilitate rapid responses by other operators to future outbreaks. Facilities must be kept clean with good husbandry practices and farms must adhere to industry standards (i.e. marine fin-fish standards and monitoring programmes). Upon the detection of an infection in any section of the facility, adjacent stocks must be treated simultaneously. Culture facilities must be designed to have multiple redundancy exclusion barriers or screens fine enough to contain the organisms being cultured (e.g. eggs, larvae, juveniles). Finally, sludge filtered from effluent water should be disposed of at a registered waste management facility. • To prevent the escape of finfish from the aquaculture facility, escape prevention barriers should be installed. A biosecurity management plan should be drawn up to reduce the likelihood of escape occurring and staff should be comprehensively trained in this regard. Recovery procedures should be followed should escape occur. • The following mitigation measures must be implemented to minimise the risk of alien fouling organisms introduced on oyster spat escaping from the farm: o Produce oysters from own stock as far as possible and minimise importing of spat. o If spat is imported, spat should be the smallest size category, which is less than 5 mm. o Spat must undergo a freshwater dip prior to transfer into quarantine tanks. o Spat must be quarantined prior to release. o Spat must be accompanied by a health and veterinary certificates and guarantees from the supplier country’s delegated authority. (this mitigation measure is primarily important for release of alien pathogens and parasites, not marine species) o Any excess debris produced during the cleaning of oyster shells will be mechanically filtered out of the effluent stream and disposed of at landfill. The final effluent will be disinfected with e-oxide to kill any remaining pathogens or biofilm. o If populations of visible, larger alien species such as Tetrapygus niger, Ostrea edulis, establish in the grow out tanks, DCA must ensure to remove and dispose of the organisms regularly to either eradicate or control the populations. Species identification should be confirmed by a qualified taxonomist or marine biologist. • If populations of visible, larger alien species such as Tetrapygus niger or Ostrea edulis, establish in the grow out tanks, annual surveys for alien species near the outfall pipeline in the sea should be undertaken for early detection of any alien species establishment in the marine environment outside of the aquaculture facility. • Finally, the effect of chemical therapeutants must be minimised as far as possible by using only veterinary approved chemicals, administering the lowest effective dose, and utilizing

vii

the most efficient drug delivery mechanisms to minimise the concentrations of biologically active ingredients entering the marine environment via the farm effluent. In order to determine the intensity of the potential impact, regular monitoring of water quality should be implemented.

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

Along exposed coastlines such as that off Kleinzee, the minimum requirement for an outfall of this nature is that it is positioned seaward of Chart Datum. The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the shape of the coastline, bathymetry, as well as prevailing swell and wind direction. A rocky reef runs parallel to the coast, 200-500 m offshore at the study site, which creates a sheltered inshore habitat where waves do not break even under larger swell conditions. The predominant swell direction in the area is south-west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline) and it is anticipated that the incoming swell will push water northward, creating a long-shore current parallel to the beach. Effluent will therefore be carried northward, preventing eutrophication of the sheltered waters and ensuring biosecurity of the DCA farm (i.e. effluent will be carried away from the seawater intake point that lies 900 m south of the effluent outfall point). Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore, which also facilitates dispersion of the effluent.

During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which could temporarily result in a southward long-shore current. This could potentially carry poorly mixed effluent towards the sea water intake point of the farm (900 m south of the outfall point), but the likelihood of this happening is considered to be very low.

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

On receipt of a Coastal Water Discharge Permit (CWDP), the end of pipe concentrations contained in the permit conditions must be met to ensure compliance at the edge of the mixing zone. Monthly compliance monitoring of the effluent should be performed to minimise environmental impacts. If discharged effluent exceeds the end of pipe values at any time, the operation will be in violation of the CWDP and the cause of poor effluent quality must be identified, reported and rectified immediately. It is recommended that the following parameters are monitored:

viii

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 1

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OFF KLEINZEE ...... 9

3.1 REGIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ...... 9 3.2 TIDES, WAVES AND CURRENTS ...... 11 3.3 REGIONAL BIOGEOGRAPHY ...... 15 3.4 ECOLOGY ...... 16 3.4.1 SANDY BEACHES ...... 16 3.4.2 ROCKY PLATFORMS ...... 18 3.4.3 SUB-TIDAL ROCKY REEF ...... 22 3.5 BUFFELS ESTUARY ...... 25

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 26

4.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 27 4.1.1 CP-ME IMPACT 1: LOSS OF HABITAT AND BIOTA IN THE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT ...... 27 4.1.2 CP-ME IMPACT 2: INCREASED TURBIDITY AND THE EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA ...... 29 4.1.3 CP-ME IMPACT 3: HARMFUL CHEMICALS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON MARINE BIOTA ...... 30 4.1.4 CP-ME IMPACT 4: WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL DURING CONSTRUCTION ...... 30 4.1.5 CP-ME IMPACT 5: NOISE AND VIBRATION MANAGEMENT ...... 32 4.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 32 4.2.1 OP-ME IMPACT 1: SEAWATER ABSTRACTION ...... 32 4.2.2 OP-ME IMPACTS 2-7: POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGES ...... 33 4.2.2.1 OP-ME IMPACT 2: TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ...... 35 4.2.2.2 OP-ME IMPACT 3: EUTROPHICATION CAUSED BY INCREASED NUTRIENTS IN THE OUTFALL STREAM ...... 37 4.2.2.3 OP-ME IMPACT 4: THE EFFECT OF INCREASED SEAWATER TEMPERATURE ON MARINE BIOTA ...... 39 4.2.2.4 OP-ME IMPACT 5: DISEASE AND PARASITES TRANSMISSION TO MARINE BIOTA ...... 40 A) FINFISH FARMING ...... 40 B) ABALONE FARMING ...... 42 4.2.2.5 OP-ME IMPACT 6: CHEMICAL POLLUTION ARISING FROM AQUACULTURE ...... 42 4.2.2.6 OP-ME IMPACT 7: INTRODUCTION OF ALIEN MARINE SPECIES TO THE WILD ...... 44 A) RAINBOW TROUT ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS ...... 44 B) PACIFIC OYSTER CRASSOSTREA GIGAS ...... 46 C) ALIEN SEA URCHINS AND SEA CUCUMBERS ...... 47 D) ALIEN DISEASES AND PATHOGENS ...... 47 E) RELEASE OF ALIEN FOULING ORGANISMS ...... 47 4.2.3 OP-ME IMPACT 8: WASTE DISPOSAL DURING OPERATION ...... 49 4.2.4 OP-ME IMPACT 9: MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ...... 51 4.2.4.1 A) IMPAIRED WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY DUE TO MECHANICALLY REMOVED, DECOMPOSING FOULING ORGANISMS 51 4.2.4.2 B) PIPELINE REPAIR ...... 52 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ...... 52 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 52 4.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 54

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 57

6 REFERENCES ...... 59

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

xii

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

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

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

xiv Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Diamond Coast Aquaculture (hereinafter referred to as DCA) owns and operates an aquaculture farm on Farm 654 Portion 1 near Kleinzee in the Northern Cape (Figure 1), which is situated on land previously owned and mined by the DeBeers Group. DCA now owns this land and currently holds the environmental authorisation and aquaculture right for this facility, which has an annual production capacity of 150 t of abalone and 200 t of seaweed. DCA intends to expand their annual production capacity to 1000 t of abalone, 2000 t of finfish, 5000 t of seaweed, 300 t of oysters, sea urchins and/or sea cucumbers. DCA is registered as an Operation Phakisa: Oceans Economy (Aquaculture) project2.

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

Deliverables for this project include:

• A description of the proposed development;

2 Aquaculture is one of the sectors which form part of Operation Phakisa under the Ocean’s Economy in South Africa. Operation Phakisa is an initiative of the South African government which aims to implement priority economic and social programmes better, faster and more effectively. Operation Phakisa was launched by the President of the Republic in October 2014. The sector offers significant potential for rural development, especially for marginalised coastal communities. Kleinsee is a derelict mining town and unemployment is high in this area. The proposed development will provide employment opportunities for the local and regional communities.

1 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

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

2 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Figure 1 Locality and current site layout of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture Farm in Kleinzee, Northern Cape.

3 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Diamond Coast Aquaculture (previously Really Useful Investments No 72 (Pty) Ltd or RUI) was initially established as a joint venture with De Beers. This company was formed as part of the exit policy and social responsibility project for the local community in an area where De Beers has engaged in mining operations since 1922 under approval of the Department of Minerals and Energy.

DCA currently produces approximately 100 t of abalone and seaweed per annum in an environmentally smart Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) system on Farm 654 Portion 1 (Figure 1). This means that seaweed grown in abalone effluent is used as feed for the growing abalone. The planned upgrades to the existing facilities will diversify production and significantly increase production volumes, which could have potential environmental impacts on the marine environment resulting from an increase in the volume of effluent water discharged. The Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture System, however, is designed to mitigate these impacts as far as possible. The new design will combine fed aquaculture (i.e. finfish and abalone) with inorganic extractive (seaweed) and organic extractive (oysters, sea cucumbers and sea urchins) aquaculture to create balanced systems for environmental remediation (biomitigation), economic stability (improved output, lower cost, product diversification and risk reduction) and social acceptability (better management practices).

The proposed design of the IMTA System is shown in Figure 2. Seawater is pumped into the solar dams where the water is heated to the appropriate temperature for abalone culture. The heated seawater is then pumped to the abalone and seaweed clusters. At maximum production (i.e. 1000 t) the abalone-seaweed system requires 12 000-15 000 m3 of seawater per hour per 1000 t of abalone (maximum production applied for). The amount of water extracted from the solar dams depends on how much of this water is recirculated within the abalone-seaweed cluster. Forty to fifty percent of the water is recirculated regularly, but this can be pushed to 70% if required. Pumping costs drive re-circulation, which is more cost effective, and biosecurity risk limits the amount that can be recirculated. Each abalone-seaweed cluster operates separately to ensure biosecurity. At maximum abalone and finfish production, approximately 50% of the effluent from the abalone-seaweed clusters is diverted to the finfish tanks, which are fitted with drains that release effluent into separate seaweed tanks. The seaweed tanks will be fitted with screens that filter out a large proportion of the suspended solids in the effluent. Sea cucumbers, sea urchins and flat fish will be placed in these seaweed tanks to remove as much of the remaining particles as possible (including algae and food particles). It is predicted that 100% of the effluent from the seaweed ponds is diverted into the final effluent stream. A very small proportion of the abalone seaweed cluster effluent is also diverted into the oyster dam (although variable, this constitutes roughly 0.1% of the effluent produced at maximum abalone production).

The upgraded DCA farm will have an annual production capacity of 1000 t of abalone, 2000 t of finfish, 5000 t of seaweed, and 300 t of oysters, sea urchins and/or sea cucumbers. Oysters will exclusively be farmed in the solar dams and the finfish clusters, which will include a tank that contains seaweed, sea urchins, cucumbers, flatfish and/or oysters to clean the finfish effluent water for partial recirculation.

Aquaculture organisms to be farmed include several indigenous species, namely the abalone (Haliotis midae), and seaweeds Gracilaria gracilaris, Porphyra capensis as well as Ulva spp., and two

4 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study exotic species, the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, both of which are classified as exempt alien species in terms of the Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA). No permit is therefore required for these species. DCA are not certain which sea cucumber and sea urchin species will be farmed. If exotic species are selected, a risk assessment and permit will be required in terms of NEMBA.

Although exempt in terms of national legislation, rainbow trout O. mykiss is considered an invasive species in terms of the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act (Act No 9 of 2009) Schedule 6. The culture of this species is therefore prohibited in terms of Section 55 of this Act. Furthermore, Section 44 of the same Act, in contrast, states that “No person may, without a permit – (b) sell or buy any live carp […], trout, […] or any exotic invertebrate freshwater fauna”. It is therefore currently unclear whether DCA will require an exemption or a permit in terms of the Provincial Ordinance.

The expansion of the facility involves construction of new production infrastructure and buildings to accommodate staff facilities. Production infrastructure includes three new hatcheries, finfish production ponds, as well as the expansion of the existing abalone growing tanks. A second pump house will be built adjacent to the existing one, while the latter will be upgraded and fitted with five additional supply pipe lines (600 mm diameter) leading to four new solar dams and one new hatchery. The new pump house will be fitted with three supply pipe lines leading to the main farming area and the hatchery situated in the most northern part of the site.

The current effluent outfall was constructed by De Beers for the discharge of wastewater into the cofferdam just north of the DCA development site. Recognising that the effluent needed to leave the cofferdam, an outlet was created near the high water mark. DCA was permitted to make use of this existing structure. During stormy conditions, however, the sea continues to erode away the shore line, creating the impression that DCA effluent is discharged into the dunes (Figure 1). As part of the proposed expansions, a new effluent pipeline will be constructed approximately 400 m south of the existing outfall. The currently pending application for a Coastal Waters Discharge Permit (CWDP) to the National Department of Environmental Affairs will be revised and re-submitted concurrent to the BA process.

DCA also intends erecting a number of wind turbines on the site with a capacity to produce 660 kW per turbine. All wind turbines combined will produce less than 10 MW and this activity does therefore not trigger the EIA Regulations. The total extent of the wind farm area under consideration is approximately 97 hectares. A security fence will be built around the immediate production area and on the eastern boundary of the property to separate the aquaculture farm from the adjacent mining area. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

5 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

System requirements (new water per hour): 1000 t Abalone: 15000 m3/hour (Source: DCA) 2000 t Finfish: 6848 m3/hour (Source: FAO 2015)

3424 m3/h

3 4066 m /h Multiple separate clusters Seaweed, sea Finfish Screen cucumbers, sea urchins, oysters and flat fish

50%

SEA Sludge to 3 3424 m /h Landfill Kleinzee Mariculture Oyster dam Multiple separate clusters

10 m3/h Seaweed Abalone 7500 7500 m3/h m3/h 50%

Solar dams

Figure 2 Schematic of the proposed Diamond Coast Aquaculture Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture System.

6 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Figure 3 Proposed site layout of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm in Kleinzee, Northern Cape.

7 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Figure 4 Detailed proposed site layout of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm in Kleinzee, Northern Cape.

8 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OFF KLEINZEE 3.1 Regional oceanography The broader oceanography of the region is influenced by both the weak north flowing Benguela current that moves up the west coast of South Africa and regional level oceanographic processes, particularly upwelling. Although the coast off Kleinzee is influenced by the physico-chemical and biological status of the Benguela current system (which is described in more detail below), the seasonal wind driven upwelling plays a large role. The interaction of the north flowing Benguela current with the southerly wind driven upwelling is the principal reason for the high productivity of the west coast fisheries.

The Benguela Current originates from the South Atlantic Circulation, which circles just north of the Arctic Circumpolar Current. The Benguela is naturally cold (average temperature 10 - 14°C), but the cool water is supplemented by the upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water (Branch 1981) (Figure 5). As the Benguela moves north it is deflected left from the coast due to the Coriolis forces (rotational force of the earth which causes objects in the southern hemisphere to spin anticlockwise) (Figure 6). Strong south-easterly winds blowing parallel to the coast further enhance this upwelling process. Cold, deep mid Atlantic water rises up to replace the deflected surface water, and this water is the nutrient rich life force of the west coast. Phytoplankton bloom when the nutrients reach the surface waters where plenty of light is available for photosynthesis, and the phytoplankton is then preyed upon by zooplankton, which is in turn eaten by filer feeding fish such as anchovy or sardine. This makes the west coast one of the richest fishing grounds in the world and also attracts large colonies of birds and seals (Branch 1981).

Figure 5 Major current streams around South Africa.

9 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

The frequent upwelling events along the Namaqualand Cape coast in summer results in low sea surface temperatures. Kleinzee lies slightly to the north of the Namaqualand upwelling cell (centred on Hondeklip Baai) and is classified as intermediate between an upwelling and a downstream site (where phytoplankton and particulate organic matter concentrations peak) (Xavier et al 2007). Newly upwelled water, although rich in nutrients, is initially devoid of plankton which only blooms later and so is frequently ice-blue in colour (Shannon 1989). With the relaxation of upwelling and in downstream sites, phytoplankton blooms develop and the water becomes green in colour (or brown or red depending on the dominant phytoplankton species in the bloom, only some “red tides” are dominated by toxic phytoplankton species) (Pitcher and Calder 2000). Calm conditions following a period of intense upwelling can result in the formation of dense phytoplankton blooms; the biological decay of these blooms as they die consumes the available dissolved oxygen from the water and may occasionally result in the colloquially referred to “black tide” events. Anoxic decomposition of the decaying plankton bloom by sulphur reducing bacteria can result in the release of hydrogen sulphide (Pitcher and Calder 2000). The intensity of the Namaqua upwelling cell peaks in summer to autumn, and westerly winds during the winter months result in relaxation of upwelling and often warmer surface water temperatures (Lutjeharms & Meeuwis 1987).

Figure 6 Diagram showing wind-driven upwelling that occurs on the west and south west coasts of South Africa.

10 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3.2 Tides, waves and currents The South African coastline experiences semi-diurnal tides, with each successive high (and low) tide separated by 12 hours. Each high tide occurs approximately 25 minutes later every day, which is due to the 28-day rotational cycle of the moon around the earth. Spring tides occur once a fortnight during full and new moons. Tidal activity greatly influences the biological cycles (feeding, breeding and movement) of intertidal marine organisms, and influences when people visit the coastline to partake in various activities (e.g. relax, bathe, harvest marine resources). Tidal variation at Port Nolloth, the port closest to the study site, is ± 1.1m from mean sea level (MSL) for the highest and lowest astronomical tides and ± 0.8 m for the mean spring tides (Toms 2010).

Another factor that greatly influences marine ecology along the coastline is wave energy. Wave size is determined by wind strength and fetch (or distance over which it blows) and determines the degree to which breaking waves at the shore will shift sand and erode rock. The Kleinzee coastline can experience high wave energy, particularly during the winter months when ground swells generated by cold fronts are enhanced by westerly winds. Swell height and period usually peaks as cold fronts pass the Cape and the wind switches to the southwest. When these swell peaks coincide with spring tides and strong winds, high storm surges can result. Significant wave height of 4.6 m with 8-14 second period is expected to be exceeded 1 % of the time (Toms 2010), and median offshore significant wave heights exceed 2 m, with mean annual wave periods in excess of 10 seconds occurring 90 % of the time (Joubert 2008).

The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the shape of the coastline, bathymetry, as well as prevailing swell and wind direction. A rocky reef runs parallel to the coast, 200-500 m offshore at the study site, which creates a sheltered inshore habitat where waves do not break even under larger swell conditions (Figure 1, and refer to pictures shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4). The predominant swell direction in the area is south-west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline) and it is anticipated that the incoming swell will push water northward, creating a long-shore current parallel to the beach. Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore. During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which can temporarily result in a southward long-shore current.

11 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

REEF Sheltered inshore waters

Figure 7 Proposed location of the effluent outfall point of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm in Kleinzee, Northern Cape. The red dashed arrows indicate the oblique incoming wave direction and resulting northward long-shore current.

12 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

A B

C D

Figure 8 Coastal and marine environment at the seawater intake point three hours after low tide. A – Looking out to see showing the large breakers in the distance. B – Facing south showing the boulder shore and adjacent dune habitat. C and D – Facing north showing the boulder shore and adjacent dune habitat. 13 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

A B

C D

Figure 9 Coastal and marine environment at the proposed effluent outfall point 1.5 hours after high tide. A and B – Facing south showing the rocky outcrops and adjacent dune habitat. C – Facing the sea showing the large breakers in the distance. D – Facing north. 14 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3.3 Regional Biogeography Numerous attempts have been made to understand and map marine biogeographic patterns around the coast of South Africa (e.g. Stephenson & Stephenson 1972; Brown & Jarman 1978; Engledow et al. 1992; Stegenga & Bolton 1992; Bustamante & Branch 1996; Bolton & Anderson 1997; Turpie et al. 2000; Sink 2001; Bolton et al. 2004; Lombard et al. 2004) with the most recent being Sink et al. (2012). Most of the studies recognised three coastal regions; a cool temperate west coast, a warm temperate south coast and a subtropical east coast region; however, Sink et al. (2012) defined several new ecoregions that are now in use. According to these divisions the coast of Kleinzee falls within the Southern Benguela ecoregion, which extends from Cape Agulhas northwards into Namibia (Figure 10). At a finer spatial scale, the coast of Kleinzee falls within the Namaqua inner shelf ecozone (Figure 10). The marine fauna and flora in this area is similar to the biota found along much of the west coast north of Saldanha Bay (Lombard et al. 2004). The physical oceanography of an area, particularly water temperature, nutrient and oxygen levels, and wave exposure are the principal driving forces that shape the marine communities. In general, marine biodiversity along the South African coast tends to decrease from west to east and consequently the Namaqua bioregion has fewer species of most taxa compared with other South African inshore bioregions (Turpie et al. 2000; Sink 2001; Bolton et al. 2004, Lombard et al. 2004). The upwelling driven nutrient enrichment of near shore region along the west coast however, causes the Namaqua and South-western Cape Bioregions to have a very high biomass of marine life (Branch 1981, Branch & Griffiths 1988).

Figure 10 Six marine ecoregions with 22 ecozones incorporating biogeographic and depth divisions in the South African marine environment as defined by Sink et al. (2012).

15 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3.4 Ecology Much of the coastline in this region has been severely disturbed by decades of diamond mining, including the small stretch of beach at the proposed development site. This beach consists of broad, gently sloping fine-grained sandy beaches bordered by partially vegetated dunes on the high shore. The beach is interspersed with wave-cut rocky platforms (Jackson & Libschitz 1984) (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

Originally, this type of coastal environment stretched northward from Kleinzee for approximately 10 km. South of the Buffels Estuary mouth rocky platforms dominate (Jackson & Libschitz 1984). Because there is no baseline data for the intertidal communities of the Kleinzee sandy beach and rocky platforms, typical marine communities found elsewhere in South Africa and Namaqualand are described below.

3.4.1 Sandy beaches Intertidal sandy beaches are very dynamic environments. The faunal community composition is largely dependent on the interaction of wave energy, beach slope and sand particle size (beach morphodynamics). Three morphodynamic beach types are described: dissipative, reflective and intermediate beaches (McLachlan et al, 1993). Dissipative beaches are wide and flat with fine sands and high wave energy. Waves start to break far from the shore in a series of spilling breakers that ‘dissipate’ their energy along a broad surf zone. This generates slow swashes with long periods, resulting in less turbulent conditions on the gently sloping beach face. These beaches usually harbour the richest intertidal faunal communities. Reflective beaches have low wave energy, and are coarse grained (>500 µm sand) with narrow and steep intertidal beach faces. The relative absence of a surf-zone causes the waves to break directly on the shore causing a high turnover of sand. The result is depauperate faunal communities. Intermediate beach conditions exist between these extremes and have a very variable species composition (McLachlan et al. 1993; Jaramillo et al. 1995; Soares 2003). This variability is mainly attributable to the amount and quality of food available. Beaches with a high input of e.g. kelp wrack have a rich and diverse drift-line fauna, which is sparse or absent on beaches lacking a drift-line (Branch & Griffiths 1988; Field & Griffiths 1991).

Beaches typically comprise three functional zones, namely the surf zone, the beach (intertidal and backshore zones) and the dunes. They are continually changing; strong waves scour and erode beaches while gentle waves deposit sand, which is typically deposited with offshore winds, and eroded with onshore winds. Sand erosion will also increase during the high seas and stormy weather that is characteristic of west coast winters. Relatively few species occur on sandy beaches due to their unstable and harsh nature, but those that do occur are hardy, and well adapted to life in these environments (Branch 1981). Animals living here are, however, offered some degree of protection by being able to burrow into the layers of sand to escape desiccation, overheating and strong waves (Branch 1981).

Sandy beaches have no hard substratum onto which animals and plants can attach, and organisms living here rely on seaweeds deposited sporadically on the beach and organic rich froth, or spume, which provides a steadier source of nutrients (Branch 1981). Five groups of organisms are typically

16 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study found on sandy beaches: aquatic scavengers, aquatic particle feeders, air breathing scavengers, meiofauna (smaller than 1 mm in size), and higher predators (Branch 1981).

Aquatic scavengers feed on dead or dying animals that wash up on the beach and their activity is largely regulated by tides. This group includes species such as Bullia (the plough snail), that emerge from the sand as the tide rises and are deposited in the same area in which the wave drops the debris and decaying matter. Later they follow the tide down the shore as it recedes to avoid be eaten by terrestrial predators.

Aquatic particle feeders, such the isopods Pontogeloides latipes and Eurydice longicornis, the polychaete Scolelepis squamata and the amphipods Excirolana natalensis, Talorchestia capensis and T. quadrispinosa, occur mostly on the low-shore and feed on small organic particles. The majority of these species migrate up and down the beach with each tidal cycle, such that they remain in the surf zone and can escape avian and terrestrial predators. Sand hoppers are important for the breakdown of sea weeds, and are also a major food source for shore birds and fish birds.

Air breathing scavengers live high on the shore and feed on kelp and other seaweeds that have been washed up, as well as dead and decaying animal matter. These species complete their life cycles out of water, emerge from the sand during low tide when there is less risk of being washed away, and are almost strictly nocturnal to avoid desiccation and predation. These nocturnal feeding activities can be observed on Namaqualand beaches, particularly during spring tides and dark moons when scavengers such as the giant isopod Tylos granulatus emerge to feed.

Meiofauna (organisms < 1mm in size) are by far the most abundant of the animals found on sandy beaches, as their small size enables them to live between sand grains. The two most common groups are nematode worms and harpacticoid copepods. Meiofauna play an important role in breaking down organic matter that is then colonised by bacteria.

Higher predators that feed on sandy beach organisms include birds such as Black-backed gulls, African black oystercatchers, White fronted plovers and Sanderlings (Branch 1981). Fish such as galjoen, white steenbras and westcoast steenbras also swim over submerged beaches at high tide and feed on small crabs and the like (Branch 1981). Other fish species occurring within the mixed rock and sand surf zone on the west coast include mullet (harders), silversides, gobies, klipfish, sea catfish, elf, leervis, white stumpnose, sand steenbras, sand eels, soles, horse mackerel, skates, bull rays, blue stingrays, sevengill cowsharks, smooth hound sharks, spotted gully sharks, dark shysharks and sand sharks (Branch et al 1994, Anchor Environmental unpublished data). Surf zone habitats, particularly medium to low energy beaches, are in fact widely recognised as important nursery areas for fish, and is even thought to rival that of estuaries in some areas (Clark et al. 1996, Lenanton et al. 1982, Bennett 1989).

Sandy beaches are also important for the filtering and decomposition of organic matter in sea water. As water percolates down through the sand the organic particles are trapped and decomposed by bacteria, which in turn release nitrates and phosphates that are returned to the sea. Continual flow of water through the sand maintains oxygen levels and aids bacterial decomposition, and thus sandy beaches act as water purifiers (Branch 1981). The beach at the proposed development site has a wide surf zone characterised by high wave energy where the incoming swell breaks on the nearshore submerged reef (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

17 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

This beach can therefore be classified as dissipative with a flat profile and fine grain sandy beaches. There is no baseline data for the sandy beach north of Kleinzee; whilst the closest other Namaqualand beach that has been biologically surveyed (and was free from diamond mining impact), is at the Spoeg River, approximately 60 km south of Kleinzee (R. Nel Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, pers.com). This beach was surveyed in 2003, at which time the beach was approximately 83 m wide, had an average grain size of 290 microns and an average slope of 23 degrees. A species list and average abundance data of sandy beach macrofauna found on this Namaqualand beach is given in Table 1. It is likely that the sandy beach of the impact site have a similar sandy beach macrofauna to the Spoeg beach.

Table 1 Sandy beach macrofauna species recorded at the Spoeg River during 2003. The number of other sites value show the number of other beaches where the species found at the Groen site were recorded (out of a database of 167 beaches from southern Namibia to the Mozambique border). Y = yes, N = no. If the species occur in any of the other eight bioregions found along the sampled stretch of shoreline (R. Nel Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, unpublished data).

Order Species Average abundance No. other sites Found in other (no.m-2) recorded bioregions Amphipoda sp. 754 42 Y Mandibulophoxus 5486 3 Y Isopoda Excirolana natalensis 245 136 Y Niambia sp. 509 5 N Eurydice kensleyi 2602 74 Y Pontogeloides latipes 339 103 Y Tylos granulatus 603 74 Y Mysidacea Gastrosaccus 1452 6 Y Nemertea Cerebratulus fuscus 94 54 Y Total 12084 No. taxa 9

3.4.2 Rocky platforms A few rocky platforms and boulders protrude at low tide and provide varied habitats for rocky shore communities. Rocky shores can be divided into distinct bands according to the amount of time each is exposed to the air, which in turn influences the organisms inhabiting each section of the shore. Species that are more tolerant to desiccation (drying out) are found near the high-water mark, while those that cannot stand long periods of water recession are found near the low-water mark. Five distinct zones are typically found on rocky shores South Africa’s west coast. These zones (moving in a landward direction) are named the Infratidal zone, the Cochlear zone, the Lower Balanoid zone, the Upper Balanoid zone and the Littorina zone.

18 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Rocky shore communities are fairly ubiquitous within a biogeographical zone and tend to vary in response to wave exposure. A general description of species likely to be found in the different zones on west coast rocky shores follows. The Infratidal zone is inhabited by species that cannot withstand long periods of exposure and include algal beds, red bait (Pyura), corals, coralline algae limpets Scutellastra argenvillei and Cymbula granatina and sea urchins (Parechinus). The Cochlear zone (found only on wave exposed shores) is inhabited by dense bands of the limpets S. cochlear, living at such high densities that it is virtually impossible for other species to colonize the area. Above the Cochlear zone is the Lower Balanoid, with thick beds of seaweed Gigartina polycarpa, Sarcothalia striata, Gymnogongrus complicatus, Aeodes orbitosa and Ulva sp, limpets, winkles Oxystele species and welks Burnupena species. Mussels Choromytilus meridionalis and the invasive Mytilus galloprovincialis often dominate this zone on exposed shores. The upper Balanoid is dominated by animals, in particular limpets, e.g. S. granularis and barnacles. Little seaweed occurs within this zone, however some sea lettuce Ulva is present. The harshest of all is the Littorina zone, which is dominated by the snail Littorina africana. The shore crab Cyclograpsus punctatus and the flat- bladed algae Porphyra also occur in this zone (Branch 1981). Starfish Marthasterias glacialis, octopus Octopus vulgaris, and various species of fish from the Clinidae, Gobiidae, Belnidae families, some termed klipvis in South Africa, live in rock pools and gullies.

The physical environment influences rocky intertidal seascapes, while local variations in climate, partially generated by tide and wave fluctuations, influence biotic patterns such as salinity, temperature, desiccation, and wave shock (Littler et al. 1983). The impact of sand inundation on rocky shores is often overlooked because theoretically rocky intertidal habitats should be independent of the influences of sand abrasion and deposition (Littler et al. 1983, D’Antonio 1986, Zardi et al. 2006). However, most rocky shore communities around the world are subjected to periodic disturbance through inundation by sand, and regular inundated shores form the most common shore type along some coastlines (McQuaid & Dower 1990). Periodical sand inundation therefore influences the diversity and distribution of intertidal species (Zardi et al. 2006).

The mixed sand and rocky shore found at the proposed development site are presumed to be productive habitats that provide food and shelter for many organisms (filed sampling has not been conducted). Natural sand movements will periodically smother and expose the invertebrate and algal communities that inhabit the rocky substrate found in the surf zone (psammophilic algae, black mussels, red baits, anemones, seaweeds, polychaetes etc.). This tends to maintain these communities in early successional stages that are suitable food for numerous surf zone fish species. There is no baseline information on the exact abundance and diversity of species found on mixed rock and sand shore in the study area.

The dominant subtidal kelp species off the Kleinzee coast is Ecklonia maxima, which forms large floating canopies and an understory of Lamanaria schinzii. Kelp washed ashore forms an important food source for scavengers and provides shelter for numerous amphipods and isopods (sea lice and sand hoppers), which are in turn are preyed upon by birds. Kelp thus forms an integral part of the rocky shore and sandy beach ecosystems. Filter feeders such as mussels, red bait and sea cucumbers comprise 70-90% of the faunal community on rocky shores and their principal food source is kelp (Branch et al 1994). Kelp also produces large quantities of mucus, which encourages bacterial growth upon which protozoa feed. Microorganisms, kelp spores and phytoplankton and fragments of organic matter form an important food sources for filter feeders (Branch et al 1994).

19 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

The closest location of a description of the rocky shore of North Point (northern point of Stilbaai) was surveyed in 2005 by Dr T. Robinson, (UCT unpublished data) and she provides the following description:

“Mytilus galloprovincialis dominates the site, although there are quite a few shallow but large rock pools. The site is rated as being on the exposed side of semi-exposed (but not as exposed as some sites in the area get). Scutellastra granularis were common in the high shore. The mid shore had densely packed M. galloprovincialis beds which were made up of small mussels (mainly less than 3 cm). This zone had a good sprinkling of the seaweed Ulva sp. and Aeodes orbitosa. The low shore had larger M. galloprovincialis (with very weak shells). Sea weed, Gigartina polycarpa, Sarcothalia stiriata and Champia lumbricalis are common in the low shore. The very lowest zone has a few S. argenvillei and kelp. In the mid and low zones we found a few abalone Haliotis midae (less than 4 cm).”

As abalone do not occur naturally north of Elands bay, these abalone were either escapees from the abalone hatchery, survivors from seeding projects or recruits from adult abalone that were seeded in September 1995 and April 1996 at Stilbaai (Sweijd 1998).

The site visit for this study was conducted three hours after high tide and as a result only the high shore was exposed. Similar to the description provided by Dr T. Robinson for Port Nolloth, the granular limpet Scutellastra granularis and red algae purple laver Porphyra capensis were common on the high shore. The granite limpet Cymbula granatina is less tolerant to desiccation when compared to S. granularis and were scattered in shady parts of the lower high shore (e.g. on the side of boulders, large enough crevices or near rock pools). Sea lettuce Ulva species were common on the underside of boulders.

Considering the close proximity to Port Nolloth (approximately 55 km north of the study site), it is expected that the mid and low shore would be similar to what has been described by Dr. T Robinson. Mytilus galloprovincialis was first detected in South Africa (in Saldanha Bay) in 1979 (Mead et al. 2011b) but was only confirmed in 1984 (Grant et al. 1984, Grant & Cherry 1985). At this stage the population was already widespread in the country, being the most abundant mussel species on rocky shores between Cape Point and Lüderitz. In Saldanha Bay for example, M galloprovincialis is by far the most dominant faunal species on the exposed rocky shores and can cover up to 100% of the available space, reaching its highest densities on the mid and low shore (Clark et al. 2017).

20 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Figure 11 Rocky shore at the sea water intake point of Diamond Coast Aquaculture. Top: Granular limpet Scutellastra granularis and red algae purple laver Porphyra capensis on the high shore. Bottom: Granular limpet Scutellastra granularis, Granite limpet Cymbula granatina, sea lettuce Ulva species, and epiphytic algae on detached kelp Ecklonia maxima blades on the high shore.

21 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3.4.3 Sub-tidal rocky reef Temperate rocky reefs are found below the low water mark (i.e. are always completely submerged) and are known to support diverse assemblages of life. Stresses from wave action and sedimentation result in a high turnover of competitors in these habitats. Many large predators such as fish and sharks are attracted to rocky reefs, and thus form an important component of these ecosystems (Barros et al. 2001). Many of the reef-associated fish and crustaceans not only forage directly on the reef but also on the adjacent sandy bottom areas. Rocky reef community structure is thus also known to influence macrobenthic distribution and abundance in the adjacent soft bottom habitats, and it has been found that more benthic species occur close to rocky reefs (Barros et al. 2001).

The following generic description of sub tidal, west coast rocky reef is largely based on information provided by Branch et al (1994) and Meyer and Clark (1999). Rocky reefs provide substratum to which kelp (Ecklonia) can attach, and these large kelp forests provide food and shelter for many organisms. Light is the limiting factor for plant growth, and thus kelp beds only extend down to approximately 10 m depth. Many other algal species live underneath the floating canopy of kelp, especially inshore where the light is abundant and the water shallow. A sub canopy of Lamanaria grows beneath the Ecklonia in deeper waters, and dense communities of mussels, sea urchins, and rock lobster live between the Lamanaria plants. Growing epiphytically on these kelps are the algae Carradoria virgata, Suhria vittata and Carpoblepharis flaccida. Representative under-storey algae include Botyrocarpa prolifera, Neuroglossum binderianum, Botryoglossum platycarpum, Hymena venosa and Epymenia obtusa, various coralline algae. The dominant grazer is the sea urchin Parechinus angulosus, with lesser grazing pressure from limpets, the isopod Paridotea reticulata and the amphipod Ampithoe humeralis. Herbivores occurring in the kelp forests include the kelp limpet Patella compressa (lives on the stipes of the kelp plants) (Branch 1981). West coast rock lobster Jasus lalandii and Octopus vulgaris are two of the most important carnivores that occur within kelp forests in the Port Nolloth area (Sweijd 1998). Other kelp forest predators include the starfish Henricia ornata, various feather and brittle stars (Crinoidea & Ophiuroidea, Echinodermata), and the Nucella spp. and Burnupena spp. gastropods. Fish species likely to be found in the kelp beds off Port Nolloth include hottentot Pachymetopon blochii, twotone fingerfin Chirodactylus brachydactylus, red fingers Cheilodactylus fasciatus, galjoen Dichistius capensis, milk fish Parascorpis typus, rock suckers Chorisochismus dentex and the catshark Haploblepharus pictus (Branch et al 1994).

Aspects of subtidal reef communities in the area have been investigated by Sweijd et al (1998) and De Waal (2002) with a view to assessing the suitability of the habitat for experimental abalone Haliotis midae seeding. These studies focussed on the relationships between abalone survival and growth and the substratum type and sea urchin density and did not provide data on the remaining reef communities.

Port Nolloth Sea Farms (Ranching) (Pty) Ltd (PNSFR) was granted a right to undertake a pilot abalone ranching operation in Concession Area NC3 on the Namaqualand coast, south of Kleinzee. Concession Area NC3 extends from Kleinzee (29°40’43.9”S; 17°03’03.05”E) to Swartduine (30°02’52.04”S; 17°10’39.69”E). In terms of the Environmental Management Programme (EMP) for this pilot abalone ranching operation and the Department of Agriculture Forestry & Fisheries (DAFF) Ranching Guidelines, a detailed baseline and ongoing monitoring surveys are required for this project. In 2014 Anchor Environmental was commissioned to undertake an ecological baseline and

22 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study ongoing monitoring survey of the subtidal reef system of this concession area (Hutchings and Clark 2014). The baseline quantitative ecological survey was undertaken in May 2014. The subtidal reef habitat and depth of Concession Area NC3 is very similar to the subtidal reef habitat of the study site that will be impacted by effluent discharged from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm and a comparable species composition and distribution could be expected as a result. Averages for each of the parameters used to describe the physical characteristics and benthic biota at each of the quantitatively surveyed sites are given in Table 2 (per 0.25 m2).

The six sites that were surveyed in this study were similar in terms of depth and substratum type. The minimum depth surveyed at was 0.8 m and the maximum 3.7 m, whilst average depths at the six sites ranged from 1.6-3.0 m. The substrate at all sites was predominantly (73-89%) rock with boulders and gravel found in gullies. Some light sand inundation of the reef was present at all sites, and on average, varied between 1-11% of the surveyed area. Kelp was dense at all sites surveyed with an overall average of 17 stipes per square meter (Table 2). The subtidal benthos at five of the six survey sites (all but the Control 1 site) was algal dominated, with red algae contributing 24-32% of the cover, and encrusting coralline algae a further 22-29% at four of surveyed sites. At these five sites, invertebrate fauna were relatively scarce, with whelks, limpets, lobsters, sponge and Cape reef worm been the most commonly recorded taxa albeit at densities of only 1.5-4.0 individuals per square meter or an average percentage cover of 7.5-9.5% (Cape reef worm & sponge respectively). The dominance of algae, predominantly red foliose at these five sites corresponds with the very low densities of grazers recorded, e.g. sea urchins, limpets, periwinkles and chitons. At all sites, dense beds of grazers, mostly Argenville’s limpet Scutellastra argenvillei, were found in the very shallow subtidal, but nowhere did these limpet beds continue into deeper water (>0.5 m) where abalone are to be seeded. These limpets attain these very high densities by trapping kelp fronds for food and this is most efficient in shallow water at low tide when the kelp fronds come into contact with the substratum (Branch et al. 1994).

In terms of substratum type and depth, Control 1 site was not noticeably different from the other five sites surveyed, but the biotic community was significantly different. The study identified higher densities of ribbed mussels Aulacomya ater and urchins Parechinus angulosus and lower percentage cover of red algae has been the primary contributors to the dissimilarity between the Control 1 site and the other five sites surveyed (total contribution 40-50%). Other invertebrate taxa (whelks, sponges and anemones) were also more abundant at this site than the other five surveyed sites (Table 2). The relatively high abundance of a grazer (urchins) and low abundance of red algae is not unexpected, although this site was characterised by a particularly dense kelp bed that included a high proportion of the split fan kelp (Laminaria pallida) and light penetration to the understory was less than at the other sites where sea bamboo (Ecklonia maxima) was the dominant kelp species. An earlier survey found a statistically significant positive correlation between water depth and sea urchin density and a significant negative correlation between herbivorous molluscs and depth (Hutchings & Clark 2008). The water depth at Control site 1 was, however, very close to the average water depth across all the surveyed sites and this is not likely to be the primary physical driver responsible for the noticeable differences in benthic communities between this site and the other five surveyed sites. The physical or biological drivers that caused this development of significantly different biotic community at this site are not known.

23 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 2 Physical description and average percentage cover or count of biota at the six surveyed sites. Values given are the average of 18 quadrats at each site (per 0.25 m2).

Substratum/Taxa Control 1 Control 2 Control 3 Impact 1 Impact 2 Impact3 Overall Substratum Depth 2.4 1.7 1.9 3.0 2.7 1.6 2.23 %Rock 80.3 81.4 73.8 88.9 73.1 76.4 79.86 %Boulder 5.6 10.7 25.3 2.8 13.9 0.0 9.21 %Gravel 10.8 10.3 13.9 4.4 0.0 13.1 8.56 %Sand 1.2 2.1 3.3 3.9 8.1 10.6 5.10 Mobile Kelps stipes 4.9 3.1 3.8 3.5 4.3 5.8 4.25 Taxa Urchins 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.87 (Counts) Whelks 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.97 Limpets 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.67 Lobsters 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.42 Periwinkles 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.11 Abalone 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.10 Reticulated 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.10 Starfish Sea Cucumber 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 Cape Rock Crab 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.05 Chitons 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 Crab Sp. 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 Hermit Crab 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 Sessile Red Algae 5.0 27.0 29.6 29.7 31.9 24.2 24.57 Taxa (% Encrusting 15.2 28.8 22.4 27.3 4.1 23.9 20.30 Cover) coralline Sponge 16.3 3.5 14.6 6.4 4.1 12.1 9.49 Cape reef worm 0.0 13.4 7.2 0.0 19.1 5.6 7.55 Mussels 35.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.3 6.09 Anemones 5.2 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.47 Spiral fanworm 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.37 Green algae 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.36 Upright coralline 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.33 Black boring worm 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.28

24 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

3.5 Buffels Estuary The Buffels River drains the western edge of the Namaqualand plateau north of the Kamiesberg as well as the western slopes of escarpment inland of Kleinsee (Heydorn a& Grindley 1981). The river mouth is situated at the town of Kleinsee, just south of the proposed development site. The Buffels estuary is situated in a very arid environment and is classified as a predominantly closed estuary. The Buffels river and its tributaries have very limited water flow throughout the year due to very low rainfall (140 mm per year), which is compounded by numerous man-made flow barriers in the tributaries upstream of the estuary. The low water volumes that reach the estuary infiltrate the ground quickly and rarely facilitate the breaching of the sand bar separating the river from the sea.

A Situation Assessment Report and Draft Management Plan for the Buffels estuary were published by the Namakwa District Municipality in March 2017 (FieldWork 2017, 2018). Estuarine Management Plans are considered an important coastal environment management tool and are required in terms of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of 2008). The estuary management plan for the Buffels estuary proposes the removal of artificial barriers where possible (note, not the sand berm that separates the sea from the river). There are four barriers within the boundaries of the estuary alone, including an old haul road that separates two water pools at the mouth. More barriers are found upstream and the municipality will be investigating the necessity of each and remove those that are no longer serving a purpose. The removal of these barriers could result in generally higher water supply to the estuary. The arid conditions in this region, however, would not facilitate the permanent opening of the river mouth even under rehabilitated conditions (most estuaries in this region are naturally predominantly closed).

Only on rare occasions, the sand berm could potentially be breached during episodic floods, especially if they coincide with spring tide conditions. Freshwater would then be released into the sea. However, the seawater intake of the DCA facility is situated just over 1 km north of the Buffels Estuary mouth and it is expected that the freshwater plume will sufficiently disperse over this distance. This is especially likely considering the small amount of water released by the estuary, even during episodic flood events. The management and episodic flooding of the Buffels estuary should therefore not impact on the operations of the proposed aquaculture facility. Equally, the effluent outfall of the proposed aquaculture facility is situated just over 2 km downstream of the estuary and activities by DCA are not anticipated to have an impact the aquatic ecology of the predominantly closed Buffels estuary. Impacts on the aquatic environment of the Buffels estuary have therefore not been assessed as part of the marine specialist study.

25 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT The expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm will have a number of potential negative impacts on the marine and coastal environment during the construction and operation phases.

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

Construction phase: • CP-ME Impact 1: Loss of habitat and biota in the development footprint; • CP-ME Impact 2: Increased turbidity and the effects on marine biota; • CP-ME Impact 3: Harmful chemicals and their effects on marine biota; • CP-ME Impact 4: Waste generation and disposal during construction; and • CP-ME Impact 5: Noise and vibration management;

Operation phase: • OP-ME Impact 1: Seawater abstraction; • OP-ME Impact 2:Elevated suspended solids in the water column; • OP-ME Impact 3: Eutrophication caused by increased nutrients in the outfall stream; • OP-ME Impact 4: The effect of increased seawater temperature on marine biota; • OP-ME Impact 5: Transfer of disease and parasites to marine biota; • OP-ME Impact 6: Chemical pollution arising from aquaculture farming; • OP-ME Impact 7: Introduction of alien marine species to the wild; • OP-ME Impact 8: Waste generation and disposal during operation; • OP-ME Impact 9: Decomposition of mechanically removed fouling organisms; and • OP-ME Impact 10: Repair of intake and outfall pipes (same as impacts 1-5 of the construction phase).

Decommissioning phase It is anticipated that impacts 2, 3, 4 and 5 outlined in the construction phase are likely to be repeated during the decommissioning phase.

26 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Each identified impact is likely to affect the associated biota in different ways and at varying intensities depending on the nature of the affected habitat and the sensitivity of the biota. The degree of each impact depends on the construction method used. The ‘construction footprint’ is defined as the total area of new infrastructure as determined by design engineers and includes any new pipeline laid.

A number of habitat types are likely to be impacted as a result of the proposed development including: intertidal sandy beach and rocky shore habitat, subtidal soft-bottom benthic and reef habitat, and pelagic habitat. Each of these habitats has been described in Chapter 3.

In the marine environment a disturbance can be relatively short-lived (e.g. accidental spill which is diluted in the water column below threshold limits within hours) but the effect of such a disturbance may have a much longer lifetime (e.g. discharge of nutrients that may encourage algal blooms). The assessment and rating procedure described in Appendix 1 addresses the effects and consequences (i.e. the impact) on the environment rather than the cause or initial disturbance alone. To reduce negative impacts, precautions referred to as ‘mitigation measures’ are set and attainable mitigation actions are recommended. Results of each impact assessment are presented in Table 3 to Table 18 and are summarised in Table 19 and Table 20.

4.1 Construction phase

4.1.1 CP-ME Impact 1: Loss of habitat and biota in the development footprint The sandy beach at the proposed development site extends approximately 2.5 km northward from the Buffels Estuary mouth. The coastline north of the large cofferdam is severely disturbed from decades of diamond mining. The current suction line for the seawater intake at the southern end of the site (Figure 3) will be upgraded and supplemented with three additional suction lines and the construction of an additional pump house. The current effluent outfall was constructed by De Beers for the discharge of wastewater into the cofferdam just north of the DCA development site. Recognising that the effluent needed to leave the cofferdam, an outlet was created near the high water mark. DCA was permitted to make use of this existing structure. During stormy conditions, however, the sea continues to erode away the shore line, creating the impression that DCA effluent is discharged into the dunes (Figure 1). The proposed outfall pipeline will be constructed further south and should extend at least to chart datum (the height of the lowest astronomical tide) to prevent contact between undiluted effluent and marine life in the vicinity of the discharge.

An outfall pipeline stretching across intertidal sandy shore will be buried in the beach sand to prevent damage to pipes by wave action. Sessile biota along the pipeline length will become smothered and mobile fauna will be disturbed. Subtidally, it is likely that the pipe will be installed on the sediment surface and will become gradually buried by shifting sand.

The beach sediments along the pipeline routing will be completely turned over and the associated macrofauna will probably experience high levels of mortality. Any birds feeding and/or roosting in the area will also be disturbed and displaced for the duration of construction activities. The invertebrate macrofaunal communities inhabiting these beaches are important components of the detritus/beach-cast seaweed-based food chains, being mostly scavengers, particulate organic matter

27 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study and filter-feeders (Brown & McLachlan 1994). They assimilate food sources available from the detritus accumulations typical of this coast and, in turn, become prey for surf-zone fishes and migratory shorebirds that feed on the beach and in the swash zone. By providing energy input to higher trophic levels, they are important in near shore nutrient cycling. The reduction or loss of these macrophyte assemblages from a large area of beach may therefore have cascade effects through the coastal ecosystem (Dugan et al. 2003). The relatively small footprint and temporary nature of construction activities however, means that these impacts will only be felt over a very limited spatial scale and will not noticeably impact the ecology of the beach at the study site.

Provided the construction activities are all conducted concurrently, the duration of the disturbance should be limited to a few days. Studies on the disturbance of beach macrofauna communities on the West Coast by beach mining activities have ascertained that, provided physical changes to beach morphology are kept to a minimum, and sediment characteristics on the beach are not severely altered, biological "recovery" of disturbed areas will occur within 2-5 years (Nel et al. 2003). Disturbed subtidal communities within the wave base (<40 m water depth) might recover even faster (Newell et al. 1998). Recovery of beach macrofaunal assemblages occurs primarily through immigration from adjacent areas. Mitigation measures should therefore include rehabilitation of the disturbed area immediately following construction, by removing all artificial constructions or beach modifications created during construction from above and within the intertidal zone after completion of construction activities. No accumulations of excavated beach sediments should be left above the high water mark, and any substantial sediment accumulations below the high water mark should be levelled.

Loss of habitat and mortality of fauna will be directly proportional to the footprint of the intake and outfall infrastructure. Note that the exact footprint can only be determined once the outfall pipeline length and design has been finalised. Table 3 rates the significance of the loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat and biota in the development footprint. The duration of the impact depends on whether or not organisms will be able to re-inhabit the disturbed area. In the short-term, organisms are expected to re-colonise areas both above and below the pipelines, reducing the rating to short- term. The disturbance of sandy beach biota on the upper shore is not of great concern as the majority of these organisms are able to move away from the source of disturbance. Intertidal sand habitat is not uncommon in this area but has been severely disturbed by diamond mining activities. Temporary disturbance within the relatively small construction footprint is expected to be very low.

28 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 3 Construction phase marine ecological impact 1: Direct loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat and biota within the development footprint.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Short- Without Local High Low term Definite LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 3 5 1 Essential mitigation measures: • Limit time taken to complete construction activities in the coastal zone; • Constrain spatial extent of impacts to the minimum required; • Minimise disturbance above HWM, drive in intertidal on same tracks; • Rehabilitate disturbed area; Short- With Low Very low Local 1 term Definite VERY LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 3 1

4.1.2 CP-ME Impact 2: Increased turbidity and the effects on marine biota The installation of infrastructure below the high water mark may temporarily increase suspended sediments in the surf zone. Construction activities are likely to generate sediment plumes that will increase the turbidity of the water and settle on the surrounding seafloor. Increased erosion and sedimentation may occur during the construction phase when heavy duty vehicles will be moving sediment. Loose sediment may be washed down with storm water, leading to increased turbidity and sedimentation. Sand movement in the nearshore marine environment occurs naturally both in the coastal zone and intertidally. Consequently, nearshore biota is resilient to sand movement and additional sediment input to the marine environment during construction is unlikely to be detrimental. DWAF (1995) Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) for coastal marine waters state that: “Total Suspended Solids (TSS) should be less than 10% above ambient levels at the edge of the Recommended Mixing Zone (RMZ).

Benthic invertebrates, particularly those that filter-feed, are susceptible to the effects of turbidity as many lack the mobility inherent to fishes. They generally ingest high levels of inorganic material filtered from the water, resulting in lower growth rates, starvation and, in the worst cases, mortality. The higher the turbidity, the less the light penetrates through the water column. This is likely to cause a temporary decrease in the productivity of autotrophic microphytobenthos and phytoplankton. Given that the area surrounding the construction site is exposed, it is anticipated that sand particles suspended by construction will be readily dispersed by wave action. This may potentially affect light penetration and thus phytoplankton productivity and algal growth, but the highly productive nature of the Benguela upwelling region suggests that this impact will be negligible. Furthermore, the associated impacts are, extremely localised and of short duration (only for the duration of the pipeline entrenchment/installation). As biotic communities at the impact site are not unique, the impacted area is small, and smothering is reversible; impacts caused by increased turbidity have therefore been assessed as very low in Table 4. No essential mitigation measures are required.

29 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 4 Construction phase marine ecological impact 2: Effects of increased turbidity on marine biota.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Short- Without Local Low Very low term Probable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 3 1 Essential mitigation measures: • No mitigation required

4.1.3 CP-ME Impact 3: Harmful chemicals and their effects on marine biota Construction activities will involve the use of heavy vehicles and machinery in the coastal zone, which creates the potential for hydrocarbon spills. Hydrocarbons are toxic to aquatic organisms and precautions must be taken to prevent them from contaminating the marine environment. Suitable management mechanisms must be implemented to mitigate this risk and contingency plans in the event of accidental spills must be prepared. All fuel and oil must be stored with adequate spill protection and no leaking vehicles should be permitted on site. If spillage does occur, this is likely to be on a small-scale and is expected to be readily dispersed. As such, impacts are expected to be of extremely short duration. The potential area of impact is small and the likelihood of the impact occurring is ‘very low’ if mitigation is enforced. Consequently, the impact of chemical contamination is considered insignificant if appropriate mitigation measures are applied as summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 Construction phase marine ecological impact 3: Effects of chemical contamination on marine biota.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without Local High Medium term Possible LOW - ve High mitigation 1 3 6 2 Essential mitigation measures: • Contingency plans in the event of accidental spills must be prepared. • All fuel and oil is to be stored with adequate spill protection. • No leaking vehicles or vessels are permitted on site. Medium- With Local Medium Low term Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 2 5 2

4.1.4 CP-ME Impact 4: Waste generation and disposal during construction The proposed development will produce solid waste, including rubble, during the construction phase. The construction period (as a whole not only those components affecting the marine environment) is anticipated to stretch over a number of years and it is estimated that approximately one 6 m³ skip of solid construction waste will be produced per month. Solid waste and rubble will be collected regularly at designated collection sites on the project site by the De Beers owned Dreyer Pan Waste Management Facility. If allowed to enter the ocean, solid waste may be transported by currents for long distances out to sea or around the coast.

30 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Thus, unlike fuel or sewage contamination, the extent of the damage caused by solid waste (especially plastics) is large. The impact of floating or submerged solid materials on marine life (especially seabirds, turtles and fish) can be lethal and can affect rare and endangered species.

During the construction and initiation phase of the aquaculture farm, off cuts and fragments of PVC/ HDPE piping and other materials used or brought to site during construction may enter the sea. The problem of litter entering the marine environment has escalated dramatically in recent decades, with an ever-increasing proportion of litter consisting of non-biodegradable plastic materials. South Africa has laws against littering, both on land and in the coastal zone, but these laws are seldom, if ever, rigorously enforced. That this form of pollution can be obviated is shown by the lack of such material in countries where the laws are strictly adhered to (e.g. Germany and Holland). Objects which have a particular impact on the marine fauna include plastic bags and bottles, pieces of rope and small plastic particles (Wehle & Coleman 1983). Large numbers of marine organisms, including fish and marine mammals, are killed or injured by becoming entangled in debris (Wallace 1985), while others, including seabirds, are at risk through the ingestion of small plastic particles (Shomura & Yoshida 1985). There will be two potential sources of such pollution associated with the proposed expansion to the aquaculture farm. Construction workers on the site may deposit litter on the shore which ends up in the water and small cuttings of material will exist inside piping and pumps and will be flushed out upon start-up of the farm. These materials, being largely plastics, may be transported by currents for long distances out to sea or around the coast. Thus, unlike fuel or sewage contamination, the extent of the damage is in theory limitless. The impact on certain forms of marine life by floating or submerged solid materials can hardly be overstressed. Most at risk are marine mammals, seabirds and fish, including possibly rare or even endangered species.

All reasonable measures must be implemented to ensure there is no littering by construction workers and that construction waste is adequately managed. In order to prevent litter from entering the marine environment, all staff must be regularly reminded about the detrimental impacts of pollution on marine species and suitable handling and disposal protocols must be clearly explained and sign boarded. The ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ policy must be implemented. Piping off- cuts and small cuttings of plastic material present inside the piping after installation may not be disposed of in the sea. In order to prevent this plastic from entering the environment, water must be filtered to remove such debris upon start-up of the system. This impact is rated as medium without mitigation and is reduced to low by implementing mitigation measures outlined in Table 6.

Table 6 Construction phase marine ecological impact 4: Waste generation and disposal during construction.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Regional Low Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve High mitigation 2 1 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Inform all staff about sensitive marine species and the suitable disposal of construction waste. • Suitable handling and disposal protocols must be clearly explained and sign boarded. • Reduce, reuse, and recycle. • Filter water on start-up of plant to remove plastic debris. With Regional Low Long-term Medium Possible LOW - ve High mitigation 2 1 3 6

31 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.1.5 CP-ME Impact 5: Noise and vibration management Sources of noise and vibration during construction include heavy machinery, earthmoving vehicles, generators, etc. Any birds feeding and/or roosting in the area will be disturbed and displaced for the duration of construction activities; however, other marine life is unlikely to be affected. Fish and mammals are able to temporarily move away from the disturbance, while invertebrates are not sensitive to noise.

As a precautionary measure, mobile equipment, vehicles and power generation equipment should be subject to noise tests which will be measured against the manufacturer’s specifications to confirm compliance before procurement. Noise emissions from mobile and fixed equipment should be subject to periodic checks as part of regular maintenance programmes to allow for detection of any increases in noise. After mitigation is implemented, the impact of noise and vibration on the marine environment is considered to be insignificant.

Table 7 Construction phase marine ecological impact 5: Noise and vibrations caused by equipment, drilling and blasting.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Short- Very low Probable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 term 1 3 Best practice mitigation measures: • Subject mobile equipment, vehicles and power generation equipment to noise tests at commencement and periodically throughout the construction phase. With Local Low Short- Very low Possible INSIGNIFICANT - ve High mitigation 1 1 term 1 3

4.2 Operational phase

4.2.1 OP-ME Impact 1: Seawater abstraction Seawater is abstracted using a cage that prevents accidental take up of kelp, other seaweed and larger organisms. The impacts of seawater abstraction on marine life can include entrainment and impingement. Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through intake structures and into the processing equipment (Pankratz 2004). Organisms small enough to pass through most intake screens include holoplanktonic organisms (permanent members of plankton, such as copepods, diatoms and bacteria) and meroplanktonic organisms (temporary members of plankton, such as juvenile shrimps and the planktonic eggs and larvae of invertebrates and fish). The impact will be felt locally with low intensity as site-specific and wider natural functions and processes are negligibly altered. In the long-term, this impact has been rated as very low and no mitigation measures are required.

32 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 8 Operation phase marine ecological impact 1: Impacts of seawater abstraction using a cage around the intake point that prevents accidental take up of kelp, other seaweed and larger organisms.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long- Low Improbable VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 term 3 5 No mitigation measures necessary

4.2.2 OP-ME Impacts 2-7: Potential impacts associated with effluent discharges The current effluent outfall was constructed by De Beers for the discharge of wastewater into the cofferdam just north of the DCA development site. Recognising that the effluent needed to leave the cofferdam, an outlet was created near the high water mark. DCA was permitted to make use of this existing structure. During stormy conditions, however, the sea continues to erode away the shore line, creating the impression that DCA effluent is discharged into the dunes (Figure 1). As part of the proposed expansions, a new effluent pipeline will be constructed approximately 400 m south. A rocky reef runs parallel to the coast, 200-500 m offshore at the study site, which creates a protected inshore habitat where waves do not break even under large swell conditions (Figure 1, and refer to pictures shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4).

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

The typical aquaculture effluent contains total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous), and water temperature above ambient levels. Additionally, effluent can also contain diseases and parasites, as well as chemical pollution (veterinary products, disinfectants). Finally, alien marine species (including alien pathogens), can be introduced into the marine environment via the effluent.

Input control, effluent treatment and monitoring, as well as placement of the effluent pipe to maximise dilution are the most important mitigation measures to minimise impacts on the marine environment. Input control primarily involves best management practice with regards to feed ratios, administration of therapeutants and dosage for disinfections. In addition, DCA intends to implement an Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) system, which is designed to improve effluent quality (bioremediation) by combining fed aquaculture (i.e. finfish and abalone) with inorganic extractive (seaweed) and organic extractive (oysters, sea cucumbers and sea urchins) aquaculture (for a more detailed description and schematic see Section 2).

For example, sea cucumbers (Parastichopus californicus, Holothuria forskali, H. leucospilota and Apostichopus japonicus) feed on faeces and food waste and have been shown to reduce waste biodeposition underneath finfish cages by up to 60% (Ahlgren 1998; Yu et al. 2012, 2014; Hannah et al. 2013; MacDonald et al. 2013). However, it is worth noting that the capability of the sea

33 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study cucumbers to reduce the waste generated by the aquaculture farms will depend on the physiological performance of the species (Zamora et al. 2016). This is variable in temperate species exposed to seasonal changes in environmental conditions. Species such as A. japonicus undergo a series of physiological changes as seawater temperature increases thus effectively halting feeding activity during the summer time (e.g. Ji et al. 2008). Previous studies have shown that macroalgae absorb and assimilate large amounts of nutrient into their tissues during (Lobban and Harrison 1997; Barsanti and Gualtieri 2006), being able to remove about 90% of ammonium produced by marine animals in integrated multitrophic aquaculture experiments (Skriptsova and Miroshnikova 2011). Additionally, sea cucumber grazing/feeding on sediments has been shown to reduce nutrient loading in enriched systems and recycle nutrients in natural systems (Michio et al. 2003; Zheng et al. 2009; Zhou et al. 2006; Wolkenhauer et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2011). Effluent from the DCA farm is therefore not likely to contain ammonia concentrations toxic to the marine organisms in the receiving environment. Furthermore, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the marine environment (unlike phosphate, which is the limiting nutrient in freshwater environments). Nitrogen is effectively removed in the seaweed ponds prior to the discharge of the effluent and is unlikely to cause eutrophication in the vicinity of the outfall point. The potential impacts of ammonia and nitrogen as nutrients have been assessed in Section 4.2.2.2.

No data is available to accurately estimate the effluent quality for the proposed aquaculture farm design. The best available data originates from the proposed land-based Atlantic salmon farm on the west coast of South Africa, which will produce 3500 t per year in a partial Recirculation Aquaculture System (RAS) (Laird et al. 2016). Suspended solids will be filtered from the effluent and subsequently, the effluent will pass through a biological filter where organic matter will be broken down by heterotrophic bacteria into carbon dioxide, ammonia and sludge. In turn, ammonium will be converted into nitrite and nitrate during a process called nitrification. However, nitrogen is not removed from the effluent. By implementing a RAS system3, screening and bio-filtration mitigation measures the salmon farm expects a high average TSS concentration of 763.45 mg/L in the effluent.

The recirculation system proposed by the DCA will reduce new water requirements only by 50% and consequently, the TSS concentration is expected to be considerably lower, with an estimated concentration of 76.34 mg/L4. Subsequently, the finfish farm effluent will be mixed with at least an equivalent amount of much cleaner abalone and oyster dam effluent. On average, the TSS concentration in final effluent is estimated to be around 40 mg/L. Note that this estimate may not be accurate as it does not consider (1) differences in recirculation system design; (2) the efficacy of the effluent treatment systems, which are fundamentally different (technology versus Multitrophic Aquaculture System); (3) species metabolism; (4) stocking densities; and (5) feeding requirements.

TSS, nutrients, water temperature and diseases and parasites are discussed and their impact is rated without and with mitigation measures in the sections below. It is important to note that the impact

3 According to the FAO (2015) a flow-through system finfish farm producing 3500 t per year requires 11 984 m3per hour of new water. The proposed Atlantic salmon farm is predicted to have an average effluent outflow rate of 308 m3 per hour, which means that approximately 97% of the new water requirements should be supplied by the recirculation system. 4 The estimated DCA finfish farm effluent volume is 3424 m3 per hour, ten times higher than that of the Atlantic salmon farm (308 m3 per hour).

34 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study assessment ‘without mitigation measures’ assumes that DCA will discharge effluent just below the lowest astronomical tide (i.e. minimum requirement) and that none of the above-mentioned mitigation measures will be implemented. The impact assessments below were completed without effluent plume modelling and have therefore been assigned a confidence level of medium.

Apart from the importance of protecting the receiving environment, the intake of clean seawater is very important to maintain biosecurity on the farm (e.g. nutrients, algal blooms, suspended solids and diseases). The effluent outfall is situated approximately 900 m north of the seawater intake point. The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the shape of the coastline, bathymetry, as well as prevailing swell and wind direction. The predominant swell direction in the area is south-west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline), and it is anticipated that the incoming swell pushes water northward, creating a long-shore current parallel to the beach. Effluent would therefore be carried northward, preventing eutrophication of the sheltered waters and ensuring biosecurity of the DCA farm. Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore, which also facilitates dispersion of the effluent. During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which could temporarily result in a southward long-shore current. This current could potentially carry poorly mixed effluent towards the sea water intake point of the farm, posing a biosecurity risk. The likelihood of this occurring is considered to be very low, however.

4.2.2.1 OP-ME Impact 2: Total suspended solids Suspended matter consists of silt, clay, fine particles of organic and inorganic matter, soluble organic compounds, plankton, and other microscopic organisms. The presence of suspended solids is usually attributed to a reduction in the clarity of water, i.e. light penetration or visibility. Suspended solids usually remain in suspension in the water column since their density is similar to that of seawater and turbulence in the water column. Under calmer conditions, solids may settle out from the water column and be deposited onto the substratum.

When the TSS concentration is elevated above background levels, it may have an impact on the ecosystem as a whole and/or on individual species. For example, the energy available to seaweed may be reduced due to light attenuation due to elevated TSS levels. Conversely, reduced nutrient availability in the water column may occur through adsorption and subsequent sedimentation of settleable solids. At high concentrations, TSS may cause abrasion or clogging of sensitive organs such as gills, which in turn, results in stress and increased disease susceptibility.

35 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

The South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters (Natural Environment) state that the concentration of suspended solids should ‘not be increased by more than 10% of the ambient concentration’. Scientists from the Coastal Systems research group of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) consider the TSS guideline of the South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters (Natural Environment) to be overly restrictive in situations where TSS is low. For example, a 10% change to a background TSS of 2 mg/L amounts to 0.2 mg/L. Whether such a small change is ecologically meaningful is debatable (CSIR 2016). Consequently, scientists from the Coastal Systems Research Group of the CSIR defined water quality classification criteria for TSS as:

Good: ≤10 mg/L Fair <10-≤20 mg/L Poor >20 mg/L

Suspended solids are a major component of waste produced by aquaculture farms, consisting mostly of faeces and uneaten food particles. Much of the suspended solids have to be removed from the wastewater prior to recirculation, as suspended solids can damage gills, harbour pathogens and deteriorate water quality. DCA intends to remove suspended solids by installing screens and subsequently circulating the water through seaweed ponds that contain filter and deposit feeders. However, a large proportion of the suspended solids (food and faeces) settles to the bottom of the grow-out tanks and is likely not going to be diverted into the seaweed tanks for bioremediation. These solids are removed when the tanks are cleaned and without appropriate mitigation, effluent quality is likely to deteriorate significantly during cleaning operations.

It has been estimated that, with mitigation measures, the average TSS concentration in the final effluent leaving the DCA farm will be around 40 mg/L (Section 4.2.2 for details). Receiving water TSS concentration should remain below 20 mg/L to maintain fair conditions (See guidelines provided by the CSIR 2016). Despite the presence of a reef up to approximately 300 m offshore, it is anticipated that the incoming swell, which is mostly coming from a south-easterly direction will push the inshore current northward, carrying the effluent away from the intake point that lies 900 m south of the outfall point (Figure 7). Considering the scale of the proposed aquaculture farm, the impact has been rated as medium without mitigation measures (i.e. without recirculation, screening, bioremediation, and dilution) and as very low with mitigation measures. There is a lot of uncertainty regarding the final effluent quality, however, and the impact of suspended solids in the effluent originating from the DCA farm has therefore been rated with low confidence.

36 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 9 Operation phase marine ecological impact 2: Elevated suspended solids in the water column.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve Low mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Best management practice with regards to feed ratios. • Partial recirculation production system; • Screen between finfish and seaweed tanks; • Solids mobilised during tank cleaning are not to be diverted into the effluent stream without treatment (multi- trophic treatment, screening, settlement pond etc.); • Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture targeted at solid removal; • Effluent quality should be monitored as per the CWDP specifications (these must include the monitoring of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Additional mitigation measures: • If CWDP limits for TSS, COD and BOD cannot be met, DCA must consider additional mitigation measures to extract suspended solids. With Local Low Long-- Low Possible VERY LOW - ve Low mitigation 1 1 term 3 5

4.2.2.2 OP-ME Impact 3: Eutrophication caused by increased nutrients in the outfall stream The Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) for the Coastal Marine Waters of South Africa (DWAF 1995) state that: “Waters should not contain concentrations of dissolved nutrients that are capable of causing excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other aquatic plants or reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations below the target range for dissolved oxygen” at the edge of the Recommended Mixing Zone (RMZ).

Excess inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus in nearshore marine ecosystems can cause changes in both structure (biological communities) and function (ecological processes) (USEPA 2001). Over- enrichment of biologically available phosphorus and nitrogen initially stimulates diatom growth. Diatoms also require silicate as an essential nutrient and consequently, excessive diatom growth can deplete silicate in the water column (Conley et al 1993). In coastal systems with high nutrient inputs, this decline in silicate is often responsible for a shift from a diatom based phytoplankton community to one in which flagellates dominate (Officer & Ryther 1980). Concurrently, harmful algal blooms may occur more frequently. Such red and brown tides can be toxic to shellfish, fish, marine mammals, resulting in changes in biodiversity, and in some cases, become a direct threat to humans (Hallengraeff 1993). In shallow marine environments and intertidal zones where sufficient light reaches the bottom, fast growing macroalgae (e.g. Enteromorpha, Ulva, Cladophora spp.) may proliferate, eliminating slower growing macroalgae and sea grasses (e.g. Zostera capensis). High phytoplankton concentrations may also reduce light penetration to the point where sea grasses and other benthic plants are completely eliminated (USEPA 2001, CCME 2007).

37 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

One of the most serious consequences of nutrient over-enrichment to marine ecosystems is the decreased level of dissolved oxygen (DO) within the water column (Nixon & Fulweiler 2009). Bacterial decomposition of excess biological material depletes DO, causing hypoxic or anoxic conditions in sediments and the water column. In shallow systems, excessive macroalgal growth can result in anoxic conditions within the water column, especially during periods of warm water temperatures and during the night when photosynthesis cannot occur. This is when dissolved oxygen reaches a minimum and may result in the death of aerobic benthic organisms and, in severe cases, fish kills (Rabalais et al. 1996, Nixon & Fulweiler 2009, CCME 2007). Aquaculture operations can be important sources of nutrient inputs to coastal areas (CCME2007). About 40% of the nitrogen contained in fish foods is incorporated into fish biomass, the rest is released to the environment as metabolic wastes, faeces and uneaten food fragments (Strain & Hargrave 2005).

DCA intends to remove nutrients by means of bioremediation in an IMTA system. Wastewater will circulate through seaweed ponds that contain filter and deposit feeders. While nitrogen is removed from the water column by algae, much of the phosphate will be removed by deposit feeders which feed on enriched sediment (See more detail in Section 4.2.2).

With mitigation measured the effluent from the DCA farm will contain insignificant amounts of nutrients and is unlikely to cause eutrophication in the vicinity of the outfall point. The mitigation measures mentioned above reduces the significance of this impact from medium to very low (Table 10). However, the offshore reef creates a barrier and eutrophication risks may increase should effluent quality deteriorate due to ineffective bioremediation. The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the prevailing swell and wind direction. The prevailing swell direction is south- west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline) and pushes water northward parallel to the shore (long-shore current). This current will carry any nutrients northward. Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore. During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which can temporarily result in a southward long-shore current. This could potentially carry poorly mixed effluent towards the sea water intake point of the farm (900 m south of the outfall point), but the probability of this happening is considered to be very low.

If eutrophication develops in the marine environment as a result of the temporary discharge of effluent with nutrient levels markedly higher than those of the ambient, this impact should be considered as ‘short-term’. However, if the situation is not quickly rectified and is left to continue, this impact should be considered as ‘long-term’ (i.e. for the life of the aquaculture facility). An adaptive management approach will be required by DCA to ensure that the effluent does not cause excessive or nuisance growth of algae or other aquatic plants or reduces dissolved oxygen concentrations below what is expected in the receiving environment around the outfall point.

38 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 10 Operation phase marine ecological impact 3: Eutrophication caused by increased nutrients in the outfall stream.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM - ve Medium mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Best management practice with regards to feed ratios. • Partial recirculation production system; • Screen between finfish and seaweed tanks; • Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture targeted at nutrient removal; • Effluent quality should be monitored as per the CWDP specifications (these must include the monitoring of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Additional mitigation measures: • If CWDP limits for TSS, COD and BOD cannot be met, DCA must consider additional mitigation measures to extract suspended solids. With Local Medium Medium- Low Possible VERY LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 2 term 2 5

4.2.2.3 OP-ME Impact 4: The effect of increased seawater temperature on marine biota Changes in water temperature can have a substantial impact on marine species and ecosystems, with the effects either influencing the physiology of the biota (e.g. growth and metabolism, reproduction timing and success, mobility and migration patterns and production); and/or influencing ecosystem functioning (e.g. through altered oxygen solubility). The South African WQGs recommend that the maximum acceptable variation in ambient temperature should not exceed 1°C at the edge of the RMZ. This is a conservative value considering the negligible effects of thermal plumes on benthic assemblages reported for a change in temperature of 5°C or less (van Ballegooyen et al. 2007).

Seawater in the effluent stream is unlikely to differ greatly from that abstracted from the marine environment, as water will not be heated nor will it travel a great overland distance before the pipe transports it subtidally. Strong south easterly winds will promote rapid surface wind mixing of the effluent and ambient conditions are likely to be met over a short distance. Consequently, the anticipated extent of this impact is likely to be very low unless the required effluent concentration levels in the CWDP are exceeded (Table 11).

Table 11 Operation phase marine ecological impact 4: The effect of increased seawater temperature on marine biota.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long- Low Improbable VERY LOW - ve Medium mitigation 1 1 term 3 5 No mitigation required other than water temperature monitoring, which is a requirement of the discharge permit.

39 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.2.2.4 OP-ME Impact 5: Disease and parasites transmission to marine biota a) Finfish farming High stocking densities serve as a breeding ground for disease and parasite infections including blood, intestinal and ecto-parasites. Infectious diseases and parasites are regarded as the single biggest threat to aquaculture, with the estimated losses from sea lice (genus Caligus) infections of salmon stock alone amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually (Staniford 2002, Heuch et al. 2005). The cultured stock is often prevented from exercising natural parasite shedding behaviours and the high number of concentrated hosts facilitates parasite and disease reproduction and transmission. This is not only a concern for the productivity of the cultured stock, but also threatens wild stocks due to enhanced transmission of parasites and diseases (Heuch et al. 2005, Krkošek et al. 2007, Ford and Myers 2008). The farming of non-native and non-endemic species in aquaculture facilities increases the risk of introduction of new diseases, pathogens or parasites to wild populations. Native species are likely to be highly susceptible to infection due to limited natural resistance to new diseases, pathogens and parasites, which may be transferred to receiving waters through effluent discharges, escapees of cultured organisms, poor biosecurity management practices and external vectors such as birds.

Although there are no records of pathogens spreading from aquaculture facilities to the marine environment in South Africa, this may be due to the relatively new aquaculture sector. Numerous examples have occurred around the world, the majority relating to salmon. The discharge of pathogens does not necessarily lead to an infection in the local population as infection depends on the health of the wild population, the immunological status of the host, the concentration and virulence of the pathogen, as well environmental conditions at the time of discharge.

Commercially important indigenous species that are found and caught in the nearshore in this region (off the coast of Hondeklip Baai) and include harder Liza richardsonii, hottentot Pachymetepon blochii, and snoek Thyrsites atun. Fish species that occur in the region and are commercially important elsewhere include galjoen Dichistius capensis, silver kob Argyrosomus inodrus, elf Pomatomus saltatrix and yellowtail Seriola lalandii.

The parasites and diseases infecting these and other finfish species in South African waters are not well studied, although silver kob are known to be infected by sea lice of the same genus (Caligus) that caused serious problems amongst salmonids. Some of the potential disease agents affecting marine finfish include skinflukes, gill flukes (specifically Diplectanum oliverii), protozoans, various parasitic worms (trematodes, nematodes, and tapeworms), parasitic cnidarians (myxozoans), crustaceans such as sea lice and copepods, protozoans, dinoflagellates (specifically Amyloodinium ocellatum), various viruses and bacteria (Grobler et al. 2002, Christison and Vaughan 2009, Joubert et al. 2009).

Hottentot are largely resident sparid species, yellowtail are regarded as nomadic, elf undertake extensive coast wide movement, and silver kob have home ranges of tens of kilometers, i.e. are likely to remain within the Kleinzee region. Species with nomadic or migratory movement patterns will be at an increased risk of contracting diseases and or parasites and spreading them through wild populations. Potential negative effects on wild stocks are particularly concerning as many of these species are important in the commercial and recreational line fisheries. Collapsed (e.g. silver kob) and overexploited species would certainly be more susceptible to additional pressures resulting

40 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study from the introduction of alien pathogens. Although treatment of farmed stock to control disease and parasite outbreaks is possible, chemical treatment is not without further environmental impacts and the build-up of antibiotic and chemical resistance is becoming increasingly problematic (Staniford 2002).

Potential disease and parasite transmission to wild stocks could have negative impacts throughout the natural distributional range of each species mentioned above, while the potential impact could alter wider natural (ecosystem) and social functions (the potential impact on fisheries is separately assessed in the socio-economic impact assessment in Appendix F). Aquaculture farms must comply with the Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations (GNR 598, GG 37885), which may include an operation specific risk assessment and approval by DAFF prior to commencement of any operations. The DAFF permit conditions for broodstock collection and facility operation should be followed at all times (DAFF 2016).

Aquatic animal diseases cost aquaculture operations large amounts of money annually. Biosecurity programmes are implemented in an attempt to reduce the spread of diseases impacting stock viability and to protect the environment in which they operate. These documents outline operational procedures and management systems designed to protect the environment against potentially harmful organisms and biological materials. Mitigation measures for the prevention of disease, pathogen and parasite transfer include the development of biosecurity management plans and disease and animal health management plans which must be rigorously enforced to reduce the risk of transfer to wild stocks. It is possible to exclude most disease agents from entry into these systems through system design and management, however, biosecurity can only be ensured if all protocols are strictly adhered to and rigorously enforced. In the case of partial recirculation systems where 90% of the water is recirculated into the fish tanks, small effluent volumes can potentially be sterilised upon detection of a disease outbreak.

As mitigation measures for land based aquaculture facilities can be effective, transmission of disease or parasites to wild stocks is very unlikely. As a result, the significance of the impact is estimated as low after mitigation (Table 12).

41 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 12 Operation phase marine ecological impact 5a: Disease and parasite transmission to wild fish stocks. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Regional Medium Long-term High Possible MEDIUM – ve High mitigation 2 2 3 7 Essential mitigation measures: • Maintain strict bio-security measures. • All organisms obtained from other hatcheries must be sourced only from certified disease, pathogen and parasite free sources. • Ensure all fry undergoes a health examination prior to stocking. • Regularly inspect stock for disease and/parasites as part of a formalised stock health monitoring programme and take necessary action to eliminate pathogens through the use of therapeutic chemicals or improved farm management. This will require focussed research effort into the identification, pathology and treatment of diseases and parasites infecting farmed species. • Maintain comprehensive records of all pathogens and parasites detected as well as logs detailing the efficacy of treatments applied. These records should be made publically available to facilitate rapid responses by other operators to future outbreaks. • Treat adjacent stocks simultaneously even if infections have not yet been detected. • Keep facilities clean. • Farms to adhere to industry standards (i.e. marine fin-fish standards and monitoring programmes). • Disposal of sludge filtered from effluent water should be disposed of at a registered waste management facility (Tweepad Soft Scrap Waste Management Facility (Permit No 16/2/7/F300/C2/Z1/P438) as per agreement (maximum of 5000 t per annum). • Upon detection of a disease outbreak, effluent water released into the sea is to be treated as best as possible. Best practice • All organisms introduced to the facility should be isolated in a quarantine system for a period of six weeks and subject to regular health inspections to monitor for disease. • Culture facilities must be designed to have multiple redundancy exclusion barriers or screens fine enough to contain the organisms being cultured (e.g. eggs, larvae, juveniles). With Regional Low Long-term Medium Improbable LOW – ve High mitigation 2 1 3 6

b) Abalone farming Abalone Haliotis midiae does not occur naturally northward of St Helena Bay in the Western Cape and the transmission of diseases to natural stocks has therefore not been considered as a potential impact here. However, transmission of disease to abalone ranches could result in stock losses to Port Nolloth Seafarms (Ranching) and has therefore been considered in the socio-economic impact assessment (Appendix F).

4.2.2.5 OP-ME Impact 6: Chemical pollution arising from aquaculture Bioactive compounds are compounds defined as having an effect upon living organisms (i.e. antibiotics, enzymes, vitamins, chemotherapeutants, disinfectants and hormones). Disinfectants, antifoulants and therapeutic chemicals (medicines) are typically used in aquaculture. These chemicals are often directly toxic to non-target organisms and may remain active in the environment for extended periods (Kerry et al. 1995, Costello et al. 2001). In addition, inappropriate use of medicines may lead to resistance in pathogenic organisms.

42 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Some of the chemicals used historically on fish farms to combat sea lice infestations were carcinogenic, whilst others are known to adversely affect reproduction in salmonids (Staniford 2002, More and Waring 2001). Global bodies, (e.g. the World Health Organisation and GESAMP), have highlighted the environmental and public health threats of chemical use on fish farms (GESAMP: 1997, WHO: 1999 cited in Staniford 2002). Due to these concerns, the aquaculture farming industry is moving away from the use of antibiotics and organophosphates, but numerous other potentially hazardous chemicals such as synthetic pyrethroids, artificial colorants, antifoulants, and antiparasitics are still a serious concern (Staniford 2002). The proposed aquaculture facility will almost certainly need to use chemicals to protect infrastructure and treat stock. The MFFASA code of conduct recommends avoiding hazardous chemical use, minimizing the use of agricultural, veterinary and industrial chemicals and adherence to legal requirements when these are required (MFFASA 2010).

Any possible effects of chemical pollution arising from the proposed aquaculture site are anticipated to be local as previous studies assumed similar dispersal distances for antibiotics as for dissolved nutrients (Mead et al. 2008). If this impact occurs, however, wider natural processes are anticipated to be altered (e.g. impact on high trophic level species like sharks, seals and dolphins) should the chemicals used bio-accumulate up food chains. Populations of several of the higher trophic level species that occur in the vicinity of Kleinzee are considered vulnerable or endangered in terms of their IUCN conservation status. These include humpback whales, two species of sharks (white and soupfin), and Cape gannets. Without mitigation, however, the intensity and overall significance of the impacts is regarded as medium and as low with effective mitigation (Table 13). The tendency for bioaccumulation of many chemicals used in fish cage culture is not well researched, and the biological availability and ecotoxicity of these in the environment would be site, species and even population specific. As a result, the level of confidence in the assessments is rated as low.

Table 13 Operation phase marine ecological impact 6: Chemical pollution arising from aquaculture operations. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local High Long-term High Possible MEDIUM – ve Low mitigation 1 3 3 7 Essential mitigation measures: • Use only approved veterinary chemicals and antifoulants. • Where effective, use environmentally friendly alternatives. • Use the most efficient drug delivery mechanisms that minimise the concentrations of biologically active ingredients entering the marine environment. • Use the lowest effective dose of therapeutants. • Strategic placement of effluent outfall pipeline to maximise mixing of the effluent in the receiving water. • Effluent quality should be monitored as per the CWDP specifications. With Local Medium Long-term Medium Possible LOW – ve Low mitigation 1 2 3 6

43 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.2.2.6 OP-ME Impact 7: Introduction of alien marine species to the wild Escape of farmed aquaculture organisms is a common event globally. Although land-based aquaculture systems are more biosecure than cage aquaculture operations, there is still a risk of farmed organisms escaping into the marine environment. Recirculation aquaculture operations typically pose a low risk for escapees entering the natural environment provided that facilities are designed suitably and stringent management protocols are implemented.

DCA intends to farm two exotic species, the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss,, both of which are classified as exempt alien species in terms of the Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations promulgated under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA). No permit is therefore required for these species in terms of this Act. DCA are not certain which sea cucumber and sea urchin species will be farmed. If exotic species are selected, a risk assessment and permit will be required in terms of NEMBA.

Although exempt in terms of NEMBA, rainbow trout O. mykiss is considered an invasive species in terms of the Northern Cape Nature Conservation Act (Act No 9 of 2009) Schedule 6. The culture of this species is therefore prohibited in terms of Section 55 of this Act. Furthermore, Section 44 of the same Act, in contrast, states that “No person may, without a permit – (b) sell or buy any live carp […], trout, […] or any exotic invertebrate freshwater fauna”. It is therefore currently unclear whether DCA will require an exemption or a permit in terms of the Provincial Ordinance.

A) Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss is a coldwater pacific salmonid native to North America from Alaska to Mexico. Rainbow trout exhibit the most complex and variable life history among all species of the genus Oncorhynchus (Narum et al. 2008). It is primarily a freshwater species which requires high quality (unpolluted and well-oxygenated) water in order to survive and is commonly found in fast flowing streams and open lakes or dams (Picker & Griffiths 2011). However, some populations are migratory, spending most of their life in seawater and returning to freshwater only to breed (anadramous life cycle). Rainbow trout are opportunistic feeders predating on invertebrates (terrestrial and aquatic), other small fish, and fish eggs. Rainbow trout are iteroparous (multiple reproductive cycles over the course of its life time) and spawn once a year (Skelton 2001).

Rainbow trout were first farmed in 1879 in California. From the time of establishment until 1888 (when this hatchery closed), it produced over 2 million eggs. Fish were selected to spawn all throughout the year, as opposed to exclusively in spring. During the 19th and 20th centuries, rainbow trout spread across the world, and today aquaculture of the species is more popular in its introduced range than its native range (Vandeputte et al. 2008).

In 1897 rainbow trout was imported for angling purposes to South Africa. By 1899, breeding programmes were underway, and rainbow trout was used as the primary species for stocking programmes in the Western Cape (Cambray 2003). Anglers facilitated this process (supported by the authorities) which enabled the spread of these fish to otherwise inaccessible areas (Clark & Ratcliffe 2007).

44 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Conservation departments played a critical role in the introduction of rainbow trout, by establishing hatcheries which then created a demand with farmers and the angling community (Cambray & Pister 2002). The use of “conservation monies” in this manner continued until 2002 (Cambray 2003). For example, the Pirie trout hatchery run by Eastern Cape Nature Conservation Department, introduced trout into the upper reaches of the Buffalo River threatening two endangered species, Sandelia bainsii and Barbus trevelyani (Cambray 2003).

Currently there are a large number of self-sustaining populations of rainbow trout in high altitude river areas of South Africa. Sea-run trout, however, were only reported in the Eerste River during the 1940s and 1950s, but it remains unclear what proportion of the upstream population embarks on an annual downstream migration to make use of the marine environment at the mouth of the river (Harrison 1978).

The environmental impacts caused by the introduction of salmonids into pristine ecosystems with no native salmonid species are severe and have caused unpredictable knock-on effects at the ecosystem scale. Salmonid invasions present a strong top-down control on community structure and ecosystem functioning by inducing changes in species behaviour, as well as the distribution of populations and abundance within functional groups. Significant changes on an ecosystem scale include, for example, the proliferation of primary producers as a result of the increased consumption of grazing invertebrates.

The impact of naturalised adult rainbow trout on marine ecosystems is unclear and difficult to predict. Rainbow trout is primarily a freshwater species (Picker & Griffiths 2011) although some populations are migratory, spending most of their life in seawater and returning to freshwater only to breed (anadramous life cycle). DCA will farm rainbow trout in seawater, which indicates that escapes could potentially survive in the receiving environment. However, rivers and their estuaries in this region do not provide suitable breeding ground for rainbow trout. Most rivers are ephemeral and are closed to the see years at a time. Furthermore, those rivers that are open (e.g. the Orange River) have warm turbid lower reaches and would preclude rainbow trout from reaching the more suitable mountain streams. It is therefore unlikely that this species would establish self-sustaining populations in this region. The impacts of escaped rainbow trout from the proposed aquaculture facility would therefore be limited to the lifespan of the escaped fish at sea, which may be dramatically shortened due to predation and a mismatch of environmental requirements and conditions. As a result, the impacts of escaped rainbow trout were assessed as insignificant and no essential mitigation measures are required (Table 14). However, recommended best practice mitigation measures include the installation and maintenance of escape prevention barriers. Furthermore, the biosecurity plan should detail maintenance methods and include recovery procedures in the event of escapes.

45 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 14 Operation phase marine ecological impact 7A: Escaped rainbow trout from land-based aquaculture facilities. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Medium- Without Local Low Very low term Possible INSIGNIFICANT – ve High mitigation 1 1 4 2 No mitigation measures required. Best practice mitigation measures: • Develop a biosecurity management plan which provides mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of escape occurring. • Implementation of biosecurity management plans will be subject to human error (over flows etc.) and infrastructure failure on an ongoing basis. To prevent these breaches, staff should be comprehensively trained. • Develop and implement recovery procedures should escapes occur. • Barriers must be checked frequently to remove escaped fish that may be trapped between screens. • Stock sterile finfish.

B) Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas The Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas is an estuarine oyster and is considered native to Japan and South East Asia. It has also been shown to survive on rocky shores in sheltered or shallow waters of up to 40 m depth. The Pacific oyster also attaches to shells of other animals. The optimum salinity for Pacific oysters is between 20 and 25 parts per thousand (ppt), although the species can occur at salinities below 10 ppt and will survive salinities in excess of 35 ppt, where it is unlikely to breed. Gametogenesis begins at around 10°C and salinities of between 15 and 32‰ and is rarely completed at higher salinities. Spawning generally occurs at temperatures above 20 °C and rarely at 15–18 °C.

C. gigas was introduced to the Knysna Estuary in South Africa in the 1950s with the intention to farm this species. The species has been farmed in the Kowie and Swartkops estuaries as well as at three marine locations, Algoa Bay, Saldanha Bay and Alexander Bay (Robinson et al. 2005).

Initially, the species was not considered an invasive threat as the oysters seemed unable to reproduce and settle successfully under the local environmental conditions which differ from its native habitat. However, the farmed populations have spread within the country. Through the use of DNA sequencing, Robinson et al. (2005) confirmed the presence of three naturalised populations of C. gigas in South Africa (specifically the Breede, Knysna and Goukou estuaries). The highest densities of individuals were found in the Breede Estuary (approximately 184,000 individuals). In Saldanha Bay C. gigas were originally farmed in the Seafarm dam east of the Iron Ore Terminal and are now farmed in baskets moored in the Bay. Feral populations of this oyster have established inside the dam, which is open to Big Bay. However, self-sustaining populations outside of the dam have not been noted to date (Clark et al 2017).

Considering that the coast of Kleinzee is very exposed with an average temperature of 10-14 °C, it is very unlikely that Pacific oyster escapees from the farm will develop self-sustaining populations in this region. Kleinzee Mariculture has been farming this species in a seawater dam on land for a few years and no feral populations have been detected during dive surveys conducted by Anchor Environmental off Kleinzee for the abalone ranching projects between 2014 and 2017 (Ken Hutchings, pers. comm. 2017).

46 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 15 Operation phase marine ecological impact 7B: Establishment of escaped Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas from land-based aquaculture facilities. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Long-term Low Improbable VERY LOW – ve Medium mitigation 1 1 3 5 No mitigation measures required.

C) Alien sea urchins and sea cucumbers The potential impact of an alien species is species specific and cannot be assessed at the taxonomic Class level (i.e. ‘sea urchins’ or sea cucumbers’). The potential impact of an alien species (including the likelihood of establishment) is dependent on its biology, including but not limited to habitat and dietary requirements, reproduction and behavioural adaptations. Indigenous sea urchins proliferate in subtidal reefs in the Kleinzee area and an aggressive invader could impact on indigenous species composition and ecological functioning of the study site. The introduction of new alien species into South Africa is discouraged and indigenous species should be prioritised for aquaculture wherever possible.

D) Alien diseases and pathogens The potential impacts associated with the release of alien diseases and pathogens have been assessed in Section 4.2.2.4 and are not repeated here.

E) Release of alien fouling organisms It has been shown that translocated oysters act as vectors of marine alien species all over the world. Oysters attach to rocks, walls and other surfaces and are exposed to colonisation by fouling organisms, which can be exported into other countries on the oysters. Marine alien species imported on oyster shells may have significant ecological impacts in areas where they establish. Haupt et al. 2010 surveyed three oyster farms in South Africa, namely Alexander Bay, Saldanha Bay and Knysna. Alexander Bay is a land-based oyster fam and is situated 147 km north of Kleinzee where the Diamond Coast Aquaculture facility is situated and was surveyed in 2007. Nine alien species (excluding the farmed Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas) were found on the Alexander Bay oyster farm during this survey and are listed in Table 16 below.

A breeding population of hundreds of urchins, Tetrapygus niger, which occurs along the temperate Pacific coast of South America, was found on the Alexander Bay farm. Both juveniles and adults were recorded. T. niger is the most abundant sea urchin in its area of origin along the central Chilean coast (Rodriguez & Ojeda). The most likely vector of this species into Alexander Bay oyster farm is the introduction of juveniles along with spat of C. gigas imported from Chile.

47 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

The European flat oyster Ostrea edulis originates from Europe and has a global distribution from Norway to Morocco, extending into the Mediterranean. In South Africa it was first recorded in the Knysna Estuary in 1946 and was subsequently introduced in Saldanha Bay and St Helena Bay in 1980s and 90s, but were declared locally extinct in 2005 (Robinson et al. 2005). Established populations were, however, discovered in Alexander Bay oyster dams in 2007.

A single dead specimen of the crab X. incisus was found in Kleinzee on the littoral fringe of the existing cultivation dam. It is unknown whether this species has established in the dam. Haupt et al 2010 suggested the setting of crab traps to establish densities and help eliminate the species if necessary.

Table 16 Alien species recorded at Alexander Bay oyster farm in 2007 (Source: Haupt et al. 2010).

Class Order Species name Common name Crustacea Amphipoda Monocorophium acherusicum Amphipod Bryozoa Cheilostomatida Bugula neritina Bryozoan(moss animal) sp. Mytilida Mytilus galloprovincialis Mediterranean Mussel Mollusca Ostreida Ostrea edulis European flat oyster Echinodermata Arbacioida Tetrapygus niger Black sea urchin Botryllus schlosseri Sea squirt sp. Stolidobranchia Microcosmus squamiger Sea squirt sp Ascidiacea Phlebobranchia Ciona robusta* Vase tunicate Aplousobranchia Diplosoma listerianum Jelly crust tunicate *Cyona robusta was initially misidentified as C. intestinalis, which was recently found to represent two morphologically separate species. Of these species C. robusta is in fact the species that occurs in South Africa (Brunetti et al. 2015; Robinson et al. 2016)

At full production, DCA intends to culture 300 t of C giga per annum. Oysters will be grown in the existing integrated multi-trophic aquaculture system in tanks that also contain seaweed, sea urchins, sea cucumbers and flatfish. DCA will mostly produce oyster spat from their own stock, but when conditions are not suitable on the farm for spawning and settlement, spat may occasionally have to be imported from Chile (Chile is the only allowable country for import of oyster spat at present). Larger spat has more time to accumulate biofouling on their shells, which means that the smaller the size of the spat imported from Chile, the lower the risk of introducing alien species.

Oysters are cleaned before they are sold or transferred to processing facilities. This involves the removal of fouling organisms from the shells. The excess debris will not be returned to the sea without being treated by means of mechanical filtration and disinfection of the final effluent prior to release into the main effluent stream.

The risk of releasing alien species from the oyster dam and tanks, as well as the oyster shell cleaning facility have been assessed in Table 16. Mitigation measures to be implemented by DCA to minimise the risk of importing and releasing alien species have been provided.

48 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 17 Operation phase marine ecological impact 7D: Risk of escape of alien fouling species introduced by imported Crassostrea gigas spat from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture Facility. Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Medium Long-term Medium Probable MEDIUM – ve Medium mitigation 1 2 3 6 Essential mitigation measures: • Produce oysters from own stock as far as possible and minimise importing of spat. • If spat is imported, spat should be the smallest size category, which is less than 5 mm. • Spat must undergo a freshwater dip prior to transfer into quarantine tanks. • Spat must be quarantined prior to release into the grow out tanks • Spat must be accompanied by health and veterinary certificates and guarantees from the supplier country’s delegated authority. (this mitigation measure is primarily important for release of alien pathogens and parasites, not marine species) • Any excess debris produced during the cleaning of oyster shells will be mechanically filtered out of the effluent stream and disposed of at landfill. The final effluent will be disinfected with e-oxide to kill any remaining pathogens or biofilm. • Grow out tanks must be monitored regularly to ensure early detection of visible larger alien species such as Tetrapygus niger or Ostrea edulis (excluding authorised culture species). Any visible alien organism other than authorized culture species must be removed and disposed of regularly. Species identification should be confirmed by a qualified taxonomist or marine biologist. • If populations of visible, larger alien species such as Tetrapygus niger or Ostrea edulis (excluding authorised culture species), establish in the grow out tanks, annual surveys for alien species near the outfall pipeline in the sea should be undertaken for early detection of any alien species establishment in the marine environment outside of the aquaculture facility. With Local Low Long-term Low Possible VERY LOW – ve High mitigation 1 1 3 5

4.2.3 OP-ME Impact 8: Waste disposal during operation South Africa has laws against littering, both on land and in the coastal zone, but unfortunately these laws are seldom rigorously enforced. Objects which are particularly detrimental to marine fauna include plastic bags and bottles, pieces of rope and small plastic particles (Wehle and Coleman 1983). Large numbers of marine organisms are killed or injured daily by becoming entangled in debris (Wallace 1985) or as a result of the ingestion of small plastic particles (Shomura and Yoshida 1985). The problem of litter entering the marine environment has escalated dramatically in recent decades, with an ever-increasing proportion of litter consisting of non-biodegradable plastic materials. As a result, all domestic and general waste generated at the aquaculture facility must be disposed of responsibly. The amount of waste generated must be minimised by applying waste reduction strategies and by reusing waste rather than sending it to landfill.

During the operational phase, approximately 3 m³ of domestic solid waste will be generated per month. A strict recycling policy will be implemented at the facility, where waste will be sorted according to type (paper, glass, metal, plastic etc.). Solid waste and rubble will be collected regularly at designated collection sites on the project site by the De Beers owned Dreyer Pan Waste Management Facility. Biological waste (with the exception of hazardous waste) will be frozen until it is disposed of at the Tweepad Soft Scrap Waste Management Facility (Permit No 16/2/7/F300/C2/Z1/P438) as per agreement (maximum of 5000 t per annum). Sludge recovered from the aquaculture farm (solar dams, screens and grow-out tanks) will be disposed of at the same

49 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study facility. See Section 4.1.4 Table 6 for the assessment of the impacts of waste on the marine environment as well as for recommended mitigation measures.

50 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.2.4 OP-ME Impact 9: Maintenance activities A number of maintenance procedures will be performed on a regular basis and may result in impaired effluent quality. These include:

• Cleaning of solar dams; • Cleaning of grow-out tanks; • Removing fouling inside pipes; and • Emergency repairs may be required should pipes or dams leak or infrastructure fail.

Suspended solids in the intake water will settle in the solar dams and accumulate over time. The solar dams are regularly pumped dry (supply to abalone farm without recharge) and sludge is removed using trucks and disposed of at a land fill site. This activity has therefore been covered in the waste removal section (Section 4.1.4) and has been excluded from the impact assessment below.

Suspended solids in form of uneaten food and faeces accumulate on the bottom of grow-out tanks and algae grow on the tank walls. Grow-out tanks have to be cleaned to ensure that bio-security is maintained on the aquaculture farm. The impact rating and mitigation for tank cleaning has been covered in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2.

4.2.4.1 A) Impaired water and sediment quality due to mechanically removed, decomposing fouling organisms DCA intends to remove fouling mechanically and without antifouling chemicals. Larger biological material will not disperse effectively and will sink to the bottom near the outfall pipe. Decomposition has the potential to locally deteriorate water and sediment quality. Larger chunks will be eaten and strong currents and upwelling should disperse the remaining decomposed biological material effectively. The impact has been rated as very low and no mitigation measures are required (Table 18).

Table 18 Operation phase marine ecological impact 9a: Impaired water and sediment quality due to mechanically removed, decomposing fouling organisms.

Extent Intensity Duration Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence Without Local Low Short- Very low Possible VERY LOW - ve High mitigation 1 1 term 1 4 No mitigation required

51 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.2.4.2 B) Pipeline repair Repair operations are likely to be less frequent than maintenance operations but the impacts caused during repair may be more severe. This activity may result in:

• Loss of habitat (See Section 4.1.1 mitigation measures) • Increased turbidity (See Section 0 for mitigation measures) • Harmful chemicals (See Section 4.1.3 for mitigation measures) • Disposal of waste (See Section 4.1.4 for mitigation measures) • Noise and vibration (See Section 4.1.5 for mitigation measures)

As the potential impacts depend on the nature of repairs required, specific mitigation measures will be necessary for each activity. The relevant mitigation measures must be implemented if triggered during repair operations. See the relevant section for the assessment specific to each impact mentioned above (Table 3 - Table 7).

4.3 Decommissioning Phase It is anticipated that activities undertaken during the decommissioning phase will result in increased turbidity, impaired water quality, waste generation and emission of noise as outlined in the construction and operation phases. The same mitigation procedures as indicated in the relevant sections should be adhered to in order to mitigate for any of the impacts discussed above.

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

52 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

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

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

53 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

4.5 Summary of potential impacts

Table 19 Summary of potential impacts on marine ecology resulting from the construction of the proposed expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm in Kleinzee.

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence

54 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Table 20 Summary of potential impacts on marine ecology resulting from the operation of the proposed expansion of the Diamond Coast Aquaculture farm in Kleinzee.

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence OP-ME Impact 1: Seawater abstraction (impingement and entrainment of Low Improbable Very low -ve High biota). With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 2: Elevated suspended solids in the water column due to Medium Probable Medium -ve Low particulate matter (uneaten food and faeces) I the effluent stream. With Mitigation Local Low Very low -ve Low OP-ME Impact 3: Eutrophication caused by nutrients in effluent stream. Medium Probable Medium -ve Low With Mitigation Low Possible Very low -ve Low OP-ME Impact 4: Increased water temperature due to sun warming in Low Improbable Very low -ve High the aquaculture facilities With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 5: Disease and parasite transmission to wild stocks. (Import of stock and the high stocking densities typical of aquaculture can High Possible Medium -ve High lead to outbreaks of disease or parasitic infections which may be transmitted to susceptible wild species via the effluent stream). Operation With Mitigation Medium Improbable Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 6: Chemical pollution due to water treatment and use of High Possible Medium -ve High therapeutic chemicals in the aquaculture facilities. With Mitigation Medium Possible Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 7a: Escape and establishment of rainbow trout. Potential Very low Possible Insignificant -ve High impacts on native fish, other marine biota and ecosystem function. With Mitigation No mitigation required OP-ME Impact 7b: Escape and establishment of Pacific oyster. Potential Low Improbable Very low -ve Medium impacts on native fish, other marine biota and ecosystem function. With Mitigation No mitigation required

55 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Phase Impact identified Consequence Probability Significance Status Confidence OP-ME Impact 7e: Risk of escape of alien fouling species introduced by imported Crassostrea gigas spat from the Diamond Coast Aquaculture Medium Probable Medium -ve Medium Facility With Mitigation Low Possible Very low -ve High OP-ME Impact 8: Waste generation during Operation phase (domestic, Medium Probable Medium -ve High biological, production). With Mitigation Medium Possible Low -ve High OP-ME Impact 9: Deterioration of receiving water quality due to Very low Possible Very low -ve High mechanically removed, decomposing fouling organisms. With Mitigation No mitigation required

56 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

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

Only marine organisms will be farmed and therefore the final effluent is expected to have the same salinity as sea water but will be slightly warmer when compared to ambient conditions (incoming sea water is heated to the appropriate temperature in the solar dams). The effluent is therefore anticipated to be slightly more buoyant than the receiving waters, which assists the mixing and dilution of the effluent as it rises towards the water surface. Dilution increases with depth and deeper outfalls are therefore preferable; Construction and maintenance costs may, however, become prohibitive. As a result, it is important to aim towards recommending a realistic pipeline length.

Along exposed coastlines such as that off Kleinzee, the minimum requirement for an outfall of this nature is that it is positioned seaward of Chart Datum. The inshore current dynamics are highly dependent on the shape of the coastline, bathymetry, as well as prevailing swell and wind direction. A rocky reef runs parallel to the coast, 200-500 m offshore at the study site, which creates a sheltered inshore habitat where waves do not break even under larger swell conditions (Figure 1, and refer to pictures shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4). The predominant swell direction in the area is south-west (i.e. oblique to the shoreline) and it is anticipated that the incoming swell will push water northward, creating a long-shore current parallel to the beach. Effluent will therefore be carried northward, preventing eutrophication of the sheltered waters and ensuring biosecurity of the DCA farm (i.e. effluent will be carried away from the seawater intake point that lies 900 m south of the effluent outfall point) (Figure 7). Furthermore, the predominant wind direction is south-east and strong upwelling carries surface waters offshore, which also facilitates dispersion of the effluent.

During the winter months, however, the wind occasionally turns north-west, which could temporarily result in a southward long-shore current. This could potentially carry poorly mixed effluent towards the sea water intake point of the farm, posing a biosecurity risk (900 m south of the outfall point). The probability of this actually occurring is considered to be very low, however.

57 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Overall, effluent quality is not expected to be problematic for the receiving environment or biosecurity. In the absence of effluent quality data, however, inshore current data, and effluent dispersion modelling data, ongoing monitoring and adaptive environmental management will be required. The revised Coastal Waters Discharge Permit must ensure that DCA is able to meet the receiving water quality guidelines at the edge of an acceptable mixing zone. Monthly compliance monitoring of the effluent should be performed to minimise environmental impacts. If discharged effluent exceeds the specified end of pipe values at any time, the operation will be in violation of the CWDP and the cause of poor effluent quality must be identified, reported and rectified immediately. It is recommended that the following parameters are monitored in the effluent and the receiving environment:

Physico-chemical parameters can be measured by means of a handheld water quality meter fitted with temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen probes, calibrated in accordance with the manufacturers specifications, while water samples for ammonia, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, chemical oxygen demand and TSS will need to be sent to a SANAS accredited laboratory for analysis. A monitoring program at the edge of the mixing zone should be implemented prior to construction, although this recommendation is subject to CWDP conditions. It is recommended that monitoring of ambient water quality continues for at least a year into aquaculture operations to determine whether ambient water quality is affected by the effluent discharge and to ensure that WQGs are being met at the edge of the mixing zone (note that the CWDP should consider the revised TSS guidelines as detailed in Section 4.2.2.1).

Not only would this practice validate the efficacy of the discharge design, but would also be beneficial to the user as water quality of the ambient would be confirmed for biosecurity purposes. This type of in situ monitoring is slightly more complex and requires significant monetary input, as samples would have to be collected by boat.

It is possible that disease risks can be managed to an acceptable level through stringent implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Development of biosecurity, disease, and animal health management plans are obligatory and compliance must be ensured through an appropriate monitoring programme.

58 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

6 REFERENCES Ahlgren MO.1998. Consumption and assimilation of salmon net pen fouling debris by the red sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus: implications for polyculture. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 29: 133–139. Barros F, Underwood AJ, Lindegarth M. 2001. The influence of rocky reefs on the structure of benthic macrofauna in nearby soft-sediments. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 52, 191 – 199. Barsanti L & Gualtieri P. 2006. Algae: anatomy, biochemistry, and biotechnology. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Bennet BA. 1989. The fish community of a moderately exposed beach on the southwestern Cape coast of South Africa and an assessment of this habitat as a nursery for juvenile fish. Esuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 28(3): 293-305. Bolton, JJ & Anderson RJ. 1997. Marine vegetation. In Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cowling RM, Richardson DM & Pierce SM (Es.) Oxford: Cambridge University Press. pp. 348-370. Bolton JJ, Leliaert F, De Clerck O, Anderson RJ, Stegenga H, Angledow HE & Coppejans E. 2004. Where is the western limit of the tropical Indian Ocean seaweed flora? An analysis of intertidal seaweed biogeography on the east coast of South Africa. Marine Biology 144: 51- 59. Branch GM. 1981. The Living Shores of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Cape Town. Branch GM & Griffiths CL. 1988. The Benguela ecosystem Part V. The coastal zone. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 26: 396–486. Branch GM, Griffiths CL, Branch ML & Beckley LE. 1994. Two Oceans: A Guide to the Marine Life of Southern Africa. David Philip, Cape Town & Johannesburg. Brown AC & Jarman N 1978. Coastal Marine Habitats. In: Biogeography and Ecology of southern Africa. Werger MJA and Van Bruggen AC (Eds.) The Hague: W. Junk. pp. 1239-1277. Brown AC & McLachlan A. 1990. Ecology of sandy shores, pp. 1-328 Amsterdam, Elsevier. Brunetti R, Gissi C, Pennati R, Caicci F, Gasparini F & L Manni. 2015. Morphological evidence that the molecularly determined Ciona intestinalis type A and type B are different species: Ciona robusta and Ciona intestinalis. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 53: 186–193. Bustamante RH & Branch GM 1996. Large scale patterns and trophic structure of southern African rocky shores: the role of geographic variation and wave exposure. Journal of Biogeography 23: 339-351. Cambray, J.A., 2003. The global impact of alien trout species—a review; with reference to their impact in South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 28(1), pp.61–67. Cambray, J.A. & Pister, E.P., 2002. The role of scientists in creating public awareness for the conservation of fish species: African and American case studies. In M. J. Collares-Pereira, I. G. Cowx, & M. M. Coelho, eds. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Options for the Future. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, pp. 414–423.

59 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2007. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Nutrients. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 1999. Winnipeg: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Christison KW and Vaughan DB. 2009. The velvet assassins – Amyloodinium ocellatum potential disease risk for captive marine fishes in South Africa. Journal of South African Vetenary Association 80(2): 126-140. Clark BM, Bennett BA & Lamberth SJ. 1996. Factors affecting spatial variability in seine net catches of fish in the surf-zone of False Bay, South Africa. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 131: 17-34. Clark BM, Massie V, Hutchings K, Brown E, Biccard A, Laird M, Harmer R, Makhosonke A, Wright A & Turpie J. 2017. The State of Saldanha Bay and Langebaan Lagoon 2017, Technical Report. Report No. AEC 1741/1 prepared by Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd for the Saldanha Bay Water Quality Forum Trust, October 2017. Clark, B.M. & Ratcliffe, G., 2007. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme: Final Report–Volume 5: Synthesis. Publication No P WMA 19/G10/00/2107, Pretoria. Conley, D.J., C.L. Schelske EFS. 1993. Modification of the biogeochemical cycle of silica with eutrophication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1993;1001:179-192. Correa C & Gross MR. 2007. Chinook salmon invade southern South America. Biological Invasions 10(5): 615-639. Costello, Grant, Davies, Cecchini, Papoutsoglou, Quigley and Saroglia. 2001: The control of chemicals used in aquaculture in Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 17: 173-180. CSIR (2016) Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Programme for the Port of Cape Town: Surveys made in 2015/2016. CSIR Report CSIR/NRE/ECOS/IR /2016 D’Antonio CM. 1986. Role of sand in the domination of hard substrata by the intertidal alga Rhodomela larix. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 27, 263 – 275. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) 2016. DAFF Annual Report 2015 – 2016. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). 2004. Overview of Integrated Environmental Management, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria. Department of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF). 1995. South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters. Volume 1 - Natural Environment. Pretoria. De Waal S. 2002. Factors influencing the ranching of the abalone species Haliotis midae along the Namaqualand coast of South Africa. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Dugan JE, Hubbard DM, McCrary MD & Pierson MO. 2003. The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58S, 133-148. Engledow HR & Bolton JJ. 1992. Environmental tolerances in culture and agar content of Gracilaria verrucosa (Hudson) Papenfus (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales) from Saldanha Bay. S. Afr. J. Bot. 58(4), 263-267.

60 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Field JG & Griffiths CL. 1991. Littoral and sublittoral ecosystems of southern Africa. In: A.C. Mathieson and P.H. Nienhuis (eds). Ecosystems of the World 24. Intertidal and Littoral Ecosystems, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. Ford JS and Myers RA. 2008. A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biology 6(2). FieldWork 2016. Situation Assessment Report Towards Development of an Estuary Management Plan for the Buffels Estuary. Report prepared by Pete Fielding for the Nama Khoi Local Municipality. Draft Report October 2016. FieldWork 2017. Draft Management Plan for the Buffels Estuary. Report prepared by Pete Fielding for the Nama Khoi Local Municipality. Draft Report March 2017. Grant WS & MI Cherry. 1985. Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk in southern Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 90(2): 179-162. Grant WS, Cherry MI & AT Lombard. 1984. A cryptic species of Mytilus (Mollusca: Bivalvia) on the west coast of South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 2: 149-162. Griffiths MH. 2000. Long-term trends in catch and effort for the Cape commercial linefishery: snapshots of the 20th Century. South African Journal of Marine Science 22: 81-110. Grobler NJ, Van As JG, Olivier PAS. 2002. Description of the previously unknown male of Caligus mortis Kensley, 1970 (Copepoda: Caligidae), parasite of intertidal fish from South Africa. Folia Parasitologica 49: 131-136. Hallegraeff GM. 1993. A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia. 32(2):79-99. Hannah L, Pearce CM & Cross SF. 2013. Growth and survival of California sea cucumbers (Parastichopus californicus) cultivated with sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) at an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture site. Aquaculture 406–407: 34–42. Harrison AC. 1953. Trout pioneering in the Eastern Province. No 8: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout. Piscator 25: 12-15. Harrison AC. 1966. Atlantic salmon importation, South African and Australasian. Piscator 65: 129-133 Harrison, A.C., 1978. Sea-run rainbow trout of the eerste river. Piscator, (103), pp.68–76. Haupt TM, Griffiths CL, Robinson TB & AFG Tonin. 2010. Oysters as vectors of marine aliens, with notes on four introduced species associated with oyster farming in South Africa. African Zoology 45(1): 52-62. Heuch PA, Bjorn PA, Finstad B, Holst JC, Asplin L and Nilsen F. 2005. A review of the Norwegian ‘National plan of Action against salmon lice on salmonids’: the effect on wild salmonids. Aquaculture 246: 79-92. Hey D. 1948. Can Salmon be established in the Cape Province? Piscator 6: 42-45. Heydorn AEF & Grindley JR. 1981. Buffels (CW3) in Estuaries of the Cape Part II: Synopses of Available Information on Individual Systems. Report No 2. Council for Scientific Research Institute and Industrial Research, Estuarine and Coastal Research Unit – ECRU. National Research Institute for Oceanology. 15 October 1980.

61 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Hutchings K & Clark BM. 2008. Environmental assessment of the Port Nolloth sea farm abalone (Haliotis midae) ranching operation. Anchor Environmental Consultants 24p. Jackson LF & Libschitz S. 1984. Coastal Sensitivity Atlas of Southern Africa. Compiled for the Department of Transport, Republic of South Africa. Foundation for Research Development, C.S.I.R. Jaramillo E, McLachlan A, Dugan J. 1995. Total sample area and estimates of species richness in exposed sandy beaches, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 119: 311–314. Ji T, Dong Y & Dong S. 2008. Growth and physiological responses in the sea cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus Selenka: aestivation and temperature. Aquaculture 283: 180–187. Joubert JR. 2008 An investigation of the wave energy resource on the South African coast, focusing on the spatial distribution of the south west coast. MSc thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Stellenbosch. Joubert CJH, Christison KW and Kaiser H. 2009. An egg-laying rhythm in Diplectanum oliveri (Monogenea:Diplectanidae), a gill parasite of dusky kob (Argyrosomus japonicus). Journal of South African Veterinary Association 80(2): 126-140. Kerry J, Hiney M, Coyne R, NicGabhainn S, Gilroy D, Cazabon D and Smith P. 1995. Fish feed as a source of oxytetracycline-resistant bacteria in the sediments under fish farms. Aquaculture 131: 101-113. Krkošek M, Ford JS, Morton A, Lele S, Myers RA, and Lewis MA. 2007. Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farmed salmon. Science 318(5857): 1772. Laird MC, Hutchings K and Clark BM. 2016. Nearfield Effluent Plume Modelling and Marine Impact Assessment for Land-based Farming of Atlantic Salmon at Dwarskersbos, West Coast, South Africa. Report prepared for Siroccon International (Pty) Ltd on behalf of Anganna Investments (Pty) Ltd by Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd. Pp 50. Laird MC, Wright A and Clark BM. 2017. Marine Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Extension of Tormin Mine, West Coast, South Africa. Report prepared for SRK Consulting South Africa (Pty) Ltd by Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd. Pp 112. Leenanton RCJ, Robertson AI, Hansen JA. 1982. Nearshore accummulations of detached macrophytes as nursery areas for fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 9: 51-57. Littler MM, Martz DR, Littler DS. 1983. Effects of recurrent sand deposition on rocky intertidal organisms: importance of substrate hererogeneity in a fluctuating environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 11: 129-139. Lobban CS & Harrison PJ. 1997. Seaweed ecology and physiology. Cambridge University Press, New York. Lombard AT, Strauss T, Harris J, Sink K, Attwood C & Hutchings L. 2004. South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine Component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

62 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Lutjeharms JRE & Meeuwis JM. 1987 - The extent and variability of South-East Atlantic upwelling. In The Benguela and Comparahle Ecosystems. Payne AIL, Gulland JA and KH Brink (Eds). South African Journal of Marine Science, 5: 51-62. MacDonald CLE, Stead SM, & Slater MJ. 2013. Consumption and remediation of European Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) waste by the sea cucumber Holothuria forskali. Aquaculture International 21: 1279–1290. Marine Finfish Farmer’s Association of South Africa (MFFASA). 2010. Marine Fish Farming Environmental Impact Information. McLachlan A, Jaramillo E, Donn TE & Wessels D. 1993. Sandy beach macrofauna communities and their control by the physical environment: a geographical comparison. J. coastal Res. Spec. Issue 15, 27-38. McQuaid CD & Dower KM. 1990. Enhancement of habitat heterogeneity and species richness on rocky shores inundated by sand. Oecologia, 84: 142-144. Mead S, Boserrelle C, Black K and Anderson D. 2008. Mossel Bay Currents and Fish Farm Dispersal Study. Prepared by ASR Ltd for CCA Environmental. Pp 49. Mead A, Carlton JT, Griffiths CL & M Rius. 2011. Revealing the scale of marine bioinvasions in developing regions: a South African re-assessment. Biological Invasions 13: 1991-2008. Meyer, W and BM Clark 1999. - Description of the environment of the South African west coast marine diamond mining concession ‘a’. Anchor Environmental Consultants report compiled for Sue Lane & Associates and Robin Carter for use in the compilation of Environmental Management Programmes, to be instituted by individual concession holders. Michio K, Kengoa K, Yasunoria K et al. 2003. Effects of deposit feeder Stichopus japonicus on algal bloom and organic matter contents of bottom sediments of the enclosed sea. Mar Pollut Bull 47:118–125. Moore A and Waring C. 2001. The effects of a synthetic pyrethroid on some aspects of reproduction in Atlantic salmon. Aquatic Toxicology 52: 1-12. Narum, S.R. et al., 2008. Influence of landscape on resident and anadromous life history types of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65(6), pp.1013– 1023. Nel R, Pulfrich A & Penney AJ. 2003. Impacts of Beach Mining Operations on Sandy Beach Macrofaunal Communities on the Beaches of Geelwal Karoo. Pisces Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd. Report to Trans Hex Operations (Pty) Ltd. October 2003, 54pp. Newell RC, Seiderer LJ & Hitchcock DR. 1998. The impact of dredging work in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev., 36: 127–178. Nixon SW & Fulweiler RW. 2009. Nutrient Pollution, Eutrophication, and the Degradation of Coastal Marine Ecosystems. In: Global Loss of Coastal Habitats – Rates, Causes and Consequences. Duarte CM (ed). Fundacion BBVA.

63 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Officer CB & Ryther JH. 1980. The possible importance of silicon in marine eutrophication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1980;3:83-91. Pankratz T. 2004. An overview of seawater intake facilities for seawater desalination. The future of desalination in Texas, 2. Parker D, Kerwath SE, Næsje TF, Arendse CJ, Keulder-Stenevik FJ, Hutchings K, Clark BM, Winker H, Cowley PD & Attwood CG. 2017. When plenty is not enough: an assessment of the white stumpnose (Rhabdosargus globiceps) fishery of Saldanha Bay, South Africa. 39(2): 153-166. Picker, M.D. & Griffiths, C.L., 2011. Alien and Invasive Animals – A South African Perspective, Cape Town: Randomhouse/Struik. Pitcher GC & Calder D. 2000. Harmful algal blooms of the southern Benguela Current: a review and appraisal of monitoring from 1989 to 1997. South African Journal of Marine Science, 22 (1): 255-271. Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch WJW and, Gupta. BK. 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries, 19: 386-407. Robinson TB, Griffiths C, McQuaid C & M Rius. 2005. Marine alien species of South Africa - status and impacts. African Journal of Marine Science 27: 297-306. Robinson TB, Alexander ME, Simon CA, Griffiths CL, Peters K, Sibanda S, Miza S, Groenewald B, Majiedt P & KJ Sink. 2016. Lost in translation? Standardising the terminology used in marine invasion biology and updating South African alien species lists. African Journal of Marine Science 38(1): 129-140. Rodriguez, S.R. & Ojeda, F.P. 1993. Distribution patterns of Tetrapygus niger (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) off the central Chilean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series 101: 157–162. Schneider K, Silverman J, Woolsey E et al. 2011. Potential influence of sea cucumbers on coral reef CaCO(3) budget: a case study at One Tree Reef. J Geophys Res 116:1–6. Shannon LV. 1989. The physical environment. In Oceans of Life off Southern Africa (A.I.L. Payne and R.J.M. Crawford, eds) pp. 12–27. Cape Town: Vlaeberg Publishers. Shomura RS & Yoshida HO. 1985. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii, US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54. Sink KJ. 2001. A Hierarchical Analysis of Abiotic Determinants and Harvesting Impacts in the Rocky Intertidal Communities of Kwazulu-Natal. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Cape Town. Sink K, Holness S, Harris L, Majiedt P, Atkinson L, Robinson T, Kirkman S, Hutchings L, Leslie R, Lamberth S, Kerwath S, von der Heyden S, Lombard A, Attwood C, Branch G, Fairweather T, Taljaard S, Weerts S, Cowley P, Awad A, Halpern B, Grantham H & Wolf T. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 4: Marine and Coastal Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria: 32pp. Skelton, P.H., 2001. A Complete Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Southern Africa, Cape Town: Struik Publishers.

64 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Skriptsova AV & Miroshnikova NV. 2011. Laboratory experiment to determine the potential of two macroalgae from the Russian Far-East as biofilters for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Bioresour Technol 102:3149–3154. Soares AG. 2003. Sandy beach morphodynamics and macrobenthic communities in temperate, subtropical and tropical regions—a macroecological approach. Port Elizabeth, South Africa: University of Port Elizabeth, Doctoral thesis. 152. p. Soto D, Jara F and Moreno C. 2001. Escaped salmon in the inner seas, southern Chile: facing ecological and social conflicts. Ecological Applications 11(6): 1750–1762. Staniford D. 2002. Sea cage fish farming: an evaluation of environmental and public health aspects (the five fundamental flaws of sea cage fish farming). Unpublished paper presented to the European parliament’s Committee on Fisheries Public hearing on ‘Aquaculture in the European Union: present situation. Stegenga H. & Bolton JJ. 1992. Ceramiaceae (Rhodophyta) of the Cape Province, South Africa: Distribution in relation to concepts of marine provinces. Botanica Marina 35: 99-107. Stephenson TA & Stephenson A. 1972. Life Between Tidemarks on Rocky Shores. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Strain PM & Hargrave BT. 2005. Salmon aquaculture, nutrient fluxes and ecosystem processes in southwestern New Brunswick. In: Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; Chapter 2 in Vol. 5: Water Pollution. Sweijd N, Snethlage Q, Harvey D & Cook P. 1998. Experimental abalone (Haliotis midae) seeding in South Africa. J. Shellfish. Res. 17(3): 897-904. Toms G. 2010. Port Nolloth desalination plant brine outfall dispersion estimates. University of Stellenbosch Institute of Water and Environmental Engineering (IWEE) report for BVi Consulting Engineers (Springbok). Turpie JK, Beckley LE & Katua SM. 2000. Biogeography and the selection of priority areas for the conservation of South African coastal fishes. Biological Conservation 92: 59-72. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters. EPA-822-B-01-003 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vandeputte, M. et al., 2008. A Review on Breeding and Reproduction of European aquaculture species Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), p.16, Aarhus. Wallace N. 1985. Debris entanglement in the marine environment: a review. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. Wehle DHS & Coleman FC. 1983. Plastics at sea. Nat. Hist. 2: 20–25. Wolkenhauer S-M, Uthicke S, Burridge C et al. 2010. The ecological role of Holothuria scabra (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) within subtropical seagrass beds. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 90:215–223.

65 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study

Xavier BM, Branch GM & Wieters E. 2007. Abundance, growth and recruitment of Mytilus galloprovincialis on the west coast of South Africa in relation to upwelling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346: 189-201. Yu Z, Hu C, Zhou Y, Li H, & Peng P. 2012. Survival and growth of the sea cucumber Holothuria leucospilota Brandt: a comparison between suspended and bottom cultures in a subtropical fish farm during summer. Aquaculture Research 44: 114–124. Yu Z, Zhou Y, Yang H, Ma Y, & Hu C. 2014. Survival, growth, food availability and assimilation efficiency of the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus bottom-cultured under a fish farm in southern China. Aquaculture 426–427: 238–248. Zamora LN, Yuan X, Carton AG and Slater MJ. 2016. Role of deposit-feeding sea cucumbers in integrated multitrophic aquaculture: progress, problems, potential and future challenges. Reviews in Aquaculture 0:1-18. Zardi GI, Nicastro KR, McQuaid CD, Rius M, Porri F. 2006. Hydrodynamic stress and habitat partitioning between indigenous (Perna perna) and invasive (Mytilus galloprovincialis) mussels: constraints of an evolutionary strategy. Marine Biology, 150(1): 79-88. Zheng ZM, Dong SL, Tian XL et al. 2009. Sediment-water fluxes of nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in extensive sea cucumber culture ponds. Clean Soil Air Water 37:218–224. Zhou Y, Yang H, Liu S et al. 2006. Feeding and growth on bivalve biodeposits by the sea cucumber Stichopus japonicus Selenka (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) co-cultured in lantern nets. Aquaculture 256:510–520.

66 Draft BAR for Diamond Coast Aquaculture 2018 Annexure D: Marine Specialist Study