Ecological Specialist Report
PROJECT TITLE:
Ecological Specialist Report for the Proposed Construction of a Slipway along the Mthatha River, Eastern Cape PROJECT LOCATION:
South of Mthatha, Mthatha River, Nyandeni Local Municipality, Eastern Cape PROJECT ASSESSMENT TYPE:
Ecological Specialist Report
Prepared by: Prepared for: Submission date: Ms D.C. Vromans Mr B. Cobbing/ Ms S. van der Waal 3 May 2013 PO Box 133 Conservation Support Services Bathurst, 6166 PO Box 504, Grahamstown, 6140 Tel: 046 6250300/ 082 714 6904 61 New Street, Grahamstown, 6139 Email: [email protected] Tel: 46 6224526 Email: [email protected]
Ecological Specialist Report
SPECIALIST STATEMENT DETAIL
This statement has been prepared with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), any subsequent amendments and any relevant other National and / or Provincial Policies related to ecological or biodiversity assessments in mind, such as the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) and National Water Act (36 of 1998).
Report Prepared By: Ms Deborah Vromans
Expertise / Field of Study: MSc Botany (Estuaries), BA Environmental & Geographical Science, ND Horticulture, Botanical assessments (terrestrial, wetland and estuarine), Environmental Impact Assessments, Biodiversity and Planning Professional.
I, Ms Deborah Vromans, declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs
Signed: Date: 19 April 2013
Report Reviewed By: Michelle Griffith
Expertise / Field of Study: Registered EAP
I, ______declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs.
Signed: Date: May 2013
Acknowledgements:
Thanks are extended to Tony Dold from the Selmar Schonland Herbarium (GRA), Albany Museum/Rhodes University (Grahamstown), for assisting with botanical identification.
Ecological Specialist Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 5
1. INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 9 2. MOTIVATION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND STUDY SITE ...... 9 3. STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 12 4. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION ...... 13 4.1. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS (RIVERS, WETLANDS AND ESTUARIES) ...... 14 4.1.1. RIVERS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH ...... 14 4.1.2. WETLANDS ...... 17 4.2. TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSTIY FEATURES...... 26 4.2.1. VEGETATION (HABITAT TYPE) ...... 26 4.2.2. FAUNA ...... 30 4.2.3. BIRDS ...... 31 4.2.4. REPTIILES ...... 32 4.2.5. AMPHIBIANS ...... 32 4.2.6. INSECTS ...... 32 5. LAND COVER, LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE IMPACTS ...... 33 6. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ...... 34 7. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS PRODUCED FOR THE REGION ...... 35 7.1. THE MAPUTOLAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY (MPAH) HOTSPOT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN, 2010 ...... 35 7.2. THE EASTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN’S (ECBCP) CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBA) MAP, 2007 ...... 36 8. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 39 8.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) ...... 39 8.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 ...... 39 8.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 ...... 39 8.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009 ...... 40 8.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 ...... 40 8.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) ...... 40 8.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPA) 57 OF 2003 ..... 40 8.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 ...... 41 8.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 ...... 41 8.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) ...... 41 8.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 ...... 41
3 Ecological Specialist Report
8.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 ...... 41 9. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 42 9.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 42 9.2. POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ...... 45 9.2.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF VEGETATION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 45 9.2.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 47 9.2.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF HABITAT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 48 9.2.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 50 9.2.5. IMPACT 5: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 52 9.2.6. IMPACT 6: MODIFICATION OF FLOW DYNAMICS AND FLOW PATTERNS (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)...... 54 9.2.7. IMPACT 7: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITION (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)...... 55 9.2.8. IMPACT 8: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ...... 57 9.2.9. IMPACT 9: DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ... 59 9.3. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 62 10. REFERENCES ...... 68
4 Ecological Specialist Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation Support Services (CSS) was appointed by the Gamtoos Irrigation Board to undertake a Basic Assessment in terms of Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). The Basic Assessment is for the construction of a new proposed boat launching site or slipway, positioned on the Mthatha River, just south-east of Mthatha in the Eastern Cape (Nyandeni Local Municipality, OR Tambo District Municipality). An ecological assessment for the proposed slipway is the subject of this report and will provide input into the Basic Assessment Report.
Numerous artificial pools have developed due to past cultivation in the study site, as a result of furrows and platforms in the landscape, as well as drainage channels caused by run-off erosion. One natural wetland was delineated, which drains into the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers, just east of the proposed slipway. The wetland is classified as a floodplain flat, positioned in the South Eastern Coastal Belt and within a valley floor. Adelaide mudstone and sandstones represent the underlying geology. Substratum is sandy with high humic content. The wetland is impacted by sand excavation and livestock grazing, and is dominated by the naturalized alien rush species, Juncus effusus. Alkalinity/acidity (pH) and salinity were not measured in the field, but pH is highly likely to be alkaline, whereas the salinity is highly likely to be fresh. The Present Ecological State of the wetland is B, meaning that it is Largely Natural with few modifications; and is of Moderate Ecological Importance and Sensitivity.
The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Map (Nel et al., 2011) indicates that the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers contain a channelled valley-bottom wetland, but due to the establishment of a large weir downstream of the proposed slipway, the area is classified as an artificial dam, that is Largely Modified (Present Ecological State). The rivers and associated catchments are not indicated as Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) i.e. important or priority systems. The Mthatha State of Rivers Report (DWAF, 2008), indicates that the Mthatha River section from Mthatha Falls to Kwa-Ntsaka, the section in which the proposed slipway is located, has an EcoStatus (River Health Category) of Poor (or Largely Modified) to Seriously Modified; and is of Low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The equivalent Ecological Reserve Category is D/E. Water quality is poor, sand mining takes place and alien fish inhabit this section. Riparian vegetation has been removed due to sand mining, overgrazing and firewood harvesting, which has also resulted in bank erosion.
The vegetation type of the study site is Eastern Valley Bushveld and Bisho Thornveld. The latter grows on the steep hills to the east of the proposed boat launching site. Both are Least Threatened habitats in terms of the National Biodiversity Thresholds (Ecosystem Status), and not well protected. Although the Maputaland- Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010) indicates that two plant species, Bowiea volubilis volubilis (Vulnerable) and Nerine masoniorum (Critically Endangered), may be found within the grassland areas; and several endemic species grow within the Eastern Valley Bushveld. No plant Species of Special Concern were encountered in the field, and more importantly at the proposed slipway. Numerous faunal and bird Species of Special Concern may potentially utilize the study site, while the Vulnerable Afrixalus spinifrons (Natal Banana Frog), may also utilize the area according to the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010). Two important butterfly species are most likely inhabitants of the wetland and riverine environment, namely the Green-marbled Sandman (Gomalia elma elm) and the Olive-haired Swift (Borbo borbonica borbonica), both widespread but uncommon, but not red listed.
Two systematic conservation plans have been generated for the region in which the study site is situated, namely the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (CEPF, 2010) and the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Berliner and Desmet, 2007) (apart from the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Map). The proposed slipway is not situated in one of the key biodiversity areas or corridors, as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study, although it is
5 Ecological Specialist Report approximately 5 km from a mapped point for Threatened species, meaning there is a potential for certain Threatened species to occur in and around the study site. The study site does fall within a Critical Biodiversity Area (Ecological Corridor), with degraded areas, in terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. The recommended permissible land uses are Conservation, Game Farming and Communal Livestock. Although the land use recommendations do not include slipways, the proposed land use activity will not result in any major degradation or transformation of the study site, and that the land and aquatic environment will be maintained in its current condition despite the presence of a slipway and the use of one 4X4 vehicle and motorized vessel (boat). It should be noted that the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s Critical Biodiversity Areas Map is a broad-scale map, and as a result a site assessment is required to determine the validity of the map data.
The site assessment confirmed that the majority of the study site is degraded due to past cultivation, an access track, a power line, sand excavation, erosion and livestock grazing. Although riparian areas were largely transformed due to past cultivation (predominantly), sand excavation and alien encroachment, these areas are still sensitive ecological areas.
Legislative requirements triggered by the proposed development, besides the Basic Assessment in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), include: (1) A water use license application for the proposed development within the Mthatha River and proximate to the wetland (in terms of Section 21(c) and (i) of the National Water Act (36 of 1998), (2) A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the general measures of the National Environmental Management: Waste Management Act (59 of 2008) Act, as part of the Basic Assessment Report, and (3) Waste generated during construction must be disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site, which is likely to be licensed in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act (73 of 1989). The developer will be responsible for clearing alien invasive plants within the development footprint and immediate surrounds, although the State is responsible for alien clearing and management on state owned land (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 10 of 2004). Alien plant clearing was observed in the field.
Nine potential construction and operational impacts were identified and assessed, namely:
Impact 1 - Loss of vegetation - biodiversity loss Impact 2 - Spread of alien invasive plant species - biodiversity loss Impact 3 - Loss of habitat - biodiversity loss Impact 4 -Loss of fauna - biodiversity loss Impact 5 - Loss of invertebrates - biodiversity loss Impact 6 - Modification of flow dynamics and flow patterns - hydrological processes Impact 7 - Topsoil loss, soil erosion and sediment deposition - hydrological processes Impact 8 - Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution - biodiversity loss & hydrological processes Impact 9 - Disturbance of important ecological process areas - biodiversity loss
All potential construction and operational phase impacts can be mitigated or reduced in terms of their significance rankings or scores (Refer Table below). Mitigation measures are largely through minimizing the extent of the construction footprint, rehabilitation, alien plant control and effluent management.
Impact 4 (loss of fauna) and the construction phase of Impact 9 (disturbance of important ecological process areas) remained in the Very Low category pre- and post-mitigation, although their significance scores were reduced slightly (-42 to -35). Impact 1 (loss of vegetation), Impact 3 (loss of habitat), Impact 6 (modification of flow dynamics and flow patterns), Impact 7 (topsoil loss, soil erosion and sediment deposition), and the operational phase of Impact 9 (disturbance of important ecological process areas), all remained in the Low category pre- and post-mitigation, although their significance scores were reduced slightly. Impact 2 (spread of
6 Ecological Specialist Report alien invasive plant species) had the highest impact rating pre-mitigation, at Medium-Low, but was lowered to Very Low, post mitigation by implementing an alien management plan. Impact 5 (loss of invertebrates) and Impact 8 (effluent pollution and solid waste pollution processes) were lowered from Low pre-mitigation to Very Low post mitigation. In summary, five impacts were rated as Very Low and five were rated as Low, post mitigation.
Table: Summary of Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation: Impact Pre- Mitigation: Pre-mitigation: Post Mitigation Construction Operation Construction Operation Impact 1 (loss of vegetation - Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: biodiversity loss) Low (-42) Low (-35) Impact 2 (spread of alien invasive Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: plant species - biodiversity loss) Medium – Low (-54) Very Low (-10) Impact 3 (loss of habitat - biodiversity Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: loss) Low (-40) Low (-35) Impact 4 (loss of fauna - biodiversity Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: loss) Very Low (-21) Very Low (-14) Impact 5 (loss of invertebrates - Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: biodiversity loss) and Low (-48) Very Low (-28) Impact 6 (modification of flow Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: dynamics and flow patterns - Low (-48) Low (-35) hydrological processes), Impact 7 (topsoil loss, soil erosion and Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: sediment deposition - hydrological Low (-42) Low (-42) processes) Impact 8 (effluent pollution and solid Low (-36) Low (-35) Construction/Operation: waste pollution - biodiversity loss & Very Low (-9) hydrological processes) Impact 9 (disturbance of important Very Low Low Very Low Low ecological process areas - biodiversity (-15) (-35) (-12) (-28) loss)
In conclusion, five impacts were rated as Very Low and five were rated as Low, post mitigation. The proposed slipway and associated access track therefore places minimal impact on the ecology of the study site and surrounds if appropriate management measures are implemented, particularly during the construction phase.
The following mitigation measures are recommended:
1. Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. 2. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - indigenous grasses and sedges at the slipway to offset the removal of plants during construction. (Note: No vegetation will be removed for the establishment of the access track). 3. Allow the access road to establish with vehicular usage i.e. no asphalt or gravel. 4. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), that provides specifications with regards to: Plant removal within the construction footprint only (as per point one). Rehabilitation, if excessive removal of riparian plants takes place at the proposed slipway (as per point two) i.e. excessively outside of the development area. Alien clearing and management within the development footprint / construction area. Waste management (i) to prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel, cement, (ii) to identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or burning policy and the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site, (iii) to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur
7 Ecological Specialist Report
proximate to the wetland; and (iv) to designate an area for the construction camp (which includes ablution facilities, storage of hazardous wastes, maintenance stations etc.) at least 100 m away from the rivers and delineated wetland. Other generic mitigation measures associated with construction, where necessary. 5. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to oversee the implementation of the EMP and the Record of Decision (Environmental Authorisation). 6. Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act (36 of 1998) therefore a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb the Mthatha River and to develop within 500m of the delineated wetland.
8 Ecological Specialist Report
1. INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED PROJECT
Conservation Support Services (CSS) was appointed by the Gamtoos Irrigation Board to undertake a Basic Assessment in terms of the regulations promulgated under Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). The Basic Assessment is for the construction of a new proposed boat launching site or slipway, positioned on the Mthatha River. An ecological assessment for the proposed boat launching site is the subject of this report and will provide input into the Basic Assessment Report.
The following Scope of Work and required deliverables were provided by Conservation Support Services (CSS):
1) Submit an Ecological Specialist Report including all the information as stipulated in the Terms of Reference (Appendix A of the Contract). 2) Conduct a site visit for the purposes of the Report. 3) Prepare necessary maps (Appendix A of the Contract) and/or assess relevant GIS data for the purposes of the Report.
Deliverables:
The Ecological Specialist Report in MSWord format. An electronic copy of all GIS data (vector data) used for map production. Electronic copies of all maps produced.
2. MOTIVATION AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND STUDY SITE
The motivation for the proposed boat launching site (slipway) is to make use of a motor vessel (2.2m wide X 7 m long) in order to efficiently manage and control the spread of the alien invasive aquatic weed, Water Hyacinth or Eichhornia crassipes, in the Mthatha River and its associated tributaries. The slipway will be used for approximately 5 years, and the control of the weed will be through the use of Kilo Max (glyphosate).
The location of the proposed slipway and access track is along the Mthatha River, just south east of the town of Mthatha in the Eastern Cape (Nyandeni Local Municipality, OR Tambo District Municipality) (GPS: 31° 40’ 43.21’S 28° 52’ 37.23’’E).
The study site refers to that area of land that is encompassed within a 500 m radius from the proposed slipway. The motivation for this is consistent with the General Authorisations of the National Water Act (36 of 1998), which requires that any new development within a 500 m radius of a wetland must process a water use license application with the Department of Water Affairs (in terms of Section 21 (c) and (i) of the Act).
Consequently, the study site also falls within the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality, where it overlaps the land to the south of the Mthatha River. The Mthatha River catchment is located in the T20 tertiary catchment, which lies within the Mzimvubu to Keiskamma Water Management Area (WMA 12) (proposed new WMA is Mzimvubu to Tsitsikamma WMA 7 – Government Gazette 35517, Notice No. 547, 20 July 2012). The proposed slipway and study site falls within both the T20D and T20E sub-quaternary catchments. The Cumngce
9 Ecological Specialist Report
River tributary flows into the Mthatha River from a northerly direction, to the east of the proposed slipway, and within the study site.
10 Ecological Specialist Report
Figure 1a: Locality map showing the position of the proposed boat launching site along the Mthatha River in the Eastern Cape, Nyandeni Local Municipality (GPS: 31° 40’ 43.21’S 28° 52’ 37.23’’E). The Cumngce River tributary flows into the Mthatha River from a northerly direction, to the north and east of the proposed slipway.
Figure 1b: Google Earth image (2012) of the proposed slipway along the Mthatha River and the study site (red circle), which includes the Cumngce River tributary, just south east of the town of Mthatha, Eastern Cape.
11 Ecological Specialist Report
3. STUDY METHODOLOGY
A field survey and assessment was conducted on 17 March 2013 in order to assess the ecological character of the study site, with the objective to determine vegetation type and presence of wetlands, as well as other associated biota (mammals, birds and insects etc.). In line with the General Authorisations of the National Water Act (36 of 1998), the area covering a 500 m radius distance from the proposed boat launching site was surveyed on foot, to verify the presence of wetlands and to characterise the ecological or biodiversity features of the area. Coupled with the field assessment, was the use of Aerial (2009) and Google Earth (2012) images. Wetland delineation was directed by the occurrence of typical wetland species adapted to wet conditions (i.e. hydrophytes and obligates), including the identification of typical wetland soils (i.e. hydromorphic soils). The methodology described by ‘A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas’ (DWAF, 2005) was followed, for the most part, as the presence of wetland species was the key criterion for determining wetland presence. A vegetation assessment was also conducted to identify the key wetland plant species associated with the wetland; and the general habitat type. An ecological assessment was therefore coupled with the aquatic assessment to determine local biota, presence of Threatened habitats and Species of Special Concern, as well as to verify the ecological integrity of the study site. GPS coordinates of the wetland boundary were recorded at regular intervals in the field and were used in GIS software (Quantum GIS version 1.7) to map the wetland.
Limitations of the study include (1) one baseline assessment or field visit was conducted, which limits the amount of biota identified on site, (2) an invertebrate or ichthyology assessment was not undertaken, (3) the use of existing available information that is out-dated (2012 Google Earth images, 2009 aerial images, 1:50 000 topographical map) to map the wetland boundary (coupled with the presence of wetland plant species and hydromorphic soils), and (4) some inaccuracy in the hand-held Global Positioning System is expected.
The National Wetland Classification System (SANBI, 2009) methodology was followed, in order to classify the wetland. The national system has a six-tiered structure, namely Level 1 to Level 6. The sensitivity and importance of the wetland, as well as Present Ecological State (PES), was determined using the ‘Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South African floodplain and channelled valley bottom wetland types’ (DWAF, 2007).
The Present Ecological State (PES) of the habitat integrity of the wetland system was classified according to the standard Department of Water Affairs’ A-F ecological categories (Table 1). The WET-Health series ‘A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health’’ by Macfarlane et al. (2008) was also consulted for additional support.
Table 1: Descriptions of the A-F ecological categories (after Kleynhans, 1996, 1999 cited in SANBI, 2009).
Ecological PES % Description Category Score A 90-100% Unmodified, natural. B 80-90% Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural habitats and biota may have taken place but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged. C 60-80% Moderately modified. Loss and change of natural habitat and biota have occurred, but the basic ecosystem functions are still predominantly unchanged. D 40-60% Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred. E 20-40% Seriously modified. The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions is extensive. F 0-20% Critically / Extremely modified. Modifications have reached a critical level and the system has been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst instances the basic ecosystem functions have been destroyed and the changes are irreversible.
12 Ecological Specialist Report
The National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas (NFEPA) Map (Nel et al., 2011) was consulted to determine if any of the watercourses and associated catchments were mapped as important catchments, rivers and/or wetlands (i.e. mapped as Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas or FEPAs) or if any occur within the study area. It should however be noted that the NFEPA Map is not spatially accurate to 1:10 000 or less (i.e. it is not a fine- scale or accurate map of the watercourses in South Africa).
Literature was consulted to determine vegetation type(s) (correlated to those identified on site), presence of Special Habitats and Ecosystem Status, including potential presence of Species of Special Concern (not necessarily identified during the field survey). The distribution of Species of Special Concern in the region was mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010) according to their location in a Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South African topographical map). These biodiversity features were mapped with Quantum GIS (Version 1.8), as well as level of degradation or sensitivity of the study site indicated. Systematic biodiversity plans produced for the region were consulted to assist with determining the ecological importance of the study site and surrounding landscape, for example presence of Critical Biodiversity Areas.
4. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION
The climate of the study area (municipal region) is warm to temperate in nature, with both winter and summer temperatures considered to be warm. The region is predominantly a summer rainfall area, although some winter rainfall takes place. Rain bearing winds blow from the south. Mean monthly temperatures range from a minimum of 4°C and maximum of 44°C for June and September/December respectively. Frost is not a frequent occurrence (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Refer Table below for climate data for Mthatha from 1961 – 1990 (South African Weather Services).
Climate data for Mthatha
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C 42 40 40 36 34 30 30 33 44 38 41 41 44 (°F) (108) (104) (104) (97) (93) (86) (86) (91) (111) (100) (106) (106) (111)
Average high °C 27 27 26 25 23 21 21 22 23 23 25 27 24 (°F) (81) (81) (79) (77) (73) (70) (70) (72) (73) (73) (77) (81) (75)
Average low °C 16 16 15 12 8 4 4 7 9 11 13 15 11 (°F) (61) (61) (59) (54) (46) (39) (39) (45) (48) (52) (55) (59) (52)
9 9 7 1 −1 −3 −3 −1 1 2 4 7 −3 Record low °C (°F) (48) (48) (45) (34) (30) (27) (27) (30) (34) (36) (39) (45) (27)
Precipitation mm 87 89 83 58 18 11 18 15 35 73 75 88 650 (inches) (3.43) (3.5) (3.27) (2.28) (0.71) (0.43) (0.71) (0.59) (1.38) (2.87) (2.95) (3.46) (25.59)
Avg. precipitation 15 14 13 8 5 3 3 5 8 13 13 14 113 days (≥ 1mm)
Source: South African Weather Service, 1961-1990 [8]
The topography of the King Sabata Dalindyebo and Nyandeni Municipalities is incised with large river valleys and floodplains that run in a northwest-southeast axis. The inland areas, which typify the study site, could be described as undulating to hilly, with moderate to steep slopes. The landscape is interspersed with grassland areas and patches of forest, with the river valleys covered by thicket.
13 Ecological Specialist Report
The predominant geology of the study site is sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup, underlain by the grey and brownish-red mudstone and sandstone of the Adelaide Subgroup (Beaufort Group) (1:250 000 Geological Series).
4.1. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS (RIVERS, WETLANDS AND ESTUARIES)
4.1.1. RIVERS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH The two large river systems that delineate the boundary of the Municipality comprise the Tina and Mthatha rivers, in the north and south respectively. Other key rivers include, from west to east, Mdumbi, Mgamnye, Mtakatye, Mafusini, Mnenu and Mngazana. The Corana is a tributary of the Mthatha which feeds into it further northwards, proximate to Mthatha town. Important estuaries associated with the rivers include the Mthatha, Mdumbi, Mtakatye and Mafusini estuaries, with a smaller estuary called the Lwandile associated with the Ludaka River, a smaller coastal system to the north of Mdumbi. The river of interest to this study is the Mthatha River, its associated catchment and estuary.
The Mthatha Catchment, River and Estuary
As noted in Section 1.2, the Mthatha River catchment is represented by the T20 tertiary catchment, while the proposed boat launching site and study site (the 500 m radius from the proposed slipway) falls within both the T20D and T20E sub-quaternary catchments. The perennial Mthatha River originates in the Drakensberg at 1 400 m elevation, is approximately 250 km long and has a catchment area of 886 km² (DWAF, 2008). The Corana, Zimbane and Cumngce rivers are tributaries of the Mthatha River, of which the latter two are proximate to the proposed slipway (Plate 1). Two major impoundments are sited on the Mthatha River, namely the Mthatha Dam, which is 8 km upstream of Mthatha town, and the Corana Dam on the Corana River (the tributary that joins the Mthatha River downstream of Mthatha town). The Mthatha River terminates in the Mthatha Estuary at Coffee Bay, where it flows into the Indian Ocean. The estuary is approximately 8.5 km long and is permanently open to the sea.
A number of fish species have been recorded in the Mthatha River downstream of the Mthatha Dam, including: Anguilla Mossambica, Barbus anoplus, Barbus viviparous, Caffrogobius natalensis, Clarias gariepinus (translocated species), Glossogobius callidus Monodactylus falciformes and Mugil cephalus. An indigenous and widespread South African cool water minnow, Barbus anoplus, is found in many streams in the former- Transkei. The endemic freshwater mullet, Myxus capensis, inhabits the Mthatha River and is of Least Concern in terms of the IUCN Red data list. It is moderately intolerant of habitat change and requires flowing rivers with clear upstream passage in order to complete its lifecycle. All species are moderately tolerant of habitat change (i.e. changes to the river system), apart from Oreochromis mossambicus and Tilapia sparrmanii (a translocated species) which are tolerant, Syngnathus temminckii however has no rating. Fish data was obtained from the N2 Toll Road Environmental Impact Assessment – which comprised data from recent surveys and the National Fish Collection database at the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, while ratings presented on the overall insensitivity of species to habitat change were obtained from Kleynhans et al. (2005) (cited in Scherman et al., 2007).
Fish species recorded in the Mthatha River (Scherman et al., 2006) are indicated in Table 2 below.
14 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 2: Fish species recorded in the Mthatha River (Scherman et al., 2006).
The Department of Water Affairs’ River Health Programme assessed the ecological status of the Mthatha River. The river section from Mthatha Falls to Kwa-Ntsaka, in which the proposed slipway is located, was assessed as having poor water quality due to impacts from Mthatha town. However, some of the tributaries are a refuge to many sensitive macro-invertebrates and possess good water quality, despite the main stem of the Mthatha River reflecting poor water quality (Scherman et al., 2006). The Mthatha Falls to Kwa-Ntsaka river section is used for many purposes, namely water for humans and livestock, fishing, irrigation of food crops, washing, recreation and spiritual rituals. Overtopping of the floodplain occurs after heavy rainfall and the indigenous Chubbyhead Barb (Barbus anoplus) inhabits this reach. Two alien fish include the Banded Tilapia (Tilapia sparrmanii) and the Sharptooth Catfish (Clarius gariepinus). The indigenous Kei Apple (Dovyalis caffra) and the River Bushwillow (Combretum erythrophyllum) grow along the river, although alien invasive species are common and include Sesbania punicea, Lantana camara, Solanum mauritianum and Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth).
4.1.1.1. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA): Rivers and Associated Catchments In terms of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) Map (Nel et al., 2011), neither the Mthatha nor the Cumngce rivers (or their associated catchments) are indicated as Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs). This is because they are not required for biodiversity targets and other rivers and associated catchments have been selected, which is largely based on a good ecological state i.e. the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers are therefore relatively impacted compared to FEPAs.
15 Ecological Specialist Report
Plate 1: Photographic images of the rivers and vegetation growing along the watercourse edges.
1a. The Cumngce River, a tributary that flows into the 1b. The Mthatha River, looking from the north bank. Refer to Mthatha River from the north. The large tree is a River Plate 2 for additional images of the Mthatha River. Bushwillow (Combretum erythrophyllum).
1c. Sand excavation (arrow) along the Cumngce River, with 1d. The Cumngce River, looking towards the confluence with limited riparian vegetation along its banks. the Mthatha River.
4.1.1.2. Present Ecological State The Mthatha State of Rivers Report (DWAF, 2008), indicates that the Mthatha River section from Mthatha Falls to Kwa-Ntsaka, the section in which the proposed slipway is located, has an EcoStatus (River Health Category) of Poor (or Largely Modified) to Seriously Modified; and is of Low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The equivalent Ecological Reserve Category is D/E. Water quality is poor, sand mining takes place and alien fish inhabit this section (Refer Sub-Section above). Riparian vegetation has been removed due to sand mining, overgrazing and firewood harvesting, which has also resulted in bank erosion. Daily flushing of the First Falls Dam for hydro-electrical power has also reduced riparian vegetation cover. Sedimentation is a problem, and is exacerbated by releases from the First Falls Dam, which reduces consumption capacity. All driver and response indicators, namely geomorphology/hydrology, habitat, macro-invertebrates, fish and riparian vegetation, health categories range from Fair (F) to Poor (P) to Seriously Modified (SM) (Table 3) (DWAF, 2008).
16 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 3: The Mthatha River EcoStatus, driver and response indicators, namely geomorphology/hydrology, habitat, macro-invertebrates, fish and riparian vegetation, and associated health categories, and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (DWAF, 2008).
Fair (F), Poor (P), Seriously Modified (SM)
4.1.1.3. Study Site Assessment Observations – River Vegetation At the time of the site visit, sand excavation was evident along the Cumngce River (Plate 1c). The riparian or wetland indicator species largely comprised Carex glomerabili (Foxtail Sedge), Cortaderia selloana (Pampas Grass), Cyperus longus L. var. longus, Cyperus textilis (Tall Star Sedge), Kyllinga erecta (White Kyllinga), Melianthus comosus (Common Turkey Bush), Paspallum distichum (Paspallum). Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu), Schoenoplectus decipiens (a naturalized alien), Sorghum halepense (Common Wild Sorghum), Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo) and Typha capensis (Bulrush). Dominant species (besides grasses found within the grassland areas – Section 4.2.1.2), located in close proximity to the Cumncge River floodplain area, included Chironia palustris (Marsh Chironia), Bulbine frutescens (Bulbine), Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory), Sida dregei (Spider leg). The following dominant alien species along the watercourse banks comprised: Bidens pilosa (Black Jack), Opuntia ficus-indica (Prickly Pear), Persicaria lapathifolia (Spotted Knotweed), Ricinus communis (Castor Oil Plant), Sesbania punicea (Sesbania) and Solanum mauritanium (Bug Tree). The weed P. lapathifolia formed dense stands along the riparian area at the proposed slipway.
A large Combretum erythrophyllum tree (River Bushwillow) was recorded growing along the Cumngce River. Dovyalis caffra (Kei Apple) was growing as isolated trees at distances from the water edge i.e. not within the riparian areas, although one was found at the delineated wetland (Section 4.1.2).
4.1.2. WETLANDS The study site (land within a 500 m radius from the proposed slipway) showed signs of past agricultural activities. Agricultural impacts were in the form of depressions, shallow furrows and platforms, presumably as a result of ploughing. Artificial pools have developed because of these activities, and wetland plants have established due to saturated and inundated conditions. Dominant plants comprised Centella asiatica (Marsh Pennywort), Fimbristylis complanata (Flattened Rush), Kyllinga erecta (White Kyllinga), Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu), Schoenoplectus brachyceras, Sporobolus africanus (Ratstail Dropseed) and Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo), although S. brachyceras dominated the wetland area.
Only one natural wetland (Figure 2b, Section 4.1.2.2) was identified adjacent to the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers, where these two rivers join, just east of the proposed slipway, including the access track indicated on
17 Ecological Specialist Report the Google Earth image (2012). It should, however, be noted that the access track is no longer clearly evident in the field (where it passes the wetland to the north and towards the slipway GPS).
4.1.2.1. National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA): Wetlands In terms of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) Map (Nel et al., 2011), a channelled valley bottom wetland, which is ‘’overlapped’’ by an artificial dam, is located in the Mthatha and Cumngce Rivers, within the sections flowing passed the proposed slipway. However, the wetland is not indicated as a Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) i.e. it is not an important or priority wetland. According to the FEPA data, the wetland condition is classified as Z2. This means that the majority of the wetland is classified as an artificial dam and that the Present Ecological State is Heavily to Critically Modified. It should be noted that the NFEPA Map is not spatially accurate to 1:10 000 or less (i.e. it is not a fine-scale or accurate map of the wetlands in South Africa). Consequently, a site assessment must be conducted to verify the data. The site assessment verified that this is a modified wetland area due to the establishment of an artificial dam (indicated by a weir constructed downstream of the proposed slipway). This watercourse area is essentially acting as river rather than a wetland, probably due to the degree of inundation afforded by the large weir / dam downstream of the proposed slipway site (Figure 2a).
Figure 2a: The channelled valley bottom wetland located in the Mthatha and Cumngce Rivers, as mapped by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) assessment (Nel et al., 2011).
4.1.2.2. Wetland Delineation As noted above (Section 4.2.2), only one natural wetland was identified adjacent to the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers, where these two rivers join, just east of the proposed slipway. The delineated wetland is presented in
18 Ecological Specialist Report
Figure 2b below. Plant cover in the wetland area was dominated by a dense stand of Juncus effuses (Soft Rush), a species that frequently forms such large stands around rivers. This species is a naturalised alien plant that is facultative in character, meaning it grows in wetland or water saturated areas for 50 % of the time. J. effusus (Soft Rush) can be found in riverine, palustrine (vegetated wetlands, commonly called marshes and vleis) and lacustrine (permanent water with limited flow, such as shallow lakes) systems.
A few other species were present, besides the indigenous grasses Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo) and Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu), including Cyperus longus longus (Sweet Cyperus), Juncus effusus (Soft Rush), Kyllinga erecta (White Kyllinga) and Paspallum distichum (Paspallum), although J. effusus dominated the wetland area. Sorghum halepense (Common Wild Sorghum) was found growing in close proximity to the river banks. This species occurs in disturbed areas and originates from the Mediterannean. An Opuntia ficus-indica (Wild fig or Prickly Pear) was recorded in the wetland as well as and one Dovyalis caffra (Kei Apple) at the wetland fringe.
Figure 2b: The wetland delineated adjacent to the Mthatha and Cumngce Rivers. Note the dam weir in the bottom right hand corner, and the degraded landscape.
19 Ecological Specialist Report
Plate 2: Photographic images of the wetland delineated in the field.
2a. A dense stand of Juncus effusus dominated the 2b. The wetland, looking towards the Mthatha River wetland, a species that is a naturalized alien. to the south.
2c. The wetland, where it drains into the confluence 2d. The wetland, looking northwards from its of the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers. southern boundary at a higher elevation.
2e. Cyperus longus L. var. longus (Sweet Cyperus) was 2f. The wetland, looking towards the Cumngce River also recorded in the wetland, albeit only a few. from the western end. An isolated Dovyalis caffra tree near the boundary.
20 Ecological Specialist Report
4.1.2.3. Wetland Classification
Level 1: System
The wetland is an inland system. Inland systems are defined as ecosystems that have no existing connection to the ocean (i.e. characterised by the complete absence of marine exchange and/or tidal influence) but which are inundated or saturated with water, either permanently or periodically (SANBI, 2009).
Level 2: Eco-regions
The wetland falls within the Eastern Coastal Belt Eco-region i.e. the regional spatial framework as described by DWAs Level I Eco-regions for aquatic ecosystems (after Kleynhans et al., 2005 cited in SANBI, 2009).
Level 3: Regional Setting (Landscape Setting - Terrain / Morphology)
Valley bottom.
Level 4: Hydro-geomorphic (HGM) Unit Type
Level 4A – HGM Type:
Floodplain wetland, adjacent to the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers. Although it should be noted that the wetland is in depression area that will ‘funnel’ water from the adjacent slopes.
Water supply: - Predominantly from overspills from the channel during flooding (predominantly), but also some overland flow and lateral seepage from adjacent valley-side slopes (SANBI, 2009). Level 4B - Longitudinal Zonation / Landform:
Floodplain flat.
Level 4C – Drainage outflow:
Not applicable.
Level 5: Hydrological Regime (& Depth of Inundation)
Level 5A - Periodicity of inundation
Seasonal. This wetland is seasonal where inundation would usually occur during periods of high rainfall i.e. with water present for extended periods during the wet season but not during the rest of the year (SANBI, 2009).
Level 5B - Saturation periodicity within 0.5 m of the soil surface
Soils are likely to be seasonally inundated, with surface water present for extended periods (> 3 - 4 weeks duration) during the wet season. Annual drying, either to complete dryness or to saturation during the dry
21 Ecological Specialist Report
season, is typical in seasonal systems (SANBI, 2009). This is concluded based on the fact that soils were not inundated during the site visit, only slightly saturated, despite many artificial pools in the upslope catchment area holding surface water after rainfall the previous night. Logically, additional rainfall over a longer time-frame would be required to create surface water in this wetland, besides the fact that over- spilling from the rivers during floods will be the predominant water source for floodplain wetlands.
Level 6: Watercourse Characteristics (Descriptors)
Level 6 (a) Geology
The predominant geology of the study site is sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup, underlain by the grey and brownish-red mudstone and sandstone of the Adelaide Subgroup (Beaufort Group) (1:250 000 Geological Series).
Level 6 (b) Natural versus Artificial
Natural, but modified by sand excavation and livestock grazing (cattle and goats).
Level 6 (c) Vegetation Cover Type
Herbaceous (grasses, herbs, sedges, rushes)
Refer to Section 4.1.2.2. above for species encountered.
Level 6 (d) Substratum
Sandy, with high organic matter (black humic soils).
Level 6 (e) Salinity and (f) acidity/alkalinity
No measurements were taken, however it is highly probable that the water is fresh, due to riverine proximity, and soils are slightly alkaline rather than acidic, as Juncus species prefer alkaline rather than acidic conditions.
Refer to the table below for a summary of the classification of the wetland.
22 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 4: Summary table of the wetland according to the proposed national wetland classification system (SANBI, 2009).
LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: LEVEL 4: HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM) UNIT1 LEVEL 5: HYDROLOGICAL REGIME (& DEPTH LEVEL 6: WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS SYSTEM REGIONAL LANDSCAPE OF INUNDATION) (DESCRIPTORS) SETTING UNIT CONNECTIVITY ECO- LANDSCAPE HGM TYPE LONGITUDINAL DRAINAGE - DRAINAGE - 5A: Depth of 5B: Saturation Geology; Natural vs Artificial; Vegetation; TO OPEN REGION SETTING ZONATION OUTFLOW* INFLOW* inundation: Perennial periodicity Substratum; Salinity; pH OCEAN / LANDFORM /non-perennial / Unknown A B C D Seasonal/ Permanent/ Intermittent/ Unknown Seasonal/ Intermittent/ Unknown Inland Eastern Valley Floor Floodplain Flat River overspills Not applicable Seasonal Seasonally Geology: Beaufort Group (Karoo Super- Coastal during saturated soils Group or Sequence) – Adelaide Belt flooding, (mudstone and sandstone). including some (High confidence) (High confidence) Natural or Artificial: Natural but modified. overland flow Vegetation: Rush, Sedge, Herbaceous, and lateral Grasses (indigenous & alien) seepage from Substratum: Sandy with high humic slopes content
pH = Not recorded, but highly likely to be alkaline. Salinity = Not recorded, but highly likely to be fresh.
(High confidence)
1 The hydro-geomorphic (HGM) unit, which is defined on the basis of the geomorphic setting (e.g. hillslope or valley-bottom; whether drainage is open or closed), water source (surface or sub-surface water dominated) and pattern of water flow through the wetland (i.e. diffuse or channelled) (McFarlane et al., 2008).
23 Ecological Specialist Report
4.1.2.4. Wetland Present Ecological State (PES)
Land use impacts in the catchment have been caused by old cultivated lands. Cultivation in the past probably required the clearance of thicket vegetation, which is now a degraded grassland habitat type. Past agricultural activities have created furrows and platforms in the landscape, including signs of erosion along a drainage area. These impacts, coupled with sand mining excavation, a vehicular access track and foot paths, have modified the hydrology (flow and volumes) in the catchment. Other impacts would be associated with rural homesteads and livestock grazing, namely modified hydrology (i.e. overgrazing resulting in less natural cover and increased surface run-off and erosion) and potentially increased nutrient inputs (from livestock). Increased nutrients associated with cattle and sheep, however, is debatable, as livestock could have the same impact as indigenous fauna which would have occurred in the past in greater numbers.
Based on the afore-mentioned impacts and the Department of Water Affairs’ methodology for assessing Present Ecological State (DWAF, 2007), the following individual PES ratings were derived for hydrology, geomorphology, water quality and vegetation alteration. The overall PES category is B, meaning that it is Largely Natural with few modifications. In other words, only a small change in the habitat and biota may have taken place but the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.
OVERALL PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE (PES) SCORE
Ranking Weighting Score Confidence PES Category DRIVING PROCESSES: 100 1.0 Rating Hydrology 1 100 1.4 3.6 C Geomorphology 2 80 0.9 1.9 B Water Quality 3 30 0.1 0.0 A WETLAND LAND USE ACTIVITIES: 80 0.2 0.0 Vegetation Alteration Score 1 100 0.2 0.0 A OVERALL SCORE: 0.7 Confidence PES % 86.6 Rating
PES Category: B 0.0
4.1.2.5. Wetland Conservation Value and Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)
Based on the Department of Water Affairs’ methodology (DWAF, 2007) for assessing the importance and sensitivity of wetlands, the wetland is considered to be of moderate ecological importance or sensitivity (Table 5a below, Score 2.3), but of low hydrological (Score 1.3) and anthropogenic (Score 0) importance (Direct Human Benefits).
Table 5a: Wetland Importance and Sensitivity
WETLAND IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY Score Values: 0 – 4 (low to high sensitivity) Importance Confidence ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY 2.3 5.0 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 1.3 3.0
24 Ecological Specialist Report
DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0 5.0 Rating Explanation None, Rating = 0 Rarely sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime Low, Rating =1 One or a few elements sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime Moderate, Rating =2 Some elements sensitive to changes in water quality/hydrological regime High, Rating =3 Many elements sensitive to changes in water quality/ hydrological regime Very high, Rating =4 Very many elements sensitive to changes in water quality/ hydrological regime
The following individual ratings for (1) ecological importance & sensitivity, (2) hydro-functional importance, and (3) human benefits were calculated:
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY Score (0-4) Confidence (1-5) Biodiversity support 0.00 5.00 Presence of Red Data species 0.00 5.00 Populations of unique species 0.00 5.00 Migration/breeding/feeding sites 0.00 5.00 Landscape scale 0.00 5.00 Protection status of the wetland 0.00 5.00 Protection status of the vegetation type 0.00 5.00 Regional context of the ecological integrity 0.00 5.00 Size and rareity of the wetland type/s present 0.00 5.00 Diversity of habitat types 0.00 5.00 Sensitivity of the wetland 2.33 5.00 Sensitivity to changes in floods 4.00 5.00 Sensitivity to changes in low flows/dry season 2.00 5.00 Sensitivity to changes in water quality 1.00 5.00 ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE & SENSITIVITY 2.3 5.0
Confidence (1- HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE Score (0-4) 5) Flood attenuation 4 3 Streamflow regulation 0 3
Sediment trapping 1 3
Phosphate assimilation 1 3 Nitrate assimilation 1 3
benefits Toxicant assimilation 0 3
Water Quality
Enhancement Erosion control 2 3
Regulating &Regulating supporting Carbon storage 1 3 HYDRO-FUNCTIONAL IMPORTANCE 1.3 3.0
25 Ecological Specialist Report
DIRECT HUMAN Confidence (1- BENEFITS Score (0-4) 5)
Water for human use 0 5 Harvestable resources 0 5
benefits Cultivated foods 0 5
Subsistence
Cultural heritage 0 5 Tourism and recreation 0 5
Cultural benefits Education and research 0 5 DIRECT HUMAN BENEFITS 0.0 5.0
4.2. TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSTIY FEATURES
4.2.1. VEGETATION (HABITAT TYPE) In terms of the South African (SA) National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006), the vegetation types within the study site and surrounds is Eastern Valley Bushveld and Bisho Thornveld, which grows on the steep hills to the east of the proposed boat launching site. Both are Least Threatened in terms of the National Biodiversity Thresholds (Ecosystem Status), and not well protected. Some of the common trees and shrubs in the Eastern Valley Bushveld include Acacia natalita, Cussonia spicata, Encephalartos natalensis (an Endangered and protected species) and Hippobraumus pauciflorus, with some of the dominant grasses comprising Eragrostic curvula, Hyparrhenia hirta, Melenis repens and Sporobolus fimbriatus. Endemic taxa include Bauhinia natalensis and Huernia pendula. Some of the common trees and shrubs supported by Bisho Thornveld include Acacia natalita, Tephrosia capensis, Chrysocoma ciliata and Felicia muricata. Important grasses comprise Cynodon dactylon. Digitaria eriantha, Eragrostis capensis and Kyllinga erecta. Centella asiatica, Commelina iifolium and Helichrysum species dominate the herbaceous group. No endemic taxa are sited in this vegetation or habitat type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).
4.2.1.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) According to the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) study (SANParks metadata, 2010), two plant species, Bowiea volubilis volubilis (Vulnerable) and Nerine masoniorum (Critically Endangered), may be found within the grassland areas. Endemic species within the Eastern Valley Bushveld are indicated above.
4.2.1.2. Study Site Assessment Observations Most of these common grass and herbaceous species recorded on site correspond well with those of Bisho Thornveld (refer above). No Species of Special Concern were recorded in the study site or at the proposed slipway site.
Dominant species recorded in the field within the grassland areas:
Plant type Species Grasses Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass), Eragrostis curvula (Weeping Love Grass), Melenis repens (Natal Red Top), Sporobolus africanus (Ratstail Dropseed).
Sedges Sedges only grew within the artificial pools:
26 Ecological Specialist Report
Centella asiatica (Marsh Pennywort), Cyperus longus longus (Sweet Cyperus), Fimbristylis complanata subsp. Complanata (Flattened Rush), Juncus effusus (Soft Rush), Isolepis cernua, Schoenoplectus brachyceras. Herbaceous Berkheya heterophylla (Prickly Gousblom), Berkheya umbellate (Vleidissel), Bulbine frutescens (Bulbine), Centella asiatica (Marsh Pennywort), Chaemaecrista comosa (Trailing Dwarf Cassia), Chrysocoma ciliate (Bitter Karoo Bush), Cyphostemma woodii (Hairy Grape Bush), Coccinia rehmannii (Wild Cucumber), Desmodium incanum (Sweethearts), Felicia muricata (White Felicia), Geranium multisectum (Geranium), Helichrysum aureonitens (Golden Everlasting), Oxalis smithiana (Narrow-leaved Sorrel), Selago sp., Senecio paucicalyculatus, Senecio pterophyta, Tephrosia macropoda (Creeping Tephrosia).
Proximate to the Cumncge River floodplain area: Chironia baccifera (Wild Gentian), Chironia palustris (Marsh Chironia), Bulbine frutescens (Bulbine), Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory), Sida dregei (Spider leg). Shrubs and Trees Canthium ciliatum (Common Turkey Berry), Clerodendron glabrum (Tinderwood), Combretum caffrum (Cape Bushwillow), Dovyalis caffra (Kei Apple), Hippobraumus pauciflorus (False Perdepis). Alien species Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle), Gomphrena celosiodies (Batchelor’s Button), Lantana camara (Lantana), Verbena brasiliensis (Verbena).
Dominant species recorded in the field within the thicket areas (valley hills and slopes): Note that a rapid assessment was conducted in this area as this area will not be impacted by the proposed slipway and access track, with only dominant species on the fringe of the thicket area investigated.
Plant type Species Herbaceous, Cheilanthus viridus, Sida dregei (Spider leg), Rhoicissus rhomboidea (Glossy Forest climbers Grape). Shrubs and Trees Acacia karroo (Sweet Thorn), Acacia caffra (Common Hook Thorn), Brachylaena elliptica (Bitter Leaf Silver Oak), Coddia rudis (Small Bone Apple), Dovyalis caffra (Kei Apple), Flueggea verrucosa (White Berry Bush), Gymnosporia buxifolia (Common Spikethorn), Halleria lucida (Tree Fuschia), Maytenus acuminate (Silky Bark), Plumbago auriculata (Blousyselbos), Putterlickia verrucosa (Forest False Spikethorn), Scutia myrtina (Cat Thorn), Searsia glauca (Blue Kuni Bush), Searsia tomentosa (Bicoloured Currant). Alien invasive plants Lantana camara (Lantana)
Refer to Section 4.1.1.3 for the species growing within the riparian areas (along the rivers).
27 Ecological Specialist Report
Plate 2: Photographic images of the vegetation around the proposed slipway and study site.
2a. The proposed slipway site (approximate location based on 2b. Looking westward from the proposed slipway along the GPS reading, therefore error to be expected), looking towards Mthatha River. the Mthatha River.
2c. Looking eastward from the proposed slipway along the 2d. Looking westward from the proposed slipway along the Mthatha River, towards the Cumngce River (arrow). Mthatha River, from a higher elevation.
2d. Looking southward at the Mthatha River, from the proposed 2d. Looking south-westward from the proposed slipway to the slipway, and towards the southern banks to the larger study site Mthatha River, and towards the larger study site within the King within the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality. Many areas Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality. Many areas are cultivated or are cultivated or impacted by past agricultural activities. impacted by past agricultural activities.
28 Ecological Specialist Report
Plate 3: Photographic images of the vegetation growing in the study site.
3a. Grassland and Thicket on the slopes looking eastward 3b. Grassland looking towards the proposed slipway (arrow) towards the Cumenge River (arrow). along the Mthatha River.
3c. Looking northwards. Note the artificial pool in the 3d. Drainage channel draining towards the Mthatha River, foreground indicated by the greener grasses and sedges. which showed signs of erosion.
3d. One of the artificial pools growing in the grassland area, 3e. Looking eastward towards the Cumenge River, showing created by past agricultural activities. the thicket (background), grassland (foreground) and an artificial pool (arrow).
29 Ecological Specialist Report
4.2.2. FAUNA
Numerous indigenous fauna are likely to utilize the study site, although none were observed during the site visit. A list of potential species that may frequent the study site is provided below, many of which will inhabit the rocky and hilly areas to the east of the proposed slipway, in the thicket vegetation.
Bats Straw coloured fruit bat (Eidolon helvum), Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus), Egyptian free tailed bat (Tadarida aegyptiacus), Schreibers long eared bat (Miniopterus schreibersii), Temnicks hairy bat (Myotis tricolor), Banana bat (Pipistrellus nanus), Cape Serotine Bat (Eptisecus capensis), Common slit-faced bat (Nyceteris thebaica), Geoffreys horseshoe bat (Rhiolophus clivosus), Sundevall’s Leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros caffer). Shrew Forest shrew (Myyoseorex varius), Least dwarf shrew (Suncus infinitesimus), Greater red musk shrew (Crocidura favescens) (Endemic to SA), Moles Hottentot mole (Amblysomus hottentotus) Mice and Mice: Striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio), Woodland mouse (Grammomys Dormice dolichurus), Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides), Multimammate mouse (Mastomys coucha), Namaqua rock mouse (Aethomys namaquensis), White tailed mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) (Endemic and Vulnerable), Pouched Mouse (Saccostomus campestris), Grey climbing mouse (Dendromus melanotis), Brents Climbing mouse (Dendromus mesomelas) (Rare). Dormice: Spectacled dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare), Woodland dormouse (Graphiurus murinus). Rats Vlei rat (Otomys irroratus), Cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus). Molerat Common molerat (Cryptomys hottentotus). Porcupine Porcupine (Hystix africaeaustralis). Hare Scrub hare (Lepus saxatilis). Rabbit Smith’s red rock rabbit (Pronolagus rupestris). Dassies Rock Dassie (Procavia capensis), Tree Dassie (Dendrohyrax arboreus arboreus) (Vulnerable). Pig Bushpig (Potamochoerus porcus). Duikers Blue Duiker (Philantomba monticola) (Rare), Common Duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia). Dwarf Antelope Oribi (Ourebia ourebi) (Vulnerable), Grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis) (Endemic), Grey rhebok (Pelea capreolus) (Endemic). Antelope Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus). Aardwolf Aardwolf (Proteles cristatus) (Rare). Cats Caracal (Felis caracal), African wild cat (Felis lybica) (Vulnerable). Jackal Black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). Mustelids Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) (Vulnerable), Striped weasel (Poecilogale albinucha) (Rare), Striped polecat (Ictonyx striatus) Genet and Large spotted genet (Genetta tigrina), Suricate (Suricata suricatta), Yellow mongoose Mongooses (Cynictis penicillata), Large grey mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon), Small grey mongoose (Galerall pulverulenta), Water mongoose (Atilax paludinosus). Monkeys and Chacma baboon (Papio cyncocepjalus ursinus), Vervet monkey (Cercopithecus Baboons aethiops).
4.2.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) White tailed mouse (Mystromys albicaudatus) (Endemic and Vulnerable), Brent’s Climbing mouse (Dendromus mesomelas) (Rare), Spectacled dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare), Tree Dassie (Dendrohyrax arboreus arboreus) (Vulnerable), Blue duiker (Philantomba monticola) (Rare), Oribi (Ourebia ourebi) (Endangered), Grysbok (Raphicerus melanotis) (Endemic), Grey rhebok (Pelea capreolus) (Endemic), Aardwolf (Proteles cristatus) (Rare), African wild cat (Felis lybica) (Vulnerable), Honey Badger (Mellivora capensis) (Vulnerable), Striped weasel (Poecilogale albinucha) (Rare).
30 Ecological Specialist Report
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) protects the Oribi, Tree Dassie, Blue Duiker and Honey Badger.
However, none of these species will be removed due to the proposed development.
4.2.3. BIRDS Riverine ecosystems are known to be a habitat for a variety of bird species. During the site visit, an Africa Fish Eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer) was heard. An unidentified bird was observed flying from one of the artificial pools in the grassland area. Many bird species are likely to inhabit the study site, although not many were sited because the site visit was undertaken in Autumn when many summer migrants are not present.
Some of the more dominant species may include (Sinclair et al., 2002):
Bitterns, Egrets and herons (e.g. Black Crowned Night Heron or Nycticorax nyctocoraz, Cattle egret or Bubulcus ibis, Little Bittern or Ixobrychus minutus), Cormorants and Darters (e.g Reed Cormorant or Phalacrocorax africanus and African Darter or Anhinga rufa), Ducks, African Sacred Ibis (Threskiornis aethipicus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Storks (Ciconia and Mycteria species), Eagles (African Crowned Eagle or Stephanoaetus coronatus, Martial Eagle or Polemaetus bellicosus (Vulnerable), Long Crested Eagle or Lophaetus occipitalis), Harriers (African Marsh-Harrier or Circus ranivorus, Black Harrier or C. maurus), Kites (Black Shouldered Kite or Elanus caeruleus), Sparrowhawks (Little Sparrowhawk or Accipiter minullus, Rugous-chested Sparrowhawk or Accipiter rufiventris), Falcons (Lanner Falcon or Falco biarmicus), Francolins (Red-necked Spurfowl/Franklin or Pternistes afer), Guineafowl (Helmetted Guineafowl or Numida meleagris), Quails (Common Quail or Coturnix coturnix), Moorhens (Common Moorhen or Gallinula chloropus), Black Crake (Amaurornis flavirostris), Baillons Crake (Porzana pusilla), Southern Crowned Crane (Balearica regulaorum), Secretary Bird (Sagittarius serpentarius), Denham’s Bustard (Neotis denhami), Blacksmith Lapwing Plover (Vanellus armatus), Water Thick-Knee (Dikkop) (Burhinus vermiculatus), Doves, Diderick cuckoo (Chrysococcyx caprius), Burchell’s Coucal (Centropus burchelli), Spotted Eagle Owl (Bubo africanus), Common European Swif (Apus apus), African Broadbill (Pitta angolensis), Kingfishers (Pied Kingfisher or Ceryle rudis, Malachite Kingfisher or Alcedo cristata), Cardinal Woodpecker (Dendropicos fuscescens), Swallows (Greater and Lesser Striped Swallows or Hirundo cucullata and H. abyssinica; White Throated Swallow or H. albigularis), Brown Throated Martin (Riparia paludicola), Crows (White Necked Raven or Corvus albicollis, Pied Crow or Corvus albus), Bulbuls (Dark-Capped Bulbul or Pycnonotus tricolor, Terrestrial Brownbul or P. terrestris), White browed Scrub Robin (Cercotrichas leucophrys), Warblers (Garden Warbler or Sylvia borin, Little Rush Warbler or Bradypterus baboecala, Lesser Swamp Warbler or Acrocephauls gracilirostris, African reed-Warbler or A. baeticatus, Great Reed Warbler or A. arundinaceus), Cisticola (Wailing Cisticola or Cisticola lais, Levaillant’s Cisticola or C. tinniens), African Paradise Flycatcher (Terpsiphone viridis), Wagtails, Pipits, Common Fiscal Shrike (Lanius collaris), Boubous and Tchagras (Southern Boubou or Laniarius ferrugineus, Black Crowned Tchagra or Tchagra senegalus), Bush-Shrikes (Olive Bush-Shrike or Telophorus olivaceus, Orange-Breasted Bush-Shrike or T. sulfureopectus), Sunbirds (Grey Sunbird or Cyanomitra cisticola, Collared Sunbird or Hedydipna collaris), Weavers, Southern Red Bishop (Euplectes orix), Fan Tailed Widowbird (E. axillaris), Yellow Bishop (E. capensis), Dusky Indigobird (Vidua funerea), African Firefinch (Lagonosticta rubricata), Common Waxbill (Estrilda astrild), Bronze Mannikin (Lonchura cucullata), African Quailfinch (Ortygospiza atricollis).
4.2.3.1. Important Bird Areas The study site is not situated within or adjacent to an Important Bird Area of South Africa.
4.2.3.2. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) According to the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) study (SANParks metadata, 2010), the Cape Vulture (Gyps coprotheres) (Endangered) may utilize the study site. It is also protected by the National
31 Ecological Specialist Report
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004). The Black Harrier or Circus maurus is endemic to southern Africa and the Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) is Vulnerable.
The potential for the above species frequenting the study site is possible because the Maputaland-Pondoland- Albany Hotspot mapped point for Species of Special Concern is approximately 5 km from the study site.
The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) protects the Martial Eagle, African Marsh-Harrier and Denham’s Bustard.
However, none of these species will be removed due to the proposed development.
4.2.4. REPTIILES A number of lizards, tortoises and snakes are likely inhabitants of the study site. The puff Adder (Bitis arietans), which is found in most habitats, is a likely inhabitant of the grassy areas of the study site.
4.2.4.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) The Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010), does not indicate that any reptile Species of Special Concern occur within the study site.
It should be highlighted that all lizards (Order – Lacertilia) are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance. Water Snakes, House Snakes, Wolf Snakes, Mole Snakes, Green and Bush Snakes; as well as Egg Eaters and Slug Eaters are all protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance. Consequently, it is illegal to kill any of these snakes. However, none of these species will be removed due to the proposed development.
4.2.5. AMPHIBIANS No amphibians were observed on site, although frogs are an obvious candidate for wetland and riverine habitats.
4.2.5.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) According to the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010), the Afrixalus spinifrons (Natal Banana Frog), which is Vulnerable, may utilize the study site.
It should be highlighted that all frogs and toads (Order – Anura) are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance. Consequently, it is illegal to kill any of these amphibians. However, none of these species will be removed due to the proposed development.
4.2.6. INSECTS Springtails, mayflies, stoneflies (True Stoneflies), damselflies and dragonflies, as well as butterflies, are common insects that occur around aquatic environments i.e. rivers and wetlands, as well as in the soil and leaf litter (springtails). The damselflies and dragonflies include, for example jewels, demoiselles, threadtails and spreadwings, while the mayflies will include small minnow mayflies that inhabit riverine habitats.
Numerous beetles, bugs, moths and mantids are likely to inhabit the grassland and thicket areas. The Hooked- winged Net-winged Beetle (Lycus melanurus) was recorded during the site assessment, which typically inhabits grassland (Figure 3).
32 Ecological Specialist Report
Figure 3: The Hooked-winged Net-winged Beetle (Lycus melanurus) observed in the grassland.
4.2.6.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened, Endemic or Protected) The Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010), does not indicate that any insect Species of Special Concern occur within the study site.
However, two important butterfly species are most likely inhabitants of the wetland and riverine environment (of the study site), namely the Green-marbled Sandman (Gomalia elma elm) and the Olive-haired Swift (Borbo borbonica borbonica), both widespread but uncommon. However, none of these species will be removed due to the proposed development.
5. LAND COVER, LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE IMPACTS
Land cover within the study site was largely degraded near-natural vegetation cover (grassland), which has been impacted by past agricultural activities, namely cultivation, and current extensive livestock grazing (cattle and sheep) (Plate 4). Sand mining excavation was recorded near the banks of both the Mthatha and Cumngce rivers. Associated impacts were in the form of furrows and platforms, as a result of past cultivation and degraded natural cover due to grazing by livestock. These furrows were holding surface water, which have allowed the establishment of typical wetland plants. Erosion was evident, also as a result of agricultural impacts and sand excavation. A vehicular track (gravel) traverses the study site, which leads down towards the Cumngce River; and a large powerline also traverses the study site. Dense rural housing is positioned outside of the study site (beyond the 500 m buffer area) at the highest elevation of the immediate catchment area to the north-east. A narrow drainage channel was present to the west of the proposed slipway (within the 500m buffer area), which has possibly developed over time due to the removal of vegetation in the past for cultivation purposes. Alien plants were more evident along the river banks, although some alien clearing, for example Lantana camara, was recorded in and around the study site.
The study site is therefore considered moderately impacted and degraded.
33 Ecological Specialist Report
Plate 4: Images of landscape degradation within the study site
Plate 4a. Evidence of sand mining along the Mthatha Plate 4b. Signs of erosion along a drainage line. River.
Plate 4c. Alien clearing activities on site (note the blue chemical used).
6. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Although the majority of the study site is degraded due, largely to past cultivation, as well as sand excavation and livestock grazing, the riparian areas are considered ecologically sensitive (Figure 3). It should be noted, however, that the majority of these areas have been transformed due to past agriculture and sand excavation, with the many species comprising alien plants. Riparian areas are however important and should be buffered by 100 m, as per the recommendation from the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan for lower foothill and lowland rivers (Berliner and Desmet, 2007) (Refer Section 7.2. below).
The study site is however degraded and limited riparian vegetation is present. Further, the proposed slipway and access track will have minimal further impact on the riparian and recommended buffer area.
34 Ecological Specialist Report
Figure 3. Riparian areas are considered ecologically sensitive, although these areas and the majority of the study site are degraded. The floodplain area is also sensitive as it encompasses that area which is inundated during large flood events on an infrequent basis. However, it has not been mapped because the proposed slipway and access track will not be significantly impacted if a flood had to occur, and as a result, its delineation does not serve any purpose.
7. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS PRODUCED FOR THE REGION
Systematic conservation plans / maps that have been produced for the region in which the study site is located include, namely:
1. The Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010). 2. The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s (ECBCP) Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Map.
Note that the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Project (STEP) Map’s (2003) planning domain does not encompass the proposed slipway. The Kei River represents the northern most boundary of STEP.
7.1. THE MAPUTOLAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY (MPAH) HOTSPOT BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN, 2010 The Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) extends from Mozambique and the Limpopo River in the north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, while encompassing the majority of Swaziland
35 Ecological Specialist Report
(Figure 4). The systematic conservation plan that was generated for the MPAH, mapped 72 key biodiversity areas and 12 biodiversity corridors for priority conservation action. The biodiversity corridors are important for long term protection of Threatened species and ecosystem function, particularly due to future predicted climate change impacts. The distribution of these Threatened species was mapped according to their location in a Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South African topographical map).
Important biodiversity features relative to the proposed slipway: The proposed slipway is not situated in one of the key biodiversity areas or corridors, although it is approximately 5 km from a mapped point for Threatened species (refer sub-sections above).
Mthatha
Figure 4: The location of the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot, extending from Mozambique and the Limpopo River in the north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, as well as the majority of Swaziland.
7.2. THE EASTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN’S (ECBCP) CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBA) MAP, 2007 According to the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP) the study site falls within a terrestrial and aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA), with areas that are degraded (Figure 5). The Critical Biodiversity Areas are classed into T2 and A1 respectively, meaning that the terrestrial CBA (T2) is an Ecological Corridor, with degraded areas, and the aquatic CBA (A1) is a wetland. The biodiversity land management classes (BLMC) assigned to the terrestrial CBA (with degraded areas) is a BLMC 2, whereas for the aquatic CBA it is an Aquatic BLMC 1. The BLMC refers to how these categories or sites should be managed. The BLMC 2 should be maintained in a near-natural state, whereas the Aquatic BLMC 1 should be maintained in a natural state (Refer Table 6).
36 Ecological Specialist Report
It should be noted that the ECBCP is not a fine-scale systematic biodiversity plan i.e. the biodiversity has not been mapped at an accurate or detailed scale (< 1:10 000). As a result, a site visit needs to be undertaken to confirm that what the ECBCP maps as important (vis-a-vis a CBA), natural, near-natural, degraded or transformed, is in fact the reality on the ground.
The site assessment concluded that the landscape is degraded, both due to past intensive agriculture (cultivation) and current extensive agriculture (livestock grazing) and sand excavation. The wetland, as identified by NFEPA, is in fact an artificial dam.
Figure 5: According to the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s (ECBCP) Critical Biodiversity Areas Map, the study site falls within terrestrial (T) and aquatic (A) Critical Biodiversity Areas, with land that is also degraded.
The recommended permissible land uses for terrestrial Biodiversity Land Management Class 2 is provided in Table 6’s highlighted column below, namely Conservation, Game Farming and Communal Livestock. Although the land use recommendations do not include slipways, it can be stated that the proposed land use activity will not result in any major degradation or transformation of the study site, and that the land and aquatic environment will be maintained in a near-natural and modified state despite the presence of a slipway and the use of one 4X4 vehicle and motorized vessel (boat).
Table 6: Recommended Permissible Land Uses for Terrestrial Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMCs) in terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan – relevant category is BLMC2. (Abbreviations: No = not recommended; Yes = recommended; Conditional = Approval conditional on environmental authorization)
37 Ecological Specialist Report
Biodiversity Land Management Class (BLMC)
Land use BLMC 1 BLMC 2 BLMC 3 BLMC 4
Conservation Yes Yes Yes Yes
Game farming No Yes Yes Yes
Communal livestock No Yes Yes Yes
Commercial livestock ranching No No Yes Yes
Dry land cropping No No Conditional Yes
Irrigated cropping No No Conditional Yes
Dairy farming No No Conditional Yes
Timber No No Conditional Yes
Settlement No No Conditional Yes
38 Ecological Specialist Report
8. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT A summary of the relevant legislation that relates to potential ecological impacts that may accrue from the proposed development is provided in the table below. The legislative implication (management measures) is also indicated.
LEGISLATION AND OBJECTIVE: LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
8.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) Measures must be implemented that 1) prevent pollution and The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the land and ensures that: '… everyone has ecological degradation; 2) promote conservation; and 3) secure the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and to have the ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. It requires that while promoting justifiable economic and social development'. development is sustainable.
8.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 Measures must be implemented that prevent pollution and ecological The NWA is concerned with the overall management, equitable allocation and conservation of degradation of aquatic resources i.e. rivers and wetlands. water resources in South Africa. It controls and manages water use in terms of water abstraction, wastewater discharge, impact on watercourses, altering watercourse flow and the determination A water use licensing application will need to be processed in terms of of the Reserve. The General Authorisations in terms of Section 39 of the Act identify certain Section 21© (impeding or diverting flow in a watercourse) and 21(i) activities that require registration or licensing via the Department of Water Affairs that impact (altering the beds and banks etc. of a watercourse), due to the aquatic resources (watercourses and wetlands). proposed activity occurring within a river and in close proximity to a wetland.
8.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 A Basic Assessment must be implemented for the proposed slipway. The NEMA provides for overarching principles that should inform South Africa’s environmental Listed Activity Notice 3 requires that development within a Critical management and governance. The NEMA is mainly regarded as a reasonable legislative measure Biodiversity Area (accepted by the DEDEAT) must be authorised as well. required from the State in order to fulfil the environmental right (Section 24) of the Constitution. It requires development to be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, gazetted in terms of Section 24, trigger an authorisation process for certain activities.
39 Ecological Specialist Report
8.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL This Act does not apply as the proposed slipway does not occur within MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009 the coastal protection zone or within coastal public property. The objective of the Act is to establish a system of integrated coastal and estuarine management, to promote conservation and to ensure that development and natural resource use within the coastal zone is ecologically sustainable and socio-economically justifiable. The Act identifies (i) the coastal protection zone (100m – 1km belt) and (ii) the coastal public property (low to high water mark) that should be protected for safeguarding biodiversity and public access. Discharge of effluent into coastal waters, including estuaries, is controlled via Section 69, either through the National Water Act (NWA) or an ICMA permit.
8.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF Although the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s Critical 2004 Biodiversity Areas Map is not a bioregional plan, it is the precursor to The Act provides for the protection of listed endangered ecosystems and restricts activities one (but which requires considerable refinement), and should ideally be according to the categorization of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the EIA consulted in decision-making. regulations). It promotes the application of appropriate environmental management tools to protect biodiversity. Chapter 3 allows for the publication of bioregional plans. Chapter 5 of the Any Threatened or Protected Species cannot be removed without an Act refers to the introduction and control of alien invasive species. The Threatened or Protected authorisation. However, no such species were recorded within the Species Regulations, in terms of Section 97 (Chapter 8), requires an authorisation process to be proposed development footprint. Alien species invasion should be followed. controlled on municipal or state owned land.
8.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is The Act administers matters pertaining to waste minimisation, recovery, re-use, recycling, aligned with the general measures of the Act, and as part of the Basic treatment, disposal and integrated waste management. Part 5 and 6 relate to general storage, Assessment Report e.g. storage of waste (e.g. bins), disposal of waste collection and transport of waste, including the prevention of littering. The NEMA EIA regulations (such as concrete, fuels, litter), prevention of oil leaks from construction apply to several listed waste management activities, in which a Basic Assessment or EIA is vehicles, ablution facilities etc. required.
8.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPA) 57 No National Protected Area (PA) is sited within, adjacent or proximate OF 2003 to the proposed development footprint and therefore this Act does not The Act provides for the declaration of Protected Areas (PAs) in three forms (Chapter 3), namely apply i.e. permission would need to be granted in terms of this Act if the Special Nature Reserves (Part 2), Nature Reserves (Part 3) and Protected Environments (Part 4). proposed development occurred within a PA or impacted a PA. National Parks are the equivalent of National Protected Areas. Section 10 states that a Protected Area, declared in terms of provincial legislation, is either a nature reserve or protected environment.
40 Ecological Specialist Report
8.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 No protected trees are located within the proposed development Any area that has vegetation that is characteristic of a closed and contiguous canopy is defined as footprint and therefore this Act does not apply. a ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Forestry. The removal of any indigenous or protected trees or clearing of any woodland, thicket or forest requires a permit.
8.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 All wastes (general and hazardous) generated during the construction Section 20 of the Act requires for the appropriate disposal of waste and licensed waste disposal phase must be disposed of at an ECA licensed waste disposal site, if site, although any new waste licenses are subject to approval via the NEMWA. applicable, by the contractor/developer.
8.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) No listed plants are sited within the development footprint. The Ordinance allows for conservation of the natural environment; and the protection of wildlife. Certain biota are scheduled and therefore protected. A permit must be obtained from Department of Economic Development, Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT), Provincial Environment Affairs (Biodiversity Unit), to remove or destroy any plants listed in the Ordinance.
8.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 No listed plants are sited within the development footprint. The Bill provides for the protection, preservation and conservation of the environment and biodiversity, and utilization of living resources to ensure sustainable economic growth and human development and a sound ecological balance with the development objectives of the provincial government. Several species are listed under this Bill for protection.
8.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 This Act is not implemented if not associated with an agricultural [to be replaced by the Sustainable Use of Agricultural Resources Bill] application. However, the NEMA, ICMA and NWA effectively deal with Section 6 of the Act, relates to the prescription of measures which all land users have to comply the potential impacts of proposed developments in relation to erosion, with, e.g. the prohibition of modifying run-off flow patterns; the control of invader plants; and the alien invasive plants and impacts on aquatic resources. restoration of eroded land. Section 7 protects any vlei, marsh, water sponge or watercourse.
41 Ecological Specialist Report
9. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The risk/impact assessment methodology was provided by Conservation Support Services, which is, for the most part, aligned with the DEAT guidelines for assessing impacts, and standard assessment methodologies development in the field of Environmental Impact Assessments. The first stage of the risk/impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of receptors and resources, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are given below.
An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organization for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or pieces of infrastructure that are possessed by an organization. An activity may include, for example, the clearing of vegetation. An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment’2. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an impact. Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, which include the biophysical environment. For example, an impact associated with the activity of clearing vegetation is loss of vegetation or loss of habitat. Receptors comprise, but are not limited to people or man-made structures. Resources include components of the biophysical environment. Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place. Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will impact on the receptor. Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact (increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; threat to environmental and health standards. Spatial scope refers to the geographical scale of the impact. Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in the resource or receptor.
The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically according to defined criteria as outlined in Table 7a. The frequency of the activity and impact together comprise the likelihood of the impact occurring. The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the consequence of the impact. The values for likelihood and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance rating matrix (Table 7b), and Table 7c is used to determine whether mitigation is necessary3.
The assessment of significance should be undertaken twice. Initial significance is based only on natural and existing mitigation measures (including built-in engineering designs). The subsequent assessment takes into account the recommended management measures required to mitigate the impacts. Measures such as demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of land, are considered post-mitigation.
The model outcome of the impacts is then assessed in terms of impact certainty and the consideration of available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied as per the National Environmental Management Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances of uncertainty or lack of information by increasing assigned ratings or adjusting final model outcomes.
2 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 3 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation.
42 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 7a: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts
Frequency of activity/ duration of aspect RATING Annually or less / low 1 6 monthly / temporary 2 Monthly / infrequent 3 Weekly / life of operation / regularly / likely 4 Daily / permanent / high 5 LIKELIHOOD
Frequency of impact RATING
Almost never / almost impossible 1 Very seldom / highly unlikely 2 Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3 Often / regularly / likely / possible 4 Daily / highly likely / definitely 5
Severity of impact RATING Insignificant / non-harmful 1 Small / potentially harmful 2 Significant / slightly harmful 3 Great / harmful 4 Disastrous / extremely harmful 5
Spatial scope of impact RATING Activity specific 1 Development specific (within the development boundary) 2 CONSEQUENCE Local area (within 5 km of the boundary) 3
Regional 4
National 5
Duration of impact RATING One day to one month 1 One month to one year 2
One year to ten years 3
Life of operation 4 Post closure / permanent 5
43
Ecological Specialist Report
Table 7b: Significance Rating Matrix
CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90
impact) 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
LIKELIHOOD (Frequency of activity + Frequency of of Frequency + activity of (Frequency LIKELIHOOD
Table 7c: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings
Significance Value Negative Impact Management Positive Impact Management Rating Recommendation Recommendation Very high 126-150 Improve current management Maintain current management High 101-125 Improve current management Maintain current management Medium-high 76-100 Improve current management Maintain current management Medium-low 51-75 Maintain current management Improve current management Low 26-50 Maintain current management Improve current management Very low 1-25 Maintain current management Improve current management
Risk/impact assessment guidelines - The following points are considered when undertaking the assessment:
Risks/Impacts are analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence encompassing: Primary project site and related facilities that the developer/contractor develops or controls; Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for further planned development of the project, any existing project or condition and other project-related developments; and Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location. If applicable, trans-boundary or global effects should be assessed. Risks/Impacts are assessed for relevant stages of the project cycle (e.g. construction; operation), whereas pre-construction and post-closure are only assessed if relevant to the proposed project. In this case, pre- construction, which represents the planning or design phase is not assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure is not assessed as it is highly unlikely to occur, namely the removal of the slipway and no use of the road in the future), despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or de-register the slipway as use in the long-term may be required. Identifying species that may be disproportionately affected because of a threatened or vulnerable status (i.e. species of special concern).
44 Ecological Specialist Report
Describing residual impacts that may occur post-closure.
Identifying mitigation and performance improvement measures
Mitigation and performance improvement measures that address both positive and negative impacts are identified and described. Measures and actions to address negative impacts favour prevention over minimization, mitigation or compensation. Measures comply with applicable laws and regulations. Desired outcomes are defined, and are measurable events with performance indicators, targets and acceptable criteria that can be tracked over defined periods, with estimates of the resources and responsibilities for implementation. For the purposes of compiling an Environmental Management Programme, the following is addressed: (1) Measures that are specific to laws and regulations; (2) Measures are prioritized; and (3) A time-line for implementation.
9.2. POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT
Nine potential construction and operational impacts were identified and assessed, namely:
Impact 1 - Loss of vegetation - biodiversity loss Impact 2 - Spread of alien invasive plant species - biodiversity loss Impact 3 - Loss of habitat - biodiversity loss Impact 4 -Loss of fauna - biodiversity loss Impact 5 - Loss of invertebrates - biodiversity loss Impact 6 - Modification of flow dynamics and flow patterns - hydrological processes Impact 7 - Topsoil loss, soil erosion and sediment deposition - hydrological processes Impact 8 - Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution - biodiversity loss & hydrological processes Impact 9 - Disturbance of important ecological process areas - biodiversity loss
9.2.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF VEGETATION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: The proposed slipway and access road will require the removal of vegetation during the construction phase, mostly grassland with some riparian species adjacent to the Mthatha River. The removal of protected species is regulated through the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (Bill), the National Forest Act and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. However, no protected species were recorded along the proposed development footprint.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
45 Ecological Specialist Report
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating during the construction and operational phases.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 1 1 5 Low Low Definite Insignificant Specific Permanent (Negative) Score -6 -7 -42
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of transformation and degradation within the study site and surrounding catchment, which is moderate relative to the extent of indigenous vegetation and natural to near-natural land cover. Transformed areas are represented by rural housing and roads, and alien plant cover, while degraded areas are representative of land under grazing and impacted by past intensive agriculture. Future development within the area is unlikely, which is based on the fact that cultivation in the area has ceased rather than expanded. Cumulative impacts are considered moderate as the percentage cover of transformed and degraded terrestrial areas is not extensive when compared to the percentage natural plant cover. However, in terms of the Mthatha River, the EcoStatus (for the section of the river in which the proposed slipway is located) is Poor (or Largely Modified) to Seriously Modified; and is of Low Ecological Importance and Sensitivity. The equivalent Ecological Reserve Category is D/E. The use of one motor boat will add to the current impacts, but not significantly, and as a result the cumulative impacts will remain high (i.e. Largely Modified).
Mitigation measure(s)
1. Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Note that no vegetation will be removed along the access track. 2. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - only required around the slipway area if damage to riparian areas is excessive i.e. excessively outside of the development area. 3. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas with indigenous grass, sedge and reed species. For example Cyperus or Juncus species. 4. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), with rehabilitation plan, that indicates method statements and specifications in this regard. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. 5. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance will be Low (-35) once the mitigation measures are implemented post construction. This is because development within the footprint only, coupled with rehabilitation, will provide a positive benefit and will reduce the extent (m²) of the impact further.
46 Ecological Specialist Report
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Pre-Mitigation: Pre- Mitigation: Post Mitigation Construction Operation: Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Definite (5) Regularly (4) (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 5) Consequence Severity of impact Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Low (-42) Low (-35) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of High mitigation
9.2.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: During the construction of the proposed slipway and road, disturbed areas and exposed soils will be created. This will potentially promote the encroachment of alien invasive plants (during both the construction and operational phases) that already occur within the study site. The control of alien invasive species is regulated through the Conservation of Agricultural and Resources Act and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Medium-Low significance rating.
Pre-construction: Alien invasive plants have already impacted on the wetland and surrounding catchment area.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 3 3 5 Medium - Low Low Highly Slight Local Permanent (Negative) likely
47 Ecological Specialist Report
Score -6 -9 -54
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of alien invasive plants within the study site, which is relatively low. Future rural housing and agriculture could increase this impact due to an increase in exposed soil, if alien management procedures are not implemented. However, it is considered unlikely that future rural activities will expand based on the fact that cultivation in the area has ceased. Cumulative impacts are considered Low as the percentage cover of existing alien plants is not significantly or even moderately higher than the percentage cover of natural plants. Evidence of alien clearing was observed in the field as well.
Mitigation measure(s)
Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), with rehabilitation plan, that provides specifications with regards to alien clearing and management. (NOTE: Any municipal or state owned land must have an alien management control plan in place in terms of the NEMBA). An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. Rehabilitation will be required if removal of riparian vegetation around the slipway is excessive. Indigenous Cyperus and Juncus species are recommended. Alien plants growing within the construction area must be removed during the construction period. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance can be reduced to Very Low if the mitigation measures are implemented.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Highly likely (5) Highly Unlikely (1) (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 2) Consequence Severity of impact Slightly (3) Small (2) Spatial scope Local (3) Activity (1) Duration Permanent (5) 1 month – 1 year (2) (Sub-total = 9) (Sub-total = 5) Significance Rating Construction/Operation: Very Low (-10) Medium – Low (-54) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF HABITAT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: Riparian or wetland habitat along the Mthatha River will be removed due to the construction and operation of the proposed slipway. The proposed road will not require the removal of terrestrial vegetation during the construction phase, but will destroy mostly grasses with the continued use of
48 Ecological Specialist Report the track, thereby removing minimal terrestrial grassland habitat. Vegetation within the delineated wetland will not be removed.
Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river and any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance. The removal of protected species is regulated through the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (Bill), the National Forest Act and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. No protected species were recorded along the proposed development footprint (slipway and road).
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating, both during the construction and operational phases.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 4 2 1 5 Low Low Regular Small Activity Specific Permanent (Negative) Score -5 -8 -40
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider existing land use impacts and potential future land use impacts. Existing land use impacts considers the current extent of habitat loss and disturbances (roads, alien invasive plants, sand mining, grazing) within the study site and surrounding catchment, which combined, is comparatively high. Potential future rural development (housing, livestock and cultivation) within the catchment will increase these impacts due to an increase in land use activities, although it is considered unlikely that future rural activities will expand based on the fact that cultivation in the area has ceased. A new slipway and road will increase this impact very slightly within the catchment. Cumulative impacts are considered moderate to high, based on the Present Ecological State of this section of the river, namely Class D or Largely Modified, and the moderate rural land use impacts within the catchment area.
Mitigation measure(s)
Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Note that no vegetation will be removed along the access track. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - only required around the slipway area if damage to riparian areas is excessive. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas with indigenous grass, sedge and reed species. For example Cyperus or Juncus species.
49 Ecological Specialist Report
Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that indicates method statements and specifications in this regard. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance score will reduce slightly once the mitigation measures are implemented post construction, i.e. from -40 to -35, remaining in the Low significance category. This is because development within the footprint only, coupled with rehabilitation, will provide a positive benefit and will reduce the extent (m²) of the impact further.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Pre- Mitigation Post Mitigation Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Regular (4) Regular (4) Sub-total (5) Sub-total (5) Consequence Severity of impact Small (2) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 8) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Low (-40) Low (-35) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: Habitat will be ever so slightly reduced and fragmented due to the construction and operation of the proposed slipway and road, which has the potential to cause the ‘’loss’’ of fauna. However, the potential loss is so insignificant that this impact is considered negligible as fauna are able to move to other parts of the catchment. Further, fauna will most likely utilize the proposed road and slipway as it represents the path of least resistance.
Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river and any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance. Further, the removal of protected species is regulated through the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (Bill), and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. Although a number of protected species will potentially frequent the study site, the proposed development will not remove or impact significantly (if at all) on these species.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly
50 Ecological Specialist Report unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Very Low significance rating, both during the construction and operational phases.
Construction and operation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 2 1 1 5 Very Low Low Very Insignificant Specific Permanent (Negative) Seldom Score -3 -7 -21
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing disturbances (grazing, cultivation, roads and houses) within and proximate to the study site, which impact on fauna using the area. The current impact is considered Low as rural development would have reduced the number of fauna using the study site. Future rural development within the catchment (i.e. increased housing, agriculture and roads), coupled with a proposed slipway will impact only slightly. It is however considered unlikely that rural expansion will take place based on the fact that cultivation in the area has ceased rather than increased. Cumulative impacts are considered to remain low as the projected degree of rural development should not significantly alter faunal use of the study site, if it remains low density rural.
Mitigation measure(s)
Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Note that no vegetation will be removed along the access track. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - only required around the slipway area if damage to riparian areas is excessive. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas with indigenous grass, sedge and reed species. For example Cyperus or Juncus species. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that indicates method statements and specifications in this regard. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance score will reduce slightly once the mitigation measures are implemented post construction, i.e. from -21 to -14, remaining in the Very Low category. This is because development within the footprint only, coupled with rehabilitation, will provide a positive benefit and will reduce the extent (m²) of the impact further.
51 Ecological Specialist Report
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Very Seldom (2) Insignificant (1) Sub-total (3) Sub-total (2) Consequence Severity of impact Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Construction/Operation: Very Low (-14) Very Low (-21) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.5. IMPACT 5: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: Invertebrates that will inhabit aquatic features, such as rivers and wetlands, range from springtails to damselflies, dragonflies and butterflies. Two important butterfly species may potentially inhabit the aquatic areas, although these are not red data species. The proposed slipway and road, however, is small in extent and intensity; and therefore unlikely to result in the loss of these species; and will not impact on the delineated wetland in this regard. Invertebrates are able to move to other areas of the Mthatha River (away from the slipway) or within the study site. Other invertebrates may include benthic organisms, which will be removed from the sediment during construction; as well as snails, beetles, bugs etc. All, apart from the benthic invertebrates, will be able to move from away the construction site. Note that the access track will not require removal of sediment. A benthic invertebrate study has not been conducted.
Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river and any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance. Further, the removal of protected species is regulated through the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (Bill), and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. No protected invertebrate species were recorded within the development footprint.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating, both during the construction and operational phases.
52 Ecological Specialist Report
Construction and operation
NON-BENTHIC AND BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 2 1 5 Low Low Definite Small Specific Permanent (Negative) Score -6 -8 -48
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing disturbances (rural, livestock grazing, roads, sand mining) within the catchment, which impacts on invertebrate presence (i.e. loss of habitat therefore loss of invertebrates). The current impact is considered relatively low in the catchment. Potential future rural development within the catchment (i.e. increased housing, roads, livestock, sand mining), coupled with a new slipway and road will increase this impact only slightly. Cumulative impacts are considered to remain low as the projected degree of rural development in the catchment area should not significantly alter invertebrate presence within the catchment, if it remains rural.
Mitigation measure(s)
Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Note that no vegetation will be removed along the access track. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - only required around the slipway area if damage to riparian areas is excessive. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas with indigenous grass, sedge and reed species. For example Cyperus or Juncus species. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that indicates method statements and specifications in this regard. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance will reduce slightly once the mitigation measures are implemented post construction, i.e. from Low (-48) to Very Low (-28) for both non-benthic and benthic invertebrates, because development within the footprint only, coupled with rehabilitation, will provide a positive benefit and will reduce the extent (m²) of the impact further.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation
Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Definite (5) Unlikely (3) (Sub-Total 6) (Sub-Total 4) Consequence Severity of impact Small (2) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5)
53 Ecological Specialist Report
(Sub-total = 8) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Construction/Operation: Construction/Operation: Low (-48) Very Low (-28) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.6. IMPACT 6: MODIFICATION OF FLOW DYNAMICS AND FLOW PATTERNS (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: With the construction and operation of the proposed slipway and road, the flow dynamics and flow patterns (hydrological processes) of the catchment will be modified i.e. increased flow due to the concrete slipway and road tracks, which will affect natural drainage patterns and hydraulics. In other words, surface flow will be directed along the road and slipway. Surface flow (amount and velocity) within the catchment area may increase, which may increase surface water flow into the Mthatha River and the delineated wetland (which is proximate to the access track).
Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river and any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating.
Pre-construction: Changes in flow dynamics and flow patterns are existing impacts where the existing access track occurs; and where past cultivation and sand excavation has impacted on flow dynamics.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 2 1 5 Low Low Definite Small Activity Permanent (Negative) Score -6 -8 -48
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing impacts in the catchment (past cultivation, livestock grazing, sand mining, paths) that currently modify flow dynamics and flow patterns. Signs of erosion were evident along drainage lines, while cultivation furrows and platforms have created artificial
54 Ecological Specialist Report
pools which hold surface water, thereby reducing surface run off and associated erosion in certain areas. Another road with slipway may further modify flow patterns and dynamics. Cumulative impacts are considered low to moderate because no signs of gully erosion were present, although less intensive erosion was recorded.
Mitigation measure(s)
Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Note that no vegetation will be removed along the access track. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - only required around the slipway area if damage to riparian areas is excessive. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas with indigenous grass, sedge and reed species. For example Cyperus or Juncus species. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to include a storm-water management and rehabilitation plan and specifications to reduce soil erosion (e.g. rehabilitation specifications, slope stabilisation, swales etc.). An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance score will reduce from -48 to -35, thereby remaining in the Low significance category. This is because development within the footprint only, coupled with rehabilitation, will provide a positive benefit and will reduce the extent (m²) of the impact further.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Definite (5) Likely (4) (Sub-Total 6) (Sub-Total 5) Consequence Severity of impact Small (2) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 8) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Construction/Operation: Low (-48) Low (-35) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.7. IMPACT 7: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITION (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: During the construction of the proposed slipway and road, topsoil will be removed, and surface or storm-water run-off may result in an increase in soil erosion and sedimentation (hydrological processes) around the proposed slipway and road.
Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river and any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance.
55 Ecological Specialist Report
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating.
Pre-construction: Soil erosion and sedimentation are existing impacts where the existing access track occurs; and where past cultivation and sand excavation has impacted on flow dynamics.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 1 1 5 Low Low Definite Insignificant Activity Permanent (Negative) Score -6 -7 -42
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing impacts in the catchment (road, sand mining, erosion, paths, livestock grazing) that currently modify flow dynamics and flow patterns. It is possible that these impacts have exacerbated soil erosion and sedimentation impacts. As a result, another road and slipway will further exacerbate these impacts. Cumulative impacts are considered low to moderate because no signs of gully erosion were present in the catchment.
Mitigation measure(s)
Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. The access track should be as porous as possible, allowing for water infiltration. A gravel or natural two wheel access track is recommended. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to include a storm-water management and rehabilitation plan to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. If necessary, stockpile topsoil for re-use during the rehabilitation phase. Stock piling specifications to be designated in the EMP. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision.
Impact significance after mitigation
This impact is considered negligible pre-mitigation because the proposed slipway is small in extent, and limited vegetation will be ‘’destroyed’’ due to establishment of the access track (i.e. it is not an asphalt or gravel road
56 Ecological Specialist Report but rather a access track that will develop over time due to vehicular use). The methodology does not allow for classification into a Very Low category or ‘’movement’’ from -42 to a lower significance score.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation Likelihood Frequency of activity Low (1) Low (1) Frequency of impact Definite (5) Definite (5) (Sub-Total 6) (Sub-Total 6) Consequence Severity of impact Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-Total 7) (Sub-Total 7) Significance Rating Construction/Operation: Low (-42) Low (-42) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of mitigation High
9.2.8. IMPACT 8: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: During the construction of the proposed slipway and road, ground and surface water pollution impacts may accrue due to construction materials (i.e. cement slipway); and from potential oil and fuel leakages from construction vehicles. Oil and fuel leakage from one vehicle and one motorized vessel during the operational phase may also contribute to pollution. Riparian and wetland plants have a natural ability to biodegrade pollutants, particularly since use intensity will be low (i.e. one vehicle and one boat) and the ability of the Mthatha River to dilute the pollution is high, while the duration of the impact will be comparatively brief. Ablution facilities that are not properly maintained during the construction phase may also result in pollution of ground and surface water. Solid waste generated during the construction phase (i.e. building rubble and litter) also has the potential to cause pollution of the environment. Pollution impacts can negatively affect flora and fauna, as well as hydrological processes.
Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution is regulated through the National Water Act and National Environmental Management: Waste Act. Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the National Water Act, in that a water use license application must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to disturb any river or any wetland within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation this impact is assessed as having a Low significance rating.
57 Ecological Specialist Report
Pre-construction: Solid waste (litter) was observed within the study site.
Construction and operation pre-mitigation
Construction pre-mitigation Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 5 2 3 1 Low Low Definite Small Local Month (Negative) Score -6 -6 -36 Operation pre-mitigation – liquid effluent Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 4 4 1 3 1 Low Regularly Likely Insignificant Local Day-Month (Negative) Score -8 -5 -40
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing impacts in the catchment, namely the potential for polluted storm water run-off from vehicles and Escherichia coli contamination from upstream areas (i.e. from Mthatha town, such as pet excrement and sewage). According to the Mthatha State of Rivers Report (DWAF, 2008), the water quality of this section of the river is poor due to sewage, washing and sand mining. Potential future rural development within the catchment will increase this impact due to an increase in traffic generation and housing. A new road and slipway, with the use of one vehicle and one motorized vessel that may leak oil and fuel, is considered to potentially have an insignificant additional impact on the water quality. Cumulative impacts are therefore considered moderate to high because the current water quality is poor.
Mitigation measure(s)
Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel, cement. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. The EMP to designate an area for the construction camp (which includes ablution facilities, storage of hazardous wastes, maintenance stations etc.) at least 100m away from the river and wetland. The EMP to identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or burning policy) and the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site. The EMP to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur proximate to the river or wetland. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision. Ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles and motor vessel to prevent oil and fuel leakages during the operational phase.
58 Ecological Specialist Report
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance can be reduced to Very Low if the mitigation measures are implemented, from Low pre-mitigation.
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation Prior to Mitigation Post Mitigation Construction Operation Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Regularly (4) Low (1) activity Frequency of Definite (5) Likely (3) Unlikely (2) impact (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = (3) Consequence Severity of Small (2) Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) impact Spatial scope Local (3) Local (3) Activity (1) Duration Month (1) Day-Month (1) Day-Month (1) (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = 3) Significance Low (-36) Low (-35) Construction/Operation: Rating Very Low (-9) Degree to which High impact can be reversed Degree of High mitigation
9.2.9. IMPACT 9: DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.
Nature of the impact: The study site has been delineated as a Critical Biodiversity Area (Ecological Corridor), because it is an important ecological/hydrological process area. During the construction of the proposed slipway and road, faunal movement will be somewhat restricted, but not prevented. However fauna, birds, amphibians (frogs) and invertebrates (wasps, butterflies etc.) are able to move to avoid areas of disturbance. During the operational phase, the proposed slipway and road will have no impact on these processes, because movement will be possible. Other processes, like nutrient cycling, pollination and soil formation, may be slightly reduced with the removal of vegetation (habitat). Hydrological process impacts are assessed in Impacts 6, 7 and 8.
Stages of the project cycle assessed - Construction and Operation.
Pre-construction and post-closure phases are not assessed. As noted in the methodology, the pre-construction phase has not been assessed because no design or planning phase recommendations are provided that will significantly or even slightly reduce the impact, or which are logically feasible, for this low impact development e.g. change in slipway construction materials, alternative positioning of the slipway. Post closure reflects slipway and road closure (removing the slipway and not utilizing the track in the future), which is highly unlikely to occur, and is not assessed (despite the fact that spraying will be for approximately 5 years, it would be illogical to remove or deregister the slipway).
Impact significance before mitigation: Before mitigation, this impact is considered Very Low and Low during the construction and operational phases, respectively.
59 Ecological Specialist Report
Pre-construction: Ecological and hydrological processes along the Mthatha and Cumnenge rivers; and within the catchment, are already disturbed by weirs/dams, sewage, sand mining, livestock grazing, roads and rural housing.
Construction pre-mitigation Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 4 1 1 1 Very Low Low Likely Insignificant Activity Month (Negative) Score -5 -3 -15 Operation pre-mitigation Likelihood Consequence Frequency Freq of Severity of Spatial scope Duration Rating of activity impact impact 1 4 1 1 5 Low Low Likely Insignificant Activity Permanent (Negative) Score -5 -7 -35
Cumulative impacts: The potential cumulative impacts consider existing and potential future impacts. Existing impacts (i.e. livestock grazing, roads, rural housing, sand mining) on the ecological processes of the two rivers, delineated wetland and associated catchment, is considered low as ecological processes and hydrological processes are being maintained. The potential for and degree of rural expansion in the future is considered low given cultivation has ceased rather than expanded. The additional impact of the proposed slipway and access road is very low in terms of impacting on ecological processes, and as a result the potential cumulative impacts are assessed as Low because the movement of species is restricted rather than prevented. Further, compliance with maintaining ecological corridors in terms of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map should not result in high cumulative impacts in the long term.
Mitigation measure(s)
The only mitigation recommended is to maintain the access track as natural as possible. This will reduce the impacts associated with hydrological processes and other micro ecological processes (e.g. nutrient recycling, pollination) through maintaining as much natural land cover as possible. No mitigation is necessary for the movement of fauna (mammals, reptiles, birds and insects), as these species will continue to make use of the area without movement being prevented.
Impact significance after mitigation
The impact significance should remain Very Low (construction phase) and Low (operation phase), pre- and post-mitigation, as the proposed slipway and access track will not prevent access in and around the river, wetland and associated catchment. The frequency of the impact is ‘’likely’’ in terms of micro-scale ecological processes, such as nutrient recycling and pollination, where vegetation is removed.
60 Ecological Specialist Report
Construction and operation post mitigation
Negative impact Prior to Mitigation - Prior to Mitigation - Post Mitigation Post Mitigation - Construction Operation: Construction Operation Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) activity Frequency of Likely (4) Likely (4) Seldom (3) Seldom (3) impact (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = 4) (Sub-total = 4) Consequence Severity of Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) impact Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) Activity (1) Activity (1) Duration Month (1) Permanent (5) Month (1) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 3) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = 3) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Rating Very Low (-15) Low (-35) Very Low (-12) Low (-28) Degree to which High High impact can be reversed Degree of High High mitigation
61 Ecological Specialist Report
9.3. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Nine potential construction and operational impacts were identified and assessed, namely:
Impact 1 - Loss of vegetation - biodiversity loss Impact 2 - Spread of alien invasive plant species - biodiversity loss Impact 3 - Loss of habitat - biodiversity loss Impact 4 -Loss of fauna - biodiversity loss Impact 5 - Loss of invertebrates - biodiversity loss Impact 6 - Modification of flow dynamics and flow patterns - hydrological processes Impact 7 - Topsoil loss, soil erosion and sediment deposition - hydrological processes Impact 8 - Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution - biodiversity loss & hydrological processes Impact 9 - Disturbance of important ecological process areas - biodiversity loss
All potential construction and operational phase impacts can be mitigated or reduced in terms of their significance rankings or scores (Table 8a & b). Mitigation measures are largely through minimizing the extent of the construction footprint, rehabilitation, alien plant control and effluent management.
Impact 4 (loss of fauna - biodiversity loss) and the construction phase of Impact 9 (disturbance of important ecological process areas - biodiversity loss) remained in the Very Low category pre- and post-mitigation, although their significance scores were reduced slightly.
Impact 1 (loss of vegetation - biodiversity loss), Impact 3 (loss of habitat - biodiversity loss), Impact 6 (modification of flow dynamics and flow patterns - hydrological processes), Impact 7 (topsoil loss, soil erosion and sediment deposition - hydrological processes), and the operational phase of Impact 9 (disturbance of important ecological process areas - biodiversity loss), all remained in the Low category pre- and post- mitigation, although their significance scores were reduced slightly.
Impact 2 (spread of alien invasive plant species - biodiversity loss) had the highest impact rating pre-mitigation, at Medium-Low, but was lowered to Very Low, post mitigation by implementing an alien management plan.
Impact 5 (loss of invertebrates - biodiversity loss) and Impact 8 (effluent pollution and solid waste pollution - biodiversity loss & hydrological processes) were lowered from Low pre-mitigation to Very Low post mitigation
Refer to the table below for a summary of the impacts pre and post mitigation (Table 8a). A summary of the recommended mitigation measures indicated in Section 8.2 above are provided in Table 8b, which reduce the significance of each impact to Low or Very Low. These mitigation measures can be carried through to the Environmental Management Programme.
In conclusion, five impacts were rated as Very Low and five were rated as Low, post mitigation (includes construction and operational phases). As a result, the proposed slipway and associated access track places minimal impact on the ecology of the study site and surrounds, if appropriate management measures are implemented, particularly during the construction phase.
62 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 8a: Summary of Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation: Impact Negative impact Pre- Mitigation: Pre-mitigation: Post Post Mitigation Construction Operation Mitigation Operation Construction 1) LOSS OF Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) VEGETATION activity (BIODIVERSITY Frequency of Definite (5) (Sub-total = 6) Regularly (4) LOSS) impact (Sub-total = 5) Consequence Severity of Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) impact Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Low (-42) Low (-35)
2) SPREAD OF Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) ALIEN INVASIVE activity PLANT SPECIES Frequency of Highly likely (5) Highly Unlikely (1) (BIODIVERSITY impact (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 2) LOSS) Consequence Severity of Slightly (3) Small (2) impact Spatial scope Local (3) Activity (1) Duration Permanent (5) 1 month – 1 year (2) (Sub-total = 9) (Sub-total = 5) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Medium – Low (-54) Very Low (-10)
3) LOSS OF Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) HABITAT activity (BIODIVERSITY Frequency of Regular (4) Sub-total (5) Regular (4) LOSS) impact Sub-total (5) Consequence Severity of Small (2) Insignificant (1) impact Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 8) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Low (-40) Low (-35)
4) LOSS OF Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) FAUNA activity (BIODIVERSITY Frequency of Very Seldom (2) Sub-total (3) Insignificant (1) LOSS) impact Sub-total (2) Consequence Severity of Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) impact Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Very Low (-21) Very Low (-14)
5) LOSS OF Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) INVERTEBRATES activity (BIODIVERSITY Frequency of Definite (5) Unlikely (3) LOSS) impact (Sub-Total 6) (Sub-Total 4) Consequence Severity of Small (2) Insignificant (1) impact
63 Ecological Specialist Report
Impact Negative impact Pre- Mitigation: Pre-mitigation: Post Post Mitigation Construction Operation Mitigation Operation Construction Spatial scope Specific (1) Specific (1) Duration Permanent (5) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 8) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Very Low (-28) Rating Low (-48)
6) Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) MODIFICATION activity OF FLOW Frequency of Definite (5) (Sub-Total 6) Likely (4) DYNAMICS AND impact (Sub-Total 5) FLOW Consequence Severity of Small (2) Insignificant (1) PATTERNS impact (HYDROLOGICAL Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) PROCESSES) Duration Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 8) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Low (-48) Low (-35)
7) TOPSOIL Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) LOSS, SOIL activity EROSION AND Frequency of Definite (5) (Sub-Total 6) Definite (5) SEDIMENT impact (Sub-Total 6) DEPOSITION Consequence Severity of Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) (HYDROLOGICAL impact PROCESSES) Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) Duration Permanent (5) (Sub-Total 7) Permanent (5) (Sub-Total 7) Significance Construction/Operation: Rating Low (-42) Low (-42)
8) EFFLUENT Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Regularly (4) Low (1) POLLUTION activity AND SOLID Frequency of Definite (5) Likely (3) Unlikely (2) WASTE impact (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = (3) POLLUTION Consequence Severity of Small (2) Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) (BIODIVERSITY impact LOSS & Spatial scope Local (3) Local (3) Activity (1) HYDROLOGICAL Duration Month (1) Day-Month (1) Day-Month (1) PROCESSES) (Sub-total = 6) (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = 3) Significance Low (-36) Low (-35) Construction/Operation: Rating Very Low (-9)
9) Likelihood Frequency of Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) DISTURBANCE activity OF IMPORTANT Frequency of Likely (4) Likely (4) Seldom (3) Seldom (3) ECOLOGICAL impact (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = 5) (Sub-total = (Sub-total = 4) PROCESS AREAS 4) (BIODIVERSITY Consequence Severity of Insignificant (1) Insignificant (1) Insignificant Insignificant (1) LOSS) impact (1) Spatial scope Activity (1) Activity (1) Activity (1) Activity (1) Duration Month (1) Permanent (5) Month (1) Permanent (5) (Sub-total = 3) (Sub-total = 7) (Sub-total = (Sub-total = 7) 3) Significance Very Low Low Very Low Low Rating (-15) (-35) (-12) (-28)
Significance Rating
64 Ecological Specialist Report
Table 8b. Summary of recommended mitigation measures, indicating the management objective, priority of the mitigation measure, and capacity requirements
Time line for mitigation Commencemen Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency t (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)
5, 6, 8 Modification of 1. Allow the access track to establish with vehicular usage i.e. no Minimize 1 Environmental Once off Pre- 1. Dependent on slipway flow dynamics and asphalt or gravel. modifications in Control Officer design construction construction period (±2 flow patterns 2. Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. flow dynamics (ECO) weeks). 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental (hydrological and flow patterns 2. EMP compilation: 1 Management Programme (EMP) to include a storm-water Environmental processes) management and rehabilitation plan to reduce soil erosion and that will increase week (as part of the Assessment Weekly (ECO) Pre- sedimentation. soil erosion and Basic Assessment construction Topsoil loss, soil 4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure sedimentation Practitioner Report). Construction erosion & compliance with the EMP and Record of (EAP) – EMP 3. ECO employment: sediment Decision/Environmental Authorisation. compilation. Dependent on the Once off deposition 5. Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the application construction period (±2 (hydrological National Water Act therefore a water use license application Environmental weeks). must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs to Assessment processes) 4. Water use license disturb the Mthatha River and the delineated wetland (within Practitioner 500m of a proposed slipway and road). Pre- application Disturbance of (EAP) - water construction (questionnaire important use license completion ONLY) – ecological process application. approximately 2-4 areas (Biodiversity weeks. Processing may loss) take up to 6 months by Department of Water Affairs.
1, 3, 4 Loss of vegetation, 1. Removal of vegetation within the development footprint only. Minimize 2 Environmental Weekly (ECO) Pre- 1. Dependent on habitat and fauna 2. Rehabilitation of disturbed areas - indigenous grasses and vegetation loss to Control Officer construction & construction period (±2 (Biodiversity loss) sedges at the slipway to offset the removal of plants during the development (ECO) Construction weeks). construction. (Note: No vegetation will be removed for the footprint only. 2. Rehab: 1 week establishment of the access track). Contractor Construction Construction 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental (planting/seeding); 1-3 (should not period Management Programme (EMP), with rehabilitation plan, that week establishment
indicates method statements and specifications in this regard. require a period (watering period, 4. Disturbance of rivers and wetlands is regulated through the Landscape dependent on rainfall).
65 Ecological Specialist Report
Time line for mitigation Commencemen Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency t (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)
National Water Act therefore a water use license application Contractor for 3. EMP compilation: 1 must be processed through the Department of Water Affairs rehabilitation as week (as part of the to disturb the Mthatha River and the delineated wetland specifications Basic Assessment (within 500m of a proposed development/disturbance). will be provided Report).
in the EMP, 4. Water use license which will be application
simple enough (questionnaire to follow). completion ONLY) – approximately 2-4 Environmental Once off Pre- weeks. Processing may Assessment construction take up to 6 months by Practitioner Department of Water (EAP) – EMP Affairs. compilation.
Pre- Environmental Once off construction Assessment Practitioner (EAP) - water use license application.
2 Spread of alien 1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Prevent and 3 Environmental Weekly (ECO) Pre- 1. EMP compilation: 1 invasive plant Management Programme (EMP) that provides specifications minimize spread Assessment construction & week (as part of the species with regards to alien clearing and management. of alien invasive Practitioner Construction Basic Assessment 2. Removal of alien plants within the development footprint / (Biodiversity loss) species (EAP) – EMP report). construction area. compilation. 2. EMP implementation (ECO): Dependent on
Environmental duration of the
66 Ecological Specialist Report
Time line for mitigation Commencemen Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency t (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)
Control Officer construction period. (ECO) 3. Alien Removal: Dependent on duration Contractor of the construction Construction Construction (alien removal) period. period
7 Effluent pollution 1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Prevent effluent 4 Environmental Once off Pre- 1. EMP compilation: 1 week and solid waste Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste pollution and Assessment construction (as part of the Basic pollution management plan, to prevent accidental leakage of pollutants solid waste Practitioner Assessment Report). e.g. oil, fuel, cement. pollution (EAP) – EMP 2. EMP implementation 2. The EMP to designate an area for the construction camp compilation. (ECO): Dependent on (which includes ablution facilities, storage of hazardous wastes, duration of the maintenance stations etc.) at least 100m away from the rivers Environmental construction period. and delineated wetland. Pre- 3. The EMP, which includes a waste management plan, to identify Control Officer Weekly (ECO) construction & procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or (ECO) burning policy) and the maintenance of ablution facilities, Construction including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site. 4. The EMP to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur proximate to the wetland.
67 Ecological Specialist Report
10. REFERENCES CEPF. 2010. Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot. Ecosystem Profile. Final Draft. Submission to Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)DONOR COUNCIL
Berliner, D., Desmet, P., Hayes, R. and Hayes, A.Y. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town.
DWAF. 2007. Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South African floodplain and channelled valley bottom wetland types by M. Rountree (ed); C.P. Todd, C. J. Kleynhans, A. L. Batchelor, M. D. Louw, D. Kotze, D. Walters, S. Schroeder, P. Illgner, M. Uys. and G.C. Marneweck. Report no. N/0000/00/WEI/0407. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF. 2008. River health Programme. State-of-Rivers Report: Mthatha River System. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria ISBN No: 978-0-620-42131-7.
Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J., Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission.
Henning, G.A., Terblanche, R.F. & Ball, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: Butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Lewis, C.A. (Ed) Unknown. The Geomorphology of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Crocott and Sherry Publishers. Grahamstown.
Macfarlane, D.M., Kotze, D.C., Ellery W.N., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. and Goge. C. 2008. Wetland Management Series: WET-Health - A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report TT 340/08.
Mucina, L., Rutherford, C. and Powries, I.W. EDITORS. 2005. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1 000 000 SCALE SHEET MAPS. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria.
Mucina, L., Rutherford, M. C. and Powrie, L. W. (Eds.) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. And Nienaber, S. 2011. Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. K5/1801.
Nel, J.L., Smith-Adao, L., Roux, D.J., Adams, J., Cambray, J.A., de Moor, F.C., Kleynhans, C.J., Kotze, I., Maree, G., J, M., Schonegevel, L.Y., Smith, R.J., Thirion, C., 2006. Conservation Planning for River and Estuarine Biodiversity in the Fish-to-Tsitsikamma Water Management Area. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. Water Research Commission Report K5/1486: 106 pp.
SANBI. 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).
Scherman, P-A., Reynhardt, D., Cawe, S., Gordon, A., Weeks, D., Kinya, J., du Preez, L., Ntozakhe, T. and Myeko, N. 2006. Technical Report: Mthatha River Monitoring, 2004 – 2006. 2006. Eastern Cape River Health Programme. Prepared for Chief Director Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Southern Cluster. Prepared by Coastal & Environmental Services. Grahamstown.
68 Ecological Specialist Report
Scherman, P-A., Jennings, M., Colloty, B., Bosman, L., Ngwenya, P., Gordon, A. and Blake. J. 2007. Specialist study on the potential impact of the proposed N2 wild coast toll highway on aquatic systems. Prepared by Coastal and Environmental Services for CCA Environmental on behalf of the SANRAL. Grahamstown. van Ginkel C.E., Glen R.P., Gordon-Gray K.D., Muasya M., and van Deventer P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African wetland plants. Water Research Commission.
69