C.A.P.E. Estuaries Management Programme
BERG ESTUARY SITUATION ASSESSMENT
October 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL
University of Cape Town, PO Box 34035, Rhodes Gift 7707 [email protected] R ENVIRONMENTAL
i • marine & estuarine ecology • aquatic resource management • • resource economics • conservation planning • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Berg estuary is one of the largest of South Africa’s 279 estuaries, with a total area of 61 km2. It is one of the most important estuaries in the country from a conservation perspective, particularly in respect of its bird and fish fauna. The extensive floodplain that surrounds the middle and upper reaches of the system make it unique in the south‐western Cape. Mounting pressures are, however, threatening this estuary, including freshwater abstraction and pollution, over fishing, housing developments and high intensity recreation. Recognising the importance of the Berg estuary and estuaries in South Africa more generally, the C.A.P.E. Regional Estuaries Management Programme commissioned Anchor Environmental Consultants to prepare a management plan for the Berg estuary. This report is the Situation Assessment that forms the background material for the development of the management plan, and should be read in conjunction with the Management Plan itself.
Geographic and socio‐economic context
The Berg Estuary is located approximately 130 km north of Cape Town on the West Coast of South Africa. Based on the extent of tidal influence, the estuary is estimated to be 65 km long, although seawater does not penetrate this far upstream. The main channel at Veldrif is about 100‐200 m wide, becoming progressively narrower and shallower upstream. Depth is about 3‐5 m on average, but extends up to 9 m in places. The total volume of the estuary is estimated to be about 12 Mm3. The catchment lies entirely within the Western Cape Province which receives most precipitation during the winter rainfall season. Three major dams have been built in the catchment, including the Wemmershoek Dam (surface area = 3 km2 storage capacity = 66 Mm3/a), the Voëlvlei Dam (surface area = 15 km2, storage capacity = 170 Mm3/a), and the recently (2008) completed Berg River Dam (storage capacity = 130 Mm3/a, surface area = 488 ha). Numerous smaller farm dams are also found throughout the east part of the catchment. The present‐day annual runoff of the Berg River is estimated to be around 682 Mm3/a, about 35% lower than under natural conditions.
The total population living within the Berg River catchment was estimated at 369 282 in 1995, most of which (79%) is found in urban areas. Agriculture (livestock farming, plantation forestry, grain and fruit farming), commercial industries, residential development and nature conservation are the main land use activities in the catchment. Alien vegetation also occupies a large portion (13%) of the total catchment area, with natural vegetation accounting for only 2% of the total area. Economic activities associated with the estuary have historically been fisheries‐based (commercial fishing, fish processing factories and boat repair facilities) but have recently expanded to include tourism and recreation. The estuary is considered a premier bird watching destination and recreational fishing remains a strong draw card. Cerebos and smaller commercial salt works generate further income in the area. In 1997, the Gross Domestic Product for the catchment was R12 billion, equivalent to 2.5% of the national GDP.
Ecological characteristics and functioning of the estuary
The Berg estuary mouth is stabilized between concrete breakwaters and dredged and therefore remains permanently open. Freshwater flow to the estuary varies from around 1.5 m3.s‐1 in summer (Nov‐Feb) to 35 m3.s‐1 in winter (May‐Aug), but reaches between 90 to 600 m3.s‐1 when in flood. Saline seawater penetrates the estuary up to at least 40 km from the mouth during the summer low‐flow period, but freshwater inflow to the estuary during winter is sufficient to push the salt water back to
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment i Anchor Environmental
within 10 km of the mouth. Estuarine waters are well‐oxygenated throughout the year, but are slightly more oxygen rich in winter than summer. Temperature is fairly uniform along the estuary during winter, typically 12‐15˚C, but tends to be warmer in the upper reaches during summer (typically above 20˚C). The lower reaches remain cool during summer due to upwelling at sea. Nutrients enter the estuary with both the sea and the river, with sea inputs dominating in summer (low flow season), and river inputs dominating in winter (high flow season). Nutrient inputs from the sea have changed little over time but inputs from the catchment have escalated dramatically in recent decades as a result of agricultural inputs and runoff. Total nitrogen concentration at the head of the estuary for example, has increased from less than 300 ugl‐1 prior to 1980 (which was roughly equal to the input from the sea) up to almost 2 000 ugl‐1 in 2005.
Phytoplankton communities in the Berg estuary are typically estuarine, and reflect the prevailing physical conditions. Abundance is highest in winter owing to higher nutrient concentrations at this time of year, and has escalated dramatically in response to increases in nutrient input from the catchment. Average biomass of phytoplankton (measured as Chlorophyll a concentration) has increased from around 1.8 μg/l in winter and 0.2 μg/l in summer in the 1980s to around 8.2 μg/l in winter and 1.2 μg/l in summer at present.
Vegetation of the estuary can broadly be grouped into four types: (1) Macroalgae (Enteromorpha sp.) which forms extensive mats that cover sand and mud flats in the lower reaches of the estuary, and is a source of concern owing to the impacts on invertebrate populations and their predators (birds). (2) Submerged macrophytes comprise eelgrass (Zostera capensis), which forms dense beds in the lower reaches and provides important habitat for juvenile fishes, and fountain grass (Potamageton pectinatus), which occurs in low densities in the upper reaches. (3) Salt marsh, which is also concentrated in the lower reaches and on the floodplain, and contributes to system productivity and biotic diversity, providing important feeding areas, habitat and shelter for numerous invertebrate and birds. (4) Reeds and sedges, which are not able to tolerate high salinity, occur in abundance in the middle and upper reaches of the estuary.
The invertebrate community of the Berg estuary comprises zooplankton species that live in the water column and the benthic species that live in and on the sediments. These invertebrate communities are characterised by high abundance relative to other South African estuaries, and high species richness for the west coast, where diversity is usually fairly low. The dominant invertebrate species are calanoic copepods Pseudodiaptomus hessei, the crown‐crab Hymenosoma orbiculare, mysids (mainly Mesopodopsis wooldridgei) and fish larvae (hyperbenthos), amphipods (mainly Grandidierella lutosa and Corophium triaenonyx) and polychaetes (mainly Capitella capitata) (subtidal benthos), and polychaetes (mainly Ceratonereis erythraensis), amphipods and isopods (inter‐tidal benthos). These invertebrates are important in the diets of fish and birds.
Fish are particularly reliant on estuaries for sheltered habitat in southern Africa, and different species depend on them to different extents. A total of 35 fish species from 30 families have been recorded in the Berg Estuary, of which 17 (48%) can be regarded as either partially or completely dependent on the estuary for their survival. These include some highly valuable species such as white steenbras and elf, as well as lower value species such as harders. The estuaries on the west coast, particularly the Berg, are crucial in maintaining the range and stock integrity of estuarine and estuarine dependent species along the entire west coast. The decline in the harder stock and marine gill net fishery catches on the west coast has been attributed to recruitment over‐fishing in the Berg and Olifants estuary gill net fisheries. However, strong recoveries in fish abundance in the Berg estuary have been observed since
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment ii Anchor Environmental
gill netting in this estuary was banned in 2003. Harder and estuarine round herring are the dominant fish species in the estuary, while elf also make up a significant proportion of fish numbers. Estuary‐ dependent species are most abundant from 10‐30 km from the mouth, and the area from 12‐22 km upstream is considered to be the best core area to conserve for these species (i.e. from the railway bridge upstream to Kruispad). Adequate protection needs to be applied to the entire estuary, however, to ensure the survival of these species as they are highly mobile moving from the mouth right up to the top of the estuary.
Birds are one of the most important components of the Berg Estuary’s biodiversity. The Berg supports the highest recorded density of shorebirds on the West Coast of Africa, and supports nationally important populations of several species. Some 92 waterbird species have been regularly recorded over the past 10 years, with an average of about 60 species being recorded on the estuary at any one time. An average of 14 000 non‐passerine waterbirds are typically recorded in mid‐summer counts, this number decreasing to about 12 300 in mid‐winter. These figures represent average numbers present on any one day, and with birds arriving and leaving, the numbers using the estuary would be far higher than this. Charadriiformes (waders, gulls and terns) account for 41% of the species recorded, with most of these being wader species. Many species are associated with particular habitats or micro‐habitats, and some are more sensitive to salinity than others. Distinct communities occur at the mouth (dominated by cormorants, gulls and terns), the lower estuary (dominated by waders and flamingos in summer and flamingos, coots and waders in winter), and the upper estuary (dominated by ducks and waders and wading birds in summer and ducks, flamingos, coots and resident waders in winter). In recent years, a large cormorant roost has developed near the mouth, probably a result of loss of suitable areas elsewhere.
Ecosystem services
Estuaries provide a range of services that have economic or welfare value. In the case of the Berg estuary, the most important of these are the commercial fishing harbour, the recreational value and the nursery value of the estuary, recreation and tourism, and salt production. There may be additional values, such as carbon sequestration, but these are not well understood and are probably fairly minor.
The Berg estuary provides a nursery area for numerous fish species that are caught in the commercial and recreational inshore fisheries along the west coast, including harders, white steenbras, elf and leervis. Estuarine fish make up about 25% of the value of the gill‐ and seine‐net fisheries and 0.3% of the value of the commercial boat fisheries on the west coast, or about 8% of the overall value of West Coast inshore marine fisheries. The Berg Estuary contributes about 60% of the estuarine habitat on the west coast and is thus extremely important in this respect. Taking into account the degree to which these fish are dependent on estuaries, the nursery value of the Berg Estuary is estimated to be some R9 million per year.
The Berg estuary is a popular tourist destination for South Africans and overseas tourists. The north bank of the lower estuary is almost completely urbanized, while the middle and upper reaches have a strong natural or rural feel. Holiday cottages have been erected along both banks of the estuary, while hotels, the Stywelyne Caravan Park and other accommodation establishments in the area cater for visiting tourists. These establishments are all generally full during the major holiday periods. Several farms on the banks of the estuary offer tourist accommodation and eco‐tourism and/ adventure sports (including waterskiing) activities. Recreational fishing opportunities represent an important draw card for visitors to the estuary, where above average catch‐rates can be expected. There is also an
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment iii Anchor Environmental
important subsistence linefishery on the estuary. The recreational value of the estuary, including all forms of estuary recreation and turnover in the real estate sector attributable to the estuary premium on property prices, is estimated to be in the order of R10 – 20 million per annum.
Legislation and management issues
Little legislation has been designed for estuaries in particular. However, the fact that estuaries contain freshwater, terrestrial and marine components, and are heavily influenced by activities in a much broader catchment and adjacent marine area, means that they are affected by a large number of policies and laws. There is also no specific provision for Estuarine Protected Areas. Estuary management falls mainly under two national government departments: the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, responsible for water resources, and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), responsible for everything else, e.g. land use, living resources. Environmental management in most instances is devolved to provincial level. Management and conservation of marine living resources is an exception in this respect, with responsibility residing with the Branch Marine & Coastal Management (MCM) of DEAT. At a municipal level, by‐laws are passed which cannot conflict with provincial and national laws. The Berg estuary lies wholly within the Western Cape Province, within the West Coast District Municipality and the Berg River Local Municipality.
Water quality and quantity are mainly controlled under the National Water Act 36 of 1998. This makes provision for an Environmental Reserve which stipulates the quantity and quality of water flow required to protect the natural functioning of each water resource, including estuaries. The extent to which an estuary’s functioning is catered for is determined by the designated future management “class” (where classes A – F describe state of health), called the Ecological Reserve Category (ERC). In future this will be determined in a recently‐developed, holistic classification process. Meanwhile, it is decided by DWAF on the basis of a recommendations made from a Reserve‐Determination Studies (“Resource Directed Measures”) and socio‐economic considerations. In the case of the Berg River System, a Reserve Determination Study has been commissioned by DWAF, and will be completed later this year (2009). However, the ecological reserve itself will probably only be signed off by the Minister some time after this.. A preliminary assessment of the water requirements of the Berg estuary was completed as part of the Western Cape Systems Analysis at the time when the Berg River was identified as a viable source of freshwater for the Greater Cape Town area (1993). A detailed baseline assessment of the Berg River System and all hydraulically linked systems (i.e. estuary and groundwater systems) was completed in the period 2002‐2007, as a requirement in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the Berg River Dam.
Exploitation of living resources in the estuary is governed by the Marine Fisheries Policy for South Africa (1997) and the Marine Living Resources Act (1998). The policy supports sustainable use of resource and use of these resources for economic growth and development as well as ecosystem and biodiversity protection. There are currently no commercial fisheries on the Berg estuary, with all gill net fishery permits having been rescinding in 2003. Subsequent recovery of fish stocks (mainly harders and various linefish species) in the Berg estuary has borne out the wisdom of this decision. There remains a growing recreational line fishery on the estuary which is largely uncontrolled at present.
Under the Seashore Act of 1935, the estuary up to the high‐water mark belongs to the state. The newly gazetted National Coastal Management Act (2009) requires that a management plan be developed for each estuary. The Bill will also require the designation of a coastal protection zones extending 100m from the high tide mark (including in estuaries) in areas zoned for residential, industrial or commercial
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment iv Anchor Environmental
land use, and much larger development setback of 1km for public land and land zoned for agricultural use. A development setback zone must also be designated for all coastal property, by agreement between local and provincial authorities. Within these designated setback zones, no new land transformation or development may take place without a permit issued by the MEC. There is also provision to create a larger setback line under the Integrated Coastal Management Bill where necessary. In the case of the Berg estuary, most of the land surrounding the estuary is zoned rural, and thus in terms of this bill a coastal protection zone of 1km will be required around the much of the estuary. There is a strong argument to establish corresponding development setback zones for all estuaries in the country.
The Municipal Systems Act (2000) requires the identification of development priorities for each province, district and local municipality, and the expression of development plans in a spatial layout. The latter in turn, has to be formalised in a detailed land use and management plan. Thus the key land‐ use decision‐making is taking place by the local municipalities, in this case the Berg River Municipality. Their plans have to fit in with broader scale plans of the district and province. The Western Cape Province Spatial Development Framework (SDF) highlights the conservation importance of the Berg estuary at a national level but offers little of specific relevance to the management of the Berg estuary. The district Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and SDF lists the Berg River riparian zone (northern and southern sections) as ecologically sensitive and recommends severe restrictions on development (e.g. setback lines from the 1: 50 year flood line and conservation of the salt march area to the south of the river). The Berg River Local Municipality SDF has recently been revised, with the latest draft having been approved by the Municipal Council and is currently under consideration at the provincial level. There are, however, outstanding appeals against this document. The draft SDF prepared for the Municiaplity recognizes the limited potential for natural resources of the estuary (agriculture, fishing etc.) to support further economic development but supports the notion that natural attributes of the area (specifically including the Berg River estuary and its navigable portion) have a regional value for development opportunities e.g. ecotourism. It acknowledges that earlier spatial planning documents (Berg River SDF 2002, Lower Berg River Sub‐regional Structure Plan 2001) and district level SDF documents do not support urban development along the ecologically sensitive southern banks of the estuary and define the urban edge as the northern river bank. Surprisingly though, it makes provision for extending the urban edge of Velddrif to beyond the southern side of the Berg River, citing the increasing demand for river frontage as the reason; suggesting that a “soft urban edge” is adopted in respect of a proposed development in this area and another at the Plaat (also designated as ecologically sensitive in other palnning documents). The State of Rivers Report for the Berg River (2004) prepared by DWAF, recommends that the Berg Estuary be registered as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention to ensure a high level of bird habitat protection.
Potential for and need of protection for the Berg Estuary
The Berg estuary is rated as the third most important estuary in South Africa from a conservation perspective, scoring in the top 10% for size, habitats, type rarity within its biogeographical zone, and biodiversity. The Berg estuary is also included within a minimum set of 50 estuaries in the country identified as requiring protection in order to achieve national biodiversity protection targets. The establishment of a protected area on the Berg estuary is highly recommended and is considered highly feasible. Specific recommendations, to be further developed in consultation with stakeholders, are as follows:
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment v Anchor Environmental
1. Establish a conservancy encompassing most of the estuary including supratidal estuarine habitats; 2. Develop a Zonation plan which includes a no‐take Marine Protected Area that incorporates the some of the more important bird habitats and fish nursery areas as well as a representative sections of other important habitat types present in the estuary (mudflat, salt marsh, submerged and emergent vegetation); and 3. The whole estuary to be managed by the provincial (CapeNature), district (West Coast District Municipality) or local (Berg River Municipality) authority, with strict control over boating and development.
The Berg estuary has also been identified as one in which there is a need for rehabilitation. Key management intervention identified in this respect include (in order of priority): 1. Restoration of water quality; 2. Restoration of the quantity of freshwater inflows; 3. Removing significant obstructions to flow, and 4. Rehabilitation of banks that are currently being eroded
The degree to which these factors should be managed to restore the health of the system depends largely on the vision that is developed for the estuary, and on its future protection status.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment vi Anchor Environmental
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
WMA Water Management Area BAS Best Attainable State C.A.P.E. Cape Action Plan for People and the Environment Chla Chlorophyll a CPUE Catch per unit effort DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (provincial) DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (national) DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen DRP Dissolved Reactive Phosphate DRS Dissolved Reactive Silicate DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry ERC Ecological Reserve Category EHI Estuary Health Index EWR Ecological Water Requirement HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Disease Syndrome IDP Integrated Development Planning IEP Integrated Environmental Programme NEMA National Environmental Management Act NWA National Water Act MAR Mean Annual Runoff MCM Marine & Coastal Management MEC Member of provincial Executive Council Mm3 Million cubic metres MSL Mean Sea Level PES Present Ecological Status RDM Resource Directed Measures REI River‐Estuary‐Interface RSA Republic of South Africa RQO Resource Quality Objectives SDF Spatial Development Framework TPC Threshold of Potential Concern WCNCB Western Cape Nature Conservation Board
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment vii Anchor Environmental
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...... 10
2. GEOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...... 12
2.1 LOCATION AND EXTENT OF THE ESTUARY AND ITS CATCHMENT ...... 12 2.2 CATCHMENT CLIMATE, VEGETATION AND DRAINAGE ...... 14 2.3 CATCHMENT POPULATION, LAND‐USE AND ECONOMY ...... 16 Population and socio‐economic status ...... 16 Land‐use ...... 16 Economy ...... 18 3. ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ESTUARY ...... 19
3.1 ESTUARY HYDROLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ...... 19 3.2 WATER CHEMISTRY ...... 22 3.3 MICROALGAE ...... 25 3.4 VEGETATION ...... 27 3.5 INVERTEBRATES ...... 30 3.6 FISH ...... 31 3.7 BIRDS ...... 34 4. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ...... 37
4.1 WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES? ...... 37 4.2 GOODS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE BERG ESTUARY ...... 38 4.3 RAW MATERIALS ...... 38 4.4 CARBON SEQUESTRATION ...... 38 4.5 WASTE TREATMENT ...... 39 4.6 REFUGIA AND NURSERY AREAS ...... 39 4.7 NURSERY VALUE ...... 39 Introduction ...... 39 The West Coast fisheries ...... 40 Nursery value of the Berg estuary ...... 40 4.8 EXPORT OF MATERIALS AND NUTRIENTS ...... 41 4.9 GENETIC RESOURCES ...... 42 4.10 TOURISM AND RECREATIONAL VALUE ...... 42 4.11 RECREATIONAL AND SUBSISTENCE FISHERY VALUE ...... 43 4.12 SHELTERED HARBOUR FOR MARINE FISHERIES ...... 46 5. LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 47
5.1 THE MAIN THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CONSIDERED ...... 47 5.2 GENERAL POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND ...... 47 5.3 WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 52 Legislative context ...... 52 The classification process ...... 52 The reserve determination process ...... 52 5.4 EXPLOITATION OF LIVING MARINE RESOURCES ...... 54 Legislative context ...... 54
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment viii Anchor Environmental
Issues surrounding recreational fishing ...... 54 Issues surrounding gill net poaching in the Berg estuary ...... 55 5.5 LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT OF ESTUARY MARGINS ...... 56 Legislative context ...... 56 Development planning pertaining to the Berg estuary ...... 59 Issues of surrounding land use and development ...... 70 5.6 NON‐CONSUMPTIVE RECREATIONAL USE ...... 71 Legislation ...... 71 Management issues ...... 72 5.7 EXPLOITATION OF NON‐LIVING RESOURCES ...... 74 Legislation ...... 74 Salt production ...... 75 5.8 POTENTIAL FOR PROTECTED AREA STATUS ...... 75 Legislative context ...... 75 Potential for protection of the Berg estuary ...... 76 Recommendations and procedure for establishing a protected area ...... 78 5.9 POTENTIAL AND NEED FOR RESTORATION ON THE BERG ESTUARY ...... 79 6. REFERENCES ...... 80
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment ix Anchor Environmental
1. INTRODUCTION
The Berg estuary is one of only four perennial estuarine systems on the west coast of South Africa, and one of the largest of the country’s approximately 279 functional estuaries. It is a river‐dominated estuary, and is one of only three estuaries in which muddy sediments are deposited seaward of the mouth (Cooper 2001). The estuary’s shallow gradient and extensive floodplain make it atypical in relation to most South African estuaries (Schuman 2007). The well developed floodplain above the Berg Estuary is unique in the south‐western Cape (River Health Programme 2004). The estuary, including floodplain, is estimated to cover an area of 61 km2 (Turpie & Clark 2007a) (Figure 1). Because of its physical type rarity, large size and high diversity and abundance of biota, the estuary is rated among the top three estuaries in South Africa in terms of its conservation importance (Turpie et al. 2002, Turpie et al. 2004, Turpie & Clark 2007b). It has been identified as a particularly important estuary for birds (both resident species and Palaeartic Migrants) (Cooper et al. 1976, Velasquez et a.l 1991, Hockey et al. 1992, Hockey 1993) and marine and estuarine fish (Bennett 1994, Clark et al. 2009).
Upper limit of tidal effect
Figure 1. The Berg estuary (Source: Google Earth).
Despite the widely acknowledged conservation importance of the Berg estuary, the system is currently under no formal protection. The estuary has been subject to extensive development and anthropogenic impacts. The urban areas of Laaiplek, Port Owen Marina, and Veldrif dominate most of the the northern bank of the estuary from the mouth to approximately 9 km upstream. The lower estuary from the R27 road bridge to the mouth (a distance of ~4km) is utilized as a commercial fishing harbour with a concrete jetty along part of the northern bank. To enable the estuary to function as a fishing harbour, a new mouth was cut through the sand dunes in 1966 and the channel stabilized between three concrete breakwaters. The new
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 10 Anchor Environmental
channel was dredged to a minimum depth of 4 m allowing the passage of purse‐seine boats into the estuary and substantial dredging was undertaken during the construction of the Port Owen Marina (Bennett 1994, Beck & Basson 2007). Extensive saltworks have been developed in two places along the southern banks of the estuary and demand for holiday accommodation is resulting in increased pressure for residential development along the estuary banks (Die Beplanningsvennootskap 1999). Increasing recreational use of the estuary, including consumptive natural resource use (fishing) and non‐consumptive activities (watersports, birdwatching, hiking) is putting increasing pressure on resources and will likely lead to changes in the character of the area.
Ongoing developments in the Berg River catchment is also having an impact on the estuary. The most significant impact is the reduction in freshwater flow into the system due to water abstraction and storage. Variation in freshwater input has a profound effect on the physical and ecological fuctioning of estuaries. Prior to the recent completion of the Berg River Dam, freshwater inflow into the estuary was already reduced by 30% below the natural condition and a further reduction of up to 5% is anticipated (Beck & Basson 2007). This will likely result in increased upstream penetration of sea water, a reduction in the frequency and extent of floodplain inundation, and a reduction in scouring of sediment in the estuary (River Health Programme 2004). Further threats facing the estuary include increased siltation due to erosion in the catchment; the loss and destruction of natural habitat by development, physical alteration of the banks and mouth (deliberate construction or as an effect of powerboating activities); overfishing and deterioration in water quality caused by agricultural, industrial and residential pollution (River Health Programme 2004).
This study forms part of the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (C.A.P.E.) Regional Estuarine Management Programme. The main aim of the overall programme is to develop a strategic conservation plan for the estuaries of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR), and to prepare detailed management plans for each estuary. The estuary programme is divided into three phases. The first phase involved the establishment of a regional conservation plan (Turpie & Clark 2007b), the development of guidelines for estuary management plans (van Niekerk & Taljaard 2007), and the preparation of detailed management plans for a few selected systems. These studies have been completed and the preparation of management plans for the remaining systems in the region constitutes this second phase of the programme. Anchor Environmental Consultants (AEC) was involved with the first phase of the Programme and successfully produced a management plan for the Olifants estuary. In this second phase, AEC has being appointed to compile a detailed management plan for the Berg estuary.
This document is the Situation Assessment report for the Berg estuary. It provides detailed background information on the Berg estuary including the geographic and socio‐economic context, a description of the ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, the legal and planning context, its current health status, threats to the system, and its conservation importance. This document will form the basis of the development of a vision and strategy for the management of the estuary in a participatory process involving stakeholders. Terms of Reference for the study are in Appendix 1.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 11 Anchor Environmental
2. GEOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO‐ECONOMIC CONTEXT
2.1 Location and extent of the estuary and its catchment
The Berg Estuary is located approximately 130 km north of Cape Town on the West Coast of South Africa. The Berg River Catchment covers an area of almost 9 000 km2 in the Western Cape Province (Figure 2), and is subdivided into 12 quarternary catchments ranging in size from 125 km2 near the headwaters to 2000 km2 in the drier western parts of the catchment (Figure 3). The river runs northward for 285 km, and drains into St. Helena Bay on the west coast of South Africa, where it interacts with the Benguela upwelling system (Shillington 1998). Much of the catchment is relatively flat, except in the uppermost reaches.
Figure 2 Location of the Berg River catchment (Source: Parsons 2007).
The Berg estuary extends about 69 km from the mouth, based on the extent of tidal influence (Slinger & Taljaard 1994), although seawater does not penetrate this far (Schumann 2007). Tidal range at the mouth is 0.5 – 1.5 m, in the middle of the estuary (Railway Bridge) is 0.2 – 0.8 m, and in the upper estuary (Jantjiesfontein), is less than 0.2 m. Tidal flows in the lower estuary (at the R27 bridge) are 50‐100 m3.s‐1 and 200‐300m3.s‐1 during neap and spring tides, respectively (Beck & Basson 2007). Tidal action attenuates rapidly upstream, and inter‐tidal areas occur mainly downstream of the Railway Bridge. Upstream of the Railway Bridge, the estuary is flanked by a seasonally‐inundated floodplain that varies in width from 1.5 to 4 km. The estuary, including floodplain, is estimated to cover an area of 61 km2. The estuary’s
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 12 Anchor Environmental
shallow gradient and extensive floodplain make it atypical in relation to most South African estuaries (Schuman 2007).
Figure 3 The catchment of the Berg River. Main river flows south to north (Source: Parsons 2007).
The main channel at Veldrif is about 100‐200 m wide, becoming progressively narrower and shallower upstream. Depth is about 3‐5 m on average, up to 9 m in places. The total volume of the estuary is estimated to be about 12 Mm3 (Beck & Basson 2007).
In 1966, a new estuary mouth was cut through the sand dunes and stabilised between concrete walls (Slinger & Taljaard 1994). The original mouth has silted up and the former channel currently forms a blind arm or lagoon running parallel to the coast. The lower 4 km of the estuary is dredged to a depth of at least 4 m to allow for boat navigation. However, these developments are not considered to have had a significant effect on the hydraulics and sediment transport in the estuary, except at the mouth. This could be the reason for the ongoing dredging that has had to be carried out in that region. Bridges lead to some local scouring of banks. Much of the lower estuary floodplain has been reclaimed for salt production.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 13 Anchor Environmental
2.2 Catchment climate, vegetation and drainage
The Berg River Catchment lies entirely within the Western Cape Province which receives most precipitation during the the winter rainfall season. There is a strong gradient in rainfall from east to west with the headwaters of the Berg in the east receiving relatively high volumes of rain and snowfall (ca. 5 000 mm per annum – Fourie and Görgens 1977). By contrast, the lower‐lying foothills and floodplain receive only 400 – 500 mm per annum, decreasing towards the sea. The river headwaters, namely the perennial and semi‐perennial mountain streams that rise in the Franschhoek and Drakenstein Mountains to the east therefore supply most of the water to the system. During periods of low flow however, the small contribution of ground water to the river volume is relatively greater and has a significant influence on river water quality (Day 2007). Mean annual runoff for the entire catchment is approximately 682 Mm3 (Beck & Basson 2007).
The spatial patterns in the natural vegetation within the Berg River catchment are determined predominantly by the underlying geology and regional rainfall. The acidic and nutrient‐poor soils characteristic of the siliceous Table Mountain Group (TMG) in the upper catchment generally support fynbos, but forest can develop in moist sheltered ravines. Soils derived from the Cape Granite and the Malmesbury Group are more fertile and finer textured than those derived from the TMG. Renosterveld dominates the vegetation on these soils, but may gives way to fynbos in areas with higher rainfall (Rebelo 1996). Along the West Coast, soils derived largely from coastal processes can broadly be divided into calcareous sands and limestones, and non‐calcareous (neutral to acidic) sands. These soils support a number of coastal vegetation types such as Strandveld and Sand Fynbos. The mountain fynbos vegetation in higher lying areas of the Berg River catchment remains largely intact. In lower areas of the catchment, however, about 60% of the Strandveld and Sand Fynbos types have been lost to agricultural and urban development, whilst less than 3% of renosterveld remains (River Health Programme 2004). Natural riparian vegetation along much of the Berg River’s course (with the exception of the saltmarsh alongside the estuary) has been replaced with invasive exotics, particularly trees of the genus Eucalyptus (Boucher & Jones 2007).
The Berg River catchment is divided in two by a north‐trending ridge of mountains in the centre of the catchment (Piketberg, Swartberg); with the Berg River flowing through a poort between Koringberg and De Hoek. The eastern part of the catchment is flanked by mountains that reach in excess of 1 000 m elevation and extend to the southern limit of the catchment, where the Berg River has its source (Figure 3). A striking characteristic of the catchment is the low density of drainage channels in the western parts of the catchment underlain by unconsolidated sandy recent deposits (Figure 3). Significantly higher drainage densities are observed in the central and eastern parts underlain by weathered and fractured rocks, mostly of the Malmesbury and Table Mountain Groups.
The geology of the mountains and upland areas of the Berg River Basin comprise Table Mountain Sandstone (TMS) (Day 2007). These old and well weathered rocks typically leach very few ions. As a result, the waters of the upper Berg River and its tributaries are naturally “pure” – that is, they are characterised by low concentrations of total dissolved solids, including nutrients. They are also acidic, largely as a result of humic acids leached from the surrounding fynbos vegetation, which occurs in the mountains of the south‐western Cape.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 14 Anchor Environmental
Downstream of Paarl, the remainder of the basin is dominated by Malmesbury Shale, with a number of granite hills surrounded by the clay soils typically derived from weathered granite. Although shales, like TMS, are usually low in nutrients, the rock formation is nevertheless almost always associated with mineralization of surface waters (Fourie and Görgens 1977). Thus the mineral content of the Berg River and its tributaries increases progressively with distance downstream. In the tributaries, this is exacerbated by the gentle gradients of the lower sections of the rivers, which cause pooling of water at the end of winter, as surface flows dry up. This promotes additional leaching from the rocks into the pools over the summer months.
Three major dams have been built in the catchment. The Wemmershoek Dam south east of Paarl has a surface area of 3 km2 and a storage capacity of 66 Mm3/a. The Voëlvlei Dam west of Tulbagh covers an area of 15 km2 and has a storage capacity of 170 Mm3/a. The recently (2008) completed Berg River Dam has a storage capacity of 130 Mm3/a and covers an area of 5 km2 ha. Numerous smaller farm dams are found throughout the east part of the catchment. DWAF (1993) estimated present‐day annual runoff of the Berg River amounted to 682 Mm3/a, about 30% less than natural, with the modified flow attributed to direct abstraction from the river for irrigation, storage and abstraction for urban water supply; development of forestry within the basin; irrigation return flows; and releases from the Voëlvlei, Wemmershoek and Theewaterskloof Dams (the latter via the Berg River IBT). The recent completion of the Berg river dam is expected to further reduce present day annual runoff by up to 5%.
Figure 4. Wemmershoek dam (Source: Google Earth)
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 15 Anchor Environmental
2.3 Catchment population, land‐use and economy
Population and socio‐economic status
The total population living within the Berg River catchment was estimated at 369 282 in 1995. The population was mostly urban (79%), with about 21% living in rural areas (Table 1). Urban and rural population ratios within the catchment are skewed between the upper, middle and lower reaches, with greatest proportion of urban dwellers (and highest population densities) reported in the lower reaches and around the estuary. This reflects the geographic trend in economic activity along the catchment being predominately agriculturally based in the middle and upper reaches and tourism and fishing industry based near the mouth. Overall average population growth is about 3.2%. Most rapid growth is expected in urban areas as economic opportunities increase; but much lower growth (1.4%) is expected in rural areas as the potential for agriculture is not expanding (River Health Programme 2004).
Table 1 Population and socio‐economic information for the Berg River catchment (source: River Health Programme 2004)
Upper Berg Upper Lower middle Lower Berg Floodplain & River middle Berg Berg River River estuary River Urban population 4 345 14 665 21 193 28 463 89 462 Rural population 4 317 37 141 19 236 15 729 2 729 % population with 99 99 91 87 92 water services
Land‐use
The land use in the catchment of the Berg estuary is shown in Figure 5. Development within the catchment includes both urbanised areas and areas developed for agricultural purposes, with agriculture, livestock farming, plantation forestry, commercial industries, fruit farming, residential areas and nature conservation being the main land use activities. Agriculturally‐ based industries dominate and include wineries, canneries and other food processing factories.
Portions of the upper part of the Berg River Catchment have been intensively developed with vineyards and, to a lesser extent, for fruit and vegetable farming, but much of this region remains under natural vegetation. Dryland grain farming and stock farming dominates much of the area north of Wellington while some forestry (1%) is found in the southern parts. Dryland agriculture and natural vegetation are the main land use types surrounding the floodplain and upper estuary. Overall, only 2% of the total catchment area is still under natural vegetation. A high density of alien vegetation exists (13% of the total catchment area), chiefly in the lower catchment area around Langebaan, Langebaan Road and Hopefield.
Urban development accounts for about 1% of the catchment land‐cover. This is mainly residential, commercial and industrial development. Major towns in the Berg catchment included Velddrift and Laaiplek near the coast, Piketberg, Hopefield, Mooreesburg and Darling further inland, and Wellington and Paarl in the upper catchment (DEAT 2001).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 16 Anchor Environmental
Figure 5. Land use within the Berg River catchment (Source: Parsons 2007)
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 17 Anchor Environmental
What is interesting to note from this map is the extent to which alien infestated lands and other transformed land types surround the estuary itself.
Economy
Agricultural based industries dominate much of the upper Berg River catchment above Wellington. These include wheat, grapes and deciduous fruit farming, wineries, canneries and other food processing factories (River Health Program 2004). In the Franschhoek region pine plantations are an important industry. Below Wellington the main agricultural activity becomes dryland grain and stock (sheep and cattle) farming. Relatively recent contributions to the historically fishing based economies (commercial fishing, fish processing factories and boat repair facilities) of Laaiplek and Veldrift now include tourism and recreation. The estuary is considered a premier bird watching destination and recreational fishing remains a strong tourism draw card. Cerebos and smaller commercial salt works generate further income in the area. In 1997, the Gross Domestic Product for the catchment was R12 billion, equivalent to 2.5% of the national GDP (River Health Programme 2004).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 18 Anchor Environmental
3. ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ESTUARY
3.1 Estuary hydrology and geomorphology
The Berg estuary mouth is stabilized between concrete breakwaters and dredged and therefore remains permanently open. Although tidal influence is detectable about 69km from the mouth, seawater does not penetrate this far (Schumann 2007). Tidal action attenuates rapidly upstream, and inter‐tidal areas occur mainly downstream of the Railway Bridge.
The natural runoff from the catchment amounts to 931 Mm3.y‐1, but the prescence dams and instream water abstraction together with afforestation of catchment areas have reduced the runoff to some 682 Mm3.y‐1. Flow and quality characteristics have been severely modified, with dry season releases, interbasin transfers and agricultural return flows exacerbating the effects of abstraction from the system.
Increasing from the upper to lower reaches; low flows in the Berg River vary from 0.2 to 2.0 m3.s‐1 in summer (Nov‐Feb) and 4 to 15 m3.s‐1 in winter (May‐Aug). During floods, flows reach 150 to 600 m3.s‐1 along the river. There is also considerable interannual variability in flow (Figure 6).
600
500 3 400
300
200
100 Stream Flow (m /s)
0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
700
600
500 3
400
300
200
Stream Flow (m /s) Flow Stream 100
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 6 Interannual flow pattern at Misverstand dam (Source: Schuman 2007)
Flows recorded at Misverstand Dam (some 100 km upstream of the head of the estuary) are well correlated with rainfall in Franschhoek, both interannually and seasonally (Figure 7).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 19 Anchor Environmental
While flows are largely natural in the upper reaches, there are substantial decreases in downstream flow during the winter months compared with the natural condition, and increases in summer flow along parts of the river. However, by the time the river flows through Drieheuwels (gauging station G1H013), some 145 km from the mouth, flows are lower in all months compared to the natural state (Howard & Ractliffe 2007), and overall flow into the estuary has been reduced by about 30% (Beck & Basson 2007). On average, an estimated 604 Mm3 flows into the estuary annually (Beck & Basson 2007). Current flows into the estuary range between 1.5 m3.s‐1 in summer to an average of 35 m3.s‐1 in winter (Figure 3.6).
1000 + 900
800 + +
3 + 700
6 +
600 + +
500 + + + + + + 400 + + + + 300 + + Misverstand ) (10 Flow m 200 + + + 100 +
0 1000 1400 1800 2200 2600 Franschoek Rainfall (mm)
Figure 7 Relationship between rainfall at Franschhoek and flow at Misverstand dam
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Flow (m3/s) 15 10 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 8 Average monthly flow rates at Misverstand (1974‐2003) (data from DWAF)
Flows of >25 m3.s‐1 probably make up less than 15% of the total volume of water entering the estuary (Beck & Basson 2007). A typical annual flood peak into the estuary is about 90 m3.s‐1
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 20 Anchor Environmental
with a 1:10 year flood measuring about 622 m3.s‐1 (Beck & Basson 2007). The impact of a flood depends on the base flow, with a greater flooding impact when base flows are higher (Beck & Basson 2007).
There is little data on the sediments of the Berg estuary or on historic sedimentation processes. Estuaries contain a mixture of river and marine sediments, the balance of which is determined by the size of the tidal prism (amount of water moving in and out of the estuary during a tidal cycle), riverine base flows and floods. The size of particles that can be transported from the catchment increases with increased velocity, and larger particles are deposited before small particles as flow is reduced. Base flows carry relatively little sediment, mostly fine silts, and this is deposited when freshwater flows are slowed by the pushing effect of incoming sea water. Organic matter also flocculates out of the freshwater when it mixes with salt water. These processes probably lead to accumulation of fine sediments in the lower to middle estuary, so that the channel and inter‐tidal areas become muddier and shallower with time (Figure 3.8). Floods carry a lot of silt from the catchment, and this is deposited wherever floodwaters slow down significantly, such as on the floodplain. Floods scour away the sediments that have built up in the channel and in the lower inter‐tidal areas, and very large floods may scour the floodplain as well. The area of scouring versus deposition is likely to depend on the size of the flood.
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6 d50 (mm)
0.4
0.2
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Distance from mouth (m)
Figure 9 Measured median sediment diameter (d50) along the length of the Berg estuary (Source: Beck & Basson 2007)
Dredging is periodically undertaken at the Port Owen Marina and the estuary mouth to facilitate the movement of sailing and fishing vessels in and out of the estuary and the marina. The construction of a new mouth may have reduced tidal flux in and out of the estuary to some degree, disrupting sediment transport processes in the mouth region. This could be the reason for the ongoing dredging that has had to be carried out in that region (Beck & Basson 2007).
The relationship between flow and sediment load also means that there is a positive relationship between flow and turbidity of inflowing water. Since seawater is comparatively
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 21 Anchor Environmental
clear, there is a negative relationship between estuarine salinity and turbidity. Thus, reductions in freshwater flows lead to decreased turbidity and increased light penetration in the system (largely a seasonal effect).
3.2 Water chemistry
The distribution of saline water in an estuary (the longitudinal salinity distribution) is of fundamental importance in the estuary as it affects the distribution of all biota in the system due to their differing salinity tolerances. River inflow and sea level together determine the penetration of seawater into the system, thereby determining the salinity profile of the estuary. The extent of saltwater penetration for any given freshwater inflow depends on tidal phase (spring vs. neap and ebb vs. flood tides). Although pushing back and forth with the tides, salt water tends to work its way up the system over the dry season, penetrating further upstream with each tidal cycle. The system then resets with winter floods. During the summer low‐flow period, saline water penetrates the estuary up to at least 40 km from the mouth, depending on the tidal state. Freshwater inflow to the estuary during winter is sufficient to push the salt water entering the estuary back to within 10 km of the mouth (Schumann 2007) (Figure 10).
The estuary is well‐oxygenated throughout the year, but slightly lower levels occur in summer (down to about 5 mg/l in the upper reaches) than winter (9‐10 mg/l) (Schuman 2007). Low oxygen water occasionally enters from the sea following intense upwelling events, which can very occasionally reach extreme conditions (Pitcher & Calder 2000). Temperature is fairly uniform along the estuary during winter, typically 12‐15˚C (Schuman 2007). In summer, the river water is warmer than the sea, and temperatures are typically above 20˚C throughout the estuary except in the lowest reaches. Temperature in the lower estuary varies with tidal state, and can be as low as 12˚C after upwelling at sea.
Nitrogen enters the estuary in both sea and freshwater, with sea inputs dominating in summer (low flow season), and river inputs dominating in winter (high flow season) (Clark & Taljaard 2007). Little change is evident in nutrient inputs to the estuary during the low flow season between 1990 and the present day (where inputs from the sea are clearly dominant (Figure 11). However, nutrient inputs during the high flow season (where riverine inputs are clearly dominant) have escalated dramatically between 1975 and the present day (Figure 11).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 22 Anchor Environmental
Station Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 5 2 29 3 1 33 1 34 31 15 13 11 4 30 28 26 32 18 14 2 29 12 9 7 6 25 27 27 17 8 19 16 3 26 28 20
4
5
6
7
8 BERG ESTUARY Salinity (psu) 2003.02.18 Spring High Tide ( 0.6m) 9 BR2c
0 102030405060 Kilometres Station Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0
1 32 2 1 2 31
3
4
Depth (m) 5
6
7
8 BERG ESTUARY Salinity (psu) 2003.08.27 Spring High Tide ( 0.6m) 9 BR4c
0 102030405060 Kilometres Figure 10 Salinity distribution during spring high tide and low freshwater flow (February) and during spring high tide and high flow (August). Source: Schuman (2007)
Total nitrogen concentration at the head of the estuary has increased from less than 300 ugl‐1 prior to 1980 (which was roughly equal to the input from the sea) up to almost 2000 ugl‐1 in 2005. Thus, riverine input of nitrogen is overarchingly dominant, nitrogen content being highest in the upper reaches in winter, decreasing downstream as it is used up, and exhibiting an inverse linear relationship with salinity. Under low flow conditions, nitrogen concentration is highest at the mouth because of nitrogen input from the sea, and decreases upstream.
Under natural conditions, inorganic N and P inputs to the estuary from the Berg River was probably low considering that much of the catchment, especially that part from which perennial flow is derived, is comprised of Table Mountain Sandstone (TMS) which typically leaches very few ions (Bath 1993, Day 2007). Over time, however, human activities in the catchment have increased runoff of nutrients into the Berg River, hence increasing contributions from this source to the estuary. Principal amongst these have been land clearing (mostly for agriculture), application of artificial fertilizers, discharge of human wastes, and animal production (Bath 1993, Day 2007).
Sea water is the main source of phosphate in the estuary, with reactive phosphate levels being correlated with salinity. The linear correlation with salinity suggests, however, that this is not a
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 23 Anchor Environmental
limiting nutrient in the estuary, since there is no evidence of it being used up (Clark & Taljaard 2007).
350
300
250 Low Flow 1990 ug/L) ( 200 1996 2005
NOx 150
100
50
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Salinity
2500
1975 2000 High Flow 1976 1989 1995
ug/L) 1500 ( 2005
NOx 1000
500
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Salinity Figure 11 Change over time in the relationship between dissolved inorganic nitrogen (NO3 + NO2 +
NH3) concentrations and salinity measured in the Berg Estuary during low flow (summer) and high flow (winter). Source: Clark & Taljaard (2007)
Silicate levels are higher in freshwater than seawater, and declines linearly with salinity. This suggests that silicate is simply diluted by seawater and is not utilized significantly in the estuary (i.e. not limiting; Clark & Taljaard 2007).
Key factors influencing nutrient concentrations in the estuary are catchment activities and upwelling conditions. The degree to which nutrients in the catchment are moved into the river may be positively influenced by rainfall, especially early on in the rainy season. These nutrients would stay in the system for longer under reduced flow scenarios. Flow rates could theoretically also affect the amount of marine nutrients that can penetrate from the sea
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 24 Anchor Environmental
(important during summer up welling periods), but flows are generally too small in summer to push seawater back.
In addition to the external nutrient sources, there are a number of in situ chemical and biochemical processes that influence nutrient supplies to the Berg estuary. These include remineralisation (the process whereby nutrients N and P are released from ‘labile’ organic matter through heterotrophic bacterial decomposition) and dissolution (a process where certain marine organisms with siliceous skeletons die, settle to the bottom and undergo dissolution, releasing Si into the water). Anthropogenic inputs of nutrients along the estuary channel are probably also important, and include run‐off from adjacent farmland (which is also an important anthropogenic source affecting concentrations in river inflow), wastewater from human settlements along the banks of the estuary concentrated mostly around the mouth and effluent from industries (e.g. fish factories) situated near the mouth of the estuary. Wastewater (domestic and industrial) tends to be very rich in both nitrogen and phosphorous containing compounds and can act as an important contributor of these nutrients in an estuary.
3.3 Microalgae
Microalgae in estuaries comprise unicellular algae that either live suspended in the water column (termed phytoplankton) or benthically on rock or sediments in the estuary (termed microphytobenthos or benthic microalgae). These microalgae (i.e. phytoplankton and microphytobenthos) are very important in estuarine systems as they are generally the main source of primary production in the estuary.
Phytoplankton communities in estuaries are influenced by salinity, generally dominated by flagellates where river flow dominates and by diatoms in marine dominated situations. Diatoms are commonly dominant in the area of the estuary where the salinity is in the region of 10‐15 ppt, often referred to as the River‐Estuary Interface (REI) zone,. Phytoplankton biomass in an estuary is also generally at its maximum in this region. Biomass of phytoplankton in estuaries varies very widely and may range from 0‐210 µgChla/l (Adams et al. 1999). If nutrient concentrations in an estuary are high (particularly in the case of nitrogen) then phytoplankton biomass in the estuary is generally high too. Under extreme Figure 12. Dominant phytoplankton cells conditions, when nutrient levels are very collected from the Berg estuary (A = large high, certain toxic dinoflagellate species flagellate, B = small diatom and C = small may form dense blooms known as red tides. flagellate). Source: Snow & Bate (2007).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 25 Anchor Environmental
Less is known about benthic microalgae (microphytobenthos) in estuaries than phytoplankton. Values for benthic microalgae biomass are often reported in different units which makes comparisons between estuaries difficult. Bate (2006) summarised data from five different estuaries in South Africa where benthic microalgae biomass ranges from 9.5‐21.8 µg Chla/g dry mass of sediment.
The micro algal community of the Berg estuary appears to be typical of South African estuaries in terms of community composition, and reflects the physical conditions of the estuary. Micro algae take the form of flagellates (water column only), blue‐green algae (benthic only) and diatoms (both). Micro algal abundance appears to be higher in winter than summer, in spite of lower water retention time, lower temperatures and higher turbidity in winter (Slinger & Taljaard 1994, Snow & Bate 2007). Phytoplanton biomass in the Berg estuary during winter has increased dramatically over the last two decades, most likely in response to the corresponding increases in concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the estuary (Figure 11, Figure 13). Average biomass of phytoplankton (measured as Chlorophyl a concentration) has increased from 1.8 to 8.2 μg/l in winter and from 0.2 to 1.2 μg/l in summer.
In spite of the much higher biomass present in winter, it has been hypothesised that summer standing stocks makes a greater contribution to overall production in the estuary because the biomass is more available to higher trophic levels as it occurs in slower‐moving water. Most of the winter production is most likely exported to St Helena Bay.
12 Winter 1989 Summer 1990 Winter 2005 Summer 2005
) 10 1 ‐ (µg.l 8
6
4 concentration
Chla 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance upstream (km)
Figure 13. Phytoplankton biomass (measured as Chla concentration) in the Berg estuary in 1989/1990 and 2005. (Data from Slinger & Taljaard 1994 and Snow and Bate 2007).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 26 Anchor Environmental
3.4 Vegetation
There are four main vegetation communities associated with the Berg estuary: macroalgae, submerged macrophytes, reeds and sedges, and salt marsh. The distribution of these communities is shown in Figure 15.
The macroalage are concentrated in the lower reaches of the estuary forming mats that cover the intertidal sand and mudflats. These algal mats were erroneously identified as being from the genus Cladophora in the past but have recently been confirmed as comprising two species of Enteromorpha ‐ Enteromorpha prolifera and E. flexuosa (Clark et al. 2007). E. flxuosa is is a common in northern European estuaries but has not previously been recorded in southern Africa and is most likely an introduced (alien) species. Enteromorpha prolifera, however, is an indigenous species. There is some evidence to suggest that the abundance of these macroalgae in the Berg estuary is increasing, which is of some concern given that they tend to cover large areas of sand and mud flat and either kills the invertebrates that live in these areas or at least prevent the birds that feed on these species from accessing their main food source.
The macrophyte communities of the Berg estuary have been studied by several authors (Harrison & Elsworth 1958, McDowell 1993, O’Callaghan 1994, Boucher & Jones 2007). The plant communities are largely distinguishable in terms of subtidal, intertidal and floodplain communities.
Figure 14. Dominant subtidal vegetation in the Berg estuary ‐ eelgrass Zostera capensis forms dense beds in the lower estuary (left) while fountain grass Potamageton pectinalis (right) can be found in smaller patches in the upper estuary Subtidal vegetation is dominated by eel grass Zostera capensis in the lower estuary, which is replaced by fountain grass Potamageton pectinatus in the fresher upper reaches. Both Zostera and Potamageton also extend into intertidal areas, collapsing into dense mats at low tide. Structurally and functionally similar, these communities are largely separated by their salinity requirements. The extent of these two communities is strongly linked to flow, in that they readily replace one another when salinity distribution changes for any significant period. In the lower estuary, intertidal Zostera competes for space on mudflats with the various filamentous algae. The presence of Cladophera is highly seasonal, proliferating in spring and drying up over summer before being washed out of the estuary in winter (Kaletja & Hockey 1991, Clark et al. 2009).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 27 Anchor Environmental
Figure 15 Distribution of plant communitie along the length of the Berg estuary.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 28 Anchor Environmental
At higher elevations, Zostera gives way to low‐growing intertidal salt marsh. Salt marsh composition is strongly zoned by elevation (i.e. degree of tidal inundation), with characteristic species progressing from cord grass Spartina maritima at lower elevations to soutbos Bassia diffusa, daisies Cotula spp and brakbos Sarcocornia perennis at higher elevations. Above the intertidal area of the lower estuary, the intertidal salt marsh gives way to supratidal salt marsh, dominated by a characteristic brakbos Sarcocornia pillansii and interspersed with bare patches. These areas are typically flooded in winter.
Figure 16 Halophytic intertidal saltmarsh on the Berg estuary (left). The pink‐grey species dotted in amongst the brighter green Sarcornia perennis is Bassia diffusa, while the darker brown‐purple species on the left is Limonium depauperatum (papierblom). Supratidal saltmarsh (right) dominated by Sarcocornia pillansii (brakbos). (Source: Boucher & Jones 2007)
Further upstream in the fresher reaches of the estuary, the narrow intertidal and adjoining floodplain areas are mainly occupied by sedge marsh, dominated by Schoenoplectus spp. and Cyperus textiles or by taller reed marsh, mainly monospecific stands of Phragmites australis (Figure 17). Reed marsh tends to replace sedge marsh on the silt‐rich soils which are deposited on inner river bends. Behind the reed marsh, many of the inner river bends also contain extensive lower‐lying sedge marshes that are flooded during winter, creating sheltered water bodies.
Figure 17 Sedge Marsh (Left), comprising a mixture of Cyperus textilis (majiesgoed), Schoenoplectus triqueter (an invasive sedge) and Schoenoplectus scirpoideus (papgras) and reed marsh (Right) a monospecific stand of Phragmites australis
The floodplain also contains numerous pans. These are either open pans, with scattered saltpan plants such as Salicornia meyeriana, or sedge pans, which are characterised by
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 29 Anchor Environmental
monospecific stands of sareegras Juncus maritumus and waterblommetjie Aponogeton distachyos. The latter are usually at a lower elevation and tend to be linked to the river channel by drainage lines. At higher elevations, the floodplain is occupied by a xeric floodplain community which contains elements of terrestrial strandveld and is dominated by succulents, such as Aizoaceae, and Asparagaceae, as well as other drought‐adapted species. This community depends on annual floods to reduce salinity levels and deposit soils. In the uppermost reaches of the estuary, the riverbanks are lined by riparian woodland, with species such as Salix mucronata, Rhus tomentosa, Olea spp. and Metrosideros angulstifolia (Figure 18). Alien species such as Eucalyptus, Acacia and Populus spp. are also common.
Figure 18 A Riparian Woodland community on the banks of the Berg Estuary. On the far bank Salix mucronata (Cape willow) is dominant while on the near bank, Olea europaea subsp africana (wild olive) and Salix mucronata are dominant. Some woody alien species such as Sesbania punicea (red sesbania) are also present.
3.5 Invertebrates
Invertebrates inhabiting estuaries are conveniently divided into a number of sub‐groups based on where they reside in the estuary. Zooplankton live mostly in the water column, benthic organisms live in the sediments on the bottom and sides of the estuary channel, and hyperbenthic organisms live just above the sediment surface. Benthic organisms are frequently further subdivided into estuarine intertidal (those living between the high and low water marks on the banks of the estuary) and subtidal groups (those living below the low water mark). Invertebrate communities in the Berg estuary have been studied by Brown (1969) and Wooldridge (2007).
Numbers of invertebrate species present in estuaries on the west coast are generally low compared to communities on the south and east coasts. Wooldridge (2007) attributes this to high river dominance of the estuaries on the west coast which frequently reduces salinity levels in the lower reaches of the estuary to levels below that suitable for many marine
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 30 Anchor Environmental
species. This prevents stable stenohaline benthic marine communities (with narrow range of salinity tolerance) from establishing themselves in the lower reaches of these estuaries. The lower reaches of these estuaries are thus inhabited by an incursive marine zooplankton component that enters the lower reaches of these estuaries on the incoming tide, but leaves again on the outgoing tide.
The zooplankton in the Berg estuary are numerically dominated by copepods (~98%), the remainder being made up of fish larvae, brachyuran larvae, mysid shrimps, amphipods and other organisms (Wooldridge 2007). Pseudodiaptomus hessei is the most abundant zooplankton species and is a major component in the diet of zooplanktivorous fish. Its distribution follows the typical pattern found in freshwater rich estuaries, being most abundant in the upper‐middle reaches. The euryhaline zooplankton community composition is similar to estuaries in other biogeographical provinces, possibly because of the general similarity of water temperatures within seasons in middle and upper estuarine reaches.
The hyperbethos is dominated by larvae and post larvae of the crab Hymenosoma orbiculare, mysid shrimps and fish larvae. Mysid shrimps (mainly Mesopodopsis wooldridgei) and amphipods (mainly Corophium triaenonyx) dominate the hyperbenthos in winter.
The sub tidal benthos is numerically dominated by amphipods (mainly Grandidierella lutosa and Corophium triaenonyx) and polychaetes (mainly Capitella capitata) in summer and winter. Amphipods make up half to three quarters of the overall numbers of benthic invertebrates, with polychaetes dominating the remainder. Polychates tend to be more abundant in the lower half of the estuary, but both polychaetes and amphipods are most abundant in the middle reaches. Within groups, species replace one another along the estuary, according to their salinity tolerance. For example the amphipod Grandidierella lutosa is dominant in the lower estuary and is replaced by the highly abundant Corophium triaenonyx in the middle reaches. Mudprawns Upogebia africana are also abundant in the lower reaches as evident from the densities of burrows, and probably make up a very significant proportion of sub tidal invertebrate biomass.
Polychaetes (82%) (mainly Ceratonereis erythraensis), amphipods (11%) and isopods (4%) numerically dominate the inter‐tidal benthos. Density of inter‐tidal invertebrates is highest in the lower estuary, as is overall abundance due to the distribution of inter‐tidal area in the estuary.
3.6 Fish
Fish of the Berg estuary have been well studied, particularly in recent years (Bennett 1994, Clark et al. 2009). The ichthyofauna is typically dominated by the southern mullet Liza richardsonii, with the estuarine round‐herring Gilchristella aestuaria being second most abundant and occasionally dominant. These, together with bald goby Caffrogobius nudiceps, silverside Atherina breviceps, sand goby Psammogobuius knysnaensis and Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus dominate the ichthyofauna. Of these, the latter is a freshwater species and Gilchristella is confined to estuaries; the others are marine species that occur in estuaries.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 31 Anchor Environmental
Marine migrants and estuarine residents are more‐or‐less equally abundant in summer, although the balance shifts from year to year, sometimes considerably in favour of the former (Clark et al. 2009). The relative abundance of these two groups can shift quite dramatically from year to year in winter, with marine migrants contributing up to 75% of numbers in some years, and the reverse true in others. Much of the variability is due to major fluctuations in the abundance of Liza richardsonii.
Figure 19 The dominant fish species in the Berg Estuary, Southern mullet Liza richardsonii
Liza richardsonii is a marine species that opportunistically uses estuaries. It is most abundant in the lowest 10 km, but extends all the way up the estuary in winter and summer. Other such opportunistic species, including elf Pomatomus saltatrix and white stumpnose Rhabdosargus globiceps, are confined to the lower reaches and are more common in summer than winter. Gilchristella (entirely resident in estuaries) occurs throughout the estuary during all seasons but is most abundant between 15 and 50 km upstream. Other estuarine residents (not confined to estuaries), such as Atherina breviceps and Psammogobuius knysnaensis, tend to be most abundant in the lower 30‐40 km of the estuary, some showing a distinct preference for higher salinities. The flathead mullet Mugil cephalus, the only commonly‐occurring marine species dependent on the estuary as a nursery area, is widely distributed throughout. Freshwater species, viz. Oreochromis mossambicus and carp Cyprinus carpia (both alien invasive) are found in the upper reaches in winter and tend to move down into the lower estuary during the dry summer months.
In all, 17 out of the 35 fish species (48%) recorded from the Berg Estuary can be regarded as either partially or completely dependent on the estuary for their survival. Similarly high dependence ratios have been reported for other west coast estuaries (e.g. the Olifants and Orange, Lamberth 2006). Bennett (1994) when studying the Berg estuary, made the observation that dependence ratios for west coast estuaries are much higher than that observed in estuaries on the south, east and KwaZulu‐Natal coasts respectively (25‐54, 22 and 9% of species being estuarine dependent, respectively), and concluded that estuaries on the west coast must be disproportionately important from a fish conservation perspective than those elsewhere in the country. Bennett (1994) further argues that the high reliance of the local fish on west coast estuaries means that any degradation of the estuarine habitat will have worse consequences for fish on the west coast than elsewhere in South Africa. These arguments are strongly supported by the work of Lamberth (2006) who highlights the fact that there are only nine functional estuaries on the west coast, and that of these, only the Berg and Olifants are permanently open, the Orange now being intermittently closed. Consequently, each of these estuaries is crucial in maintaining the range and stock integrity of estuarine and
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 32 Anchor Environmental
estuarine dependent species along the entire west coast. In turn, the Berg is an important nursery area for exploited marine and estuarine species before they recruit into the marine fisheries.
Marine migrant species make up over 80% of the biomass of fish within the Berg estuary (Clark et al. 2009). Adults of these species all spawn at sea and juveniles must recruit in through the mouth of the estuary in order to take up residence in the system. Adults also need to be able to exit back to the sea in order to spawn and complete the cycle. While freshwater flow is not required to maintain an open mouth in the case of the Berg estuary (due to engineering), it does provide important olfactory cues for fish seeking to enter the system. Some of the marine species in the estuary are known to spawn and recruit into the system throughout the year but most have a distinctive spawning and recruitment season. The latter group tend to spawn at sea at the end of winter and juveniles tend to recruit into the Berg and other south‐ western Cape estuaries during spring (September to November). There is also considerable evidence to suggest that many resident species also spend some time at sea, although it is not obligatory for them to do so. Larvae of estuarine resident species have been observed exiting estuaries in large numbers where they take up residence in the surf zones of adjacent sandy beaches before recruiting back into estuaries as post larvae or young juveniles, often at the same time as the marine migrant species are recruiting into estuaries. Olfactory cues provided by freshwater is critical for guiding fish into the estuary. This largely takes place in the low flow season, which means that maintenance of base flows during this period is important for facilitating fish recruitment. Reduction in flows would have significant consequences for fish fauna of the estuary. Through its effects on the salinity structure of the estuary, freshwater flow will also affect the distribution and composition of fish in the system, but not necessarily overall biomass or abundance.
Many of the species targeted by line fishing in South African waters are currently considered overexploited and management measures aimed at rebuilding stocks have been implemented (Mann 2000). Wholly or partially estuarine dependent “linefish” species found in the Berg Estuary include elf P. saltatrix, white steenbras Lithognathus lithognathus, and leervis Lichia amia (Clark et al. 2009). Based on the distribution of the main linefish species in the estuary (Figure 21), the area from 10 to 30 km upstream is the main area for these fishes, and the area from 12‐22 km upstream is considered to be the best core area to conserve for these species (i.e. from the railway bridge upstream to Kruispad).
Figure 20 Important linefish species found in the Berg Estuary, Elf Pomatomus saltatrix (left) and white steenbras Litognathus lithognathus (right)
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 33 Anchor Environmental
2 0.12 m
r 0.10 e
p Elf ‐ Pomatomus saltatrix
0.08 Leervis ‐ Lichia amia fish
f 0.06
o White steenbras ‐ Lithognathus lithognathus
r
e 0.04
mb 0.02 u N 0.00 0 ‐ 55‐ 10 10 ‐ 15 15‐ 20 20‐ 25 25‐ 30 30‐ 35 35‐ 40 40‐ 45 45‐ 50 Distance upstream (km )
Limit of Velddrif De Plaat tidal effect 30 km Zoutkloof
St Helena Bay Helena St 20 km Kersefontein 10 km
5 km 15 km 45 km 55 km 35 km 60 km
Kliphoek 25 km 40 km Pump 50 km 123 km station Scale
Figure 21. Distribution of linefish (elf Pomatomus saltatrix, leervis Lichia amia, and white steenbras Lithognathus lithognathus) along the Berg estuary.
3.7 Birds
The Berg estuary is recognised as one of the most important estuaries in the country in terms of its avifauna (Turpie 1995, Barnes 1998). It supports the highest recorded density of shorebirds on the West African Coast (Velasquez et al. 1991, Hockey et al. 1992), and supports nationally important populations of several species. The avifauna is relatively well‐studied, with numerous mid‐summer and mid‐winter counts having taken place (Summers et al. 1976, Hockey 1993, Taylor et al. 1997, ADU unpublished data, Turpie 2007a). There are fewer data on seasonal trends (Velasquez et al. 1991, Murison & Hockey 2004, Turpie 2007a). The estuary is counted bi‐annually in thirteen counting sections under the University of Cape Town’s Co‐ ordinated Waterbird Counts (CWAC) programme.
Excluding exotic and vagrant species, some 92 non‐passerine1 waterbird species have been regularly recorded over the past 10 years, with an average of about 60 species being recorded on the estuary at any one time. Charadriiformes (waders, gulls and terns) account for 41% of the species recorded, with most of these being wader species. More than half of the 27 wader species are Palaearctic migrants. Apart from these and two migratory tern species, the remaining species are species that breed in South Africa, some making local or regional movements in response to rainfall. Among the resident species, the Ciconiiformes (herons,
1 Passerine birds are perching birds or songbirds including warblers and cisticolas
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 34 Anchor Environmental
egrets, ibises, spoonbill) and Anseriformes (ducks) form the most diverse groups on the estuary, but most waterbird orders are well represented.
An average of 14 000 non‐passerine waterbirds are recorded in mid‐summer counts, this number decreasing to about 12 300 in mid‐winter. These figures are average numbers on any one day, and with birds arriving and leaving, the numbers using the estuary would be far higher than this. Murison & Hockey (2004) estimated that at least 55 000 birds used the whole estuary and floodplain in 2001.
The avifauna is dominated by waders in summer, and has a relatively even representation of different taxonomic groups in winter. About 90% of waders occurring in summer are long‐ distance migrants, with the young of some species remaining to over‐winter on the estuary. Other numerically important groups in summer are flamingos, ducks, and to a variable extent the Pelecaniformes (cormorants, darters and pelicans). In winter, the dominant groups are flamingos, Gruiformes (rails, particularly Redknobbed Coot) and waders (mostly resident species). Ducks and Pelecaniformes are also more numerous in winter than summer. Nevertheless, there is considerable inter‐annual fluctuation in the numbers of individual species (Turpie 2007a).
Seasonal variation in the numbers of birds on the estuary is primarily driven by the arrival and departure of long‐distance migrants, but the movements of South Afrcian resident species is also linked to their breeding habits. Most breeding on the floodplain occurs in spring, after the main floods and when pan water levels are starting to recede (Figure 22).
Many species are associated with particular habitats or micro‐habitats, and some are more sensitive to salinity than others. There is a marked spatial variation in bird community composition along the estuary (Figure 23). Distinct communities occur at the mouth (dominated by cormorants, gulls and terns), the lower estuary (dominated by waders and flamingos in summer and flamingos, coots and waders in winter), and the upper estuary (dominated by ducks and waders and wading birds in summer and ducks, flamingos, coots and resident waders in winter; Turpie 2007a). In recent years, a large cormorant roost has developed near the mouth, probably a result of loss of suitable areas elsewhere.
40 35 Flood frequency % spp peak breeding 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 JFMAMJJASOND
Figure 22. Seasonal distribution of peaks in waterbird breeding activity relative to the average seasonal frequency of flood events. Redrawn from Hockey (1993).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 35 Anchor Environmental
4500 4000 Waders Terns 3500 (a) Summer Rallids Pelecans Corm Darter 3000 Kingfishers Heron Egret Ibis Spoonbill 2500 Gulls Grebes 2000 Flamingos Ducks Birds of prey 1500 4500 1000 4000 Waders Terns 3500500 Rallids Pelecans Corm Darter 30000 Kingfishers 123456712891110Heron Egret Ibis Spoonbill 2500 De Plaat Gulls Saltpans Grebes 2000 Mouth Flamingos Saltpans Ducks 1500 Birds(b) Winter of prey Saltpans 1000 Riviera 500 0 123456712891110
5 3 11 1 2 4 1 8 10
2 6 9 7
Figure 23 Spatial distribution of birds along the Berg Estuary in summer and winter
The spatial and temporal variability in the composition and numbers of water birds suggest several relationships that are ultimately linked to freshwater flows through their influence on habitat and food. One exception is the marine cormorants, gulls and terns that dominate the mouth area, largely using the artificial habitats in this area as a roosting area, and their numbers are higher than they might have been under natural conditions.
While birds on the lower estuary are typical of estuaries and tend to be associated with saline conditions or have a wide salinity tolerance, those of the upper estuary are much more typical of freshwater wetlands, with many species in this area having a narrow salinity tolerance. As with other biotic groups, salinity affects community composition, rather than abundance or biomass.
Interannual variation in the numbers of many species appears to be flow related. This is particularly true of certain waterfowl (e.g. South African Shelduck) and piscivorous species (e.g.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 36 Anchor Environmental
White Pelican, Reed Cormorant) that tend to increase in years of good rainfall. Freshwater terns also tend to be more numerous in good flood years (Turpie 2007a). These trends may be related to habitat, food, or both. The most immediate effect of flow on habitat is that of flooding on wetlands in the floodplain. The inundated backwater habitats provide the favoured habitat for many waterfowl species and include the Kersefontein heronry, where high water levels guarantee a safe breeding site throughout the breeding period. Inundated sedge pans also provide sheltered feeding and breeding habitat for many waterfowl species, and open pans attract waders while drying out. Flamingos take advantage of the larger pans while inundated.
Apart from Egyptian and Spurwinged Geese and Cattle Egrets which mainly use the estuary for breeding and roosting, most of the birds found in the lower and upper estuary depend on the estuary for food. Thus the overall numbers of birds are likely to be influenced by the level of productivity of the estuary. Water birds feed on the full spectrum of organisms from micro algae to fish, all of which are positively influenced by freshwater flow up to a point (see preceding sections).
4. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
4.1 What are ecosystem services?
Ecosystems can be viewed as natural capital which contributes to economic production. They provide goods, services and attributes, collectively known as ecosystem services, which contribute to human welfare (Barbier 1994): • Goods are harvested resources, such as fish. • Services are processes that contribute to economic production or save costs, such as water purification. • Attributes relate to the structure and organisation of biodiversity, such as beauty, rarity or diversity, and generate less tangible values such as spiritual, educational, cultural and recreational value.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) recently recategorized the services obtained from ecosystems as follows: • Provisioning services such as food and water; • Regulating services such as flood and disease control; • Cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and • Supporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth.
The first three align well with the definitions of goods, services and attributes described above, while the fourth underlies these and need only be considered inasmuch as changes in these affect the values of the first three (Turpie 2007b).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 37 Anchor Environmental
4.2 Goods and services provided by the Berg estuary
The main types of ecosystem services that are associated with temperate South African estuaries are listed inTable 2.
Table 2. Ecosystem goods, services and attributes based on definitions by Costanza et al. (1997) that are likely to be provided by temperate South African estuaries (Turpie 2007b)
Ecosystem Goods, Importance in Description Services & Attributes estuaries
Production of bait, fish and food plants; medicinal Food, medicines High plants Production of craftwork materials, construction
Goods Raw materials Medium materials and fodder Gas regulation Carbon sequestration, oxygen and ozone production, Low Breaking down of waste, detoxifying pollution;
Waste treatment Medium dilution and transport of pollutants Critical habitat for migratory fish and birds, important Refugia and nursery habitats for species, including critical breeding High areas Services habitat, nurseries for marine fish Export of materials and Export of nutrients and sediments to marine High nutrients ecosystems Medicine, products for materials science, genes for Genetic resources resistance to plant pathogens and crop pests, Low ornamental species Structure and Species diversity and habitats providing opportunities High Attributes composition for recreational and cultural activities
The goods and services provided by the Berg estuary are discussed in more detail below.
4.3 Raw materials
There is no recorded use of building materials (e.g. reeds, sand) gathered from the estuary for subsistence of commercial purposes. The lack of subsistence use is unsurprising because of the population make‐up and the lack of traditional dwellings in this catchment. The salt production in the estuary does not represent a service of the estuary per se, but rather the saltworks occupy former saltmarsh areas and rely mainly on pumped seawater. Salt production is described in more detail in Chapter 5.
4.4 Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration is measured in terms of the net storage or loss of carbon that takes place as a result of a long‐term increase or decrease in biomass. The contribution made by estuaries to carbon sequestration is unknown but is unlikely to be significant apart from in mangrove systems.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 38 Anchor Environmental
4.5 Waste treatment
While the quantities of pollutants released into and removed by the system are unknown, waste treatment is likely to be one of the more significant services provided by the Berg estuary. The value of the waste treatment function is usually estimated in terms of the cost savings of treating the water before it is released. It is important to note that the value of the system would only be related to the amount actually assimilated by the system.
Agricultural return flows introduce considerable loads of organic pollutants into the Berg estuary. These loads are diluted and assimilated by the system to some extent, though they are not completely assimilated as is evident from the elevated loads measured in the estuary at certain times of year.
This capacity could also be reduced under certain circumstances, resulting in decreased water quality downstream and exacerbating the negative impacts on downstream users that would already be caused by increased pollution loads due to agricultural expansion.
4.6 Refugia and nursery areas
Refuge areas are areas that help to maintain populations in a broader area. For example, wetlands within relatively arid areas may play an important seasonal role in the maintenance of wild herbivores that are utilised in tourism operations well beyond the wetland. The Berg estuary and associated floodplain areas provide critical breeding habitat for both fish and bird populations.
Bird populations dependent on the estuary include many species that move into the area to breed and then move to other areas for much of the remainder of the year. The presence of the birds may contribute to the value of those areas.
Some inshore marine fish populations may utilise the estuary as a warmer refuge during upwelling events (Lamberth 2006). The extent of this function in its contribution to marine populations is unknown.
4.7 Nursery value
Introduction
Nursery areas are breeding habitat for populations that reside elsewhere. Estuaries provide nursery areas and habitat for numerous species of fish that are exploited by recreational and commercial harvesting in the inshore marine environment. Different species are dependent on estuaries to different degrees for stages of their development and growth. The nursery function of the Berg estuary is considered to be significant, in that many marine species caught in the surrounding marine fisheries are dependent on estuaries as nursery areas, because it is
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 39 Anchor Environmental
one of only four permanently open systems, and it accounts for at least 60% of the estuarine area on the west coast.
The West Coast fisheries
There are about 431 000 recreational fishers and well over 21 000 commercial fishers active in the inshore marine environment in South Africa. Commercial net fisheries (beach seine and gill net) on the west coast are likely to be the fisheries that benefit most from the Berg estuary. The commercial line fishery, recreational shore angling and recreational boat angling fisheries could also benefit to a small extent.
The West Coast net fisheries comprise 28 beach‐seine operators, and about 118 marine gill‐net operators, from Yzerfontein northwards. In addition there are an estimated 268 illegal gill‐nets on the west coast. These fisheries target harders and St Joseph sharks Calorhynchus capensis, as well as species on the “bait list” such as maasbanker Trachurus trachurus. There are approximately 2 700 people who derive some sort of income in the legal inshore net fisheries along the west and south coasts, with a total effort of approximately 32 000 net‐days per year.
There were about 9 000 commercial line fishers operating from registered boats on the West Coast (Brouwer et al. 1997, Sauer et al. 1997), though at least half of these may have become recreational line fishers since the number of licences were reduced in 2003.
Some 26 000 regular shore anglers fish along the West Coast (Brouwer et al. 1997, Sauer et al. 1997). The majority of anglers come from the upper two quintiles of income earners in South Africa (McGrath et al. 1997). In addition there are about 210 recreational boat anglers on the West Coast (Brouwer et al. 1997, Sauer et al. 1997). In many cases, the distinction between commercial and recreational boat fishermen is blurred. The situation has changed since the allocation of fishing rights began in 2001, with many “part‐time” fishers being removed from the fishery.
The total inshore marine catch in South Africa is estimated to be 28 107 tons per year (Lamberth & Turpie 2003). Of this 60% is made up by the commercial line fish sector and 23% by the commercial net fishery, the remainder being made up of recreational fisheries. Inshore fishery catches on the West Coast account for about 15 000 tons, and make up 53% of the total catch. In contrast to the rest of the country, these catches are predominantly commercial, whereas recreational catches are more important than commercial catches in the rest of the country.
Nursery value of the Berg estuary
About 19 of the fish species occurring in west coast estuaries are utilised in coastal fisheries. Of these, 8, 9 and 2 species fall into categories II, III and IV, respectively (none in I or V), in terms of their dependence on estuaries (Whitfield 1994, see previous section on fish). Of particular importance are the category II species, for which management of estuaries plays a crucial role in inshore fisheries.
Category IIa species (e.g. White Steenbras), which are entirely dependent on estuaries, generally make up a relatively small percentage of catches, ranging from 0.5% of recreational
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 40 Anchor Environmental
boat and spear fishing catches to 1.05% of commercial net catches. Historically, prior to stock collapse, Category IIa species (white steenbras and dusky kob) made up a substantial part of catches. The proportion of category IIb species in catches is generally lower than of category IIa species, but category IIc species are highly important in the commercial net fisheries and recreational shore fishery. The category IIc species are dominated by harders in the commercial net fisheries.
The inshore marine fisheries of the West Coast fisheries are estimated to be worth about R647 million per annum (based on Lamberth & Turpie 2003). Recreational fisheries make up approximately 53% of this value, the remainder being ascribed to commercial fisheries.
Estuarine fish make up about 25% of the value of the gill‐ and seine‐net fisheries and 0.3% of the value of the commercial boat fisheries on the west coast, or about 8% of the overall value of West Coast inshore marine fisheries (Turpie 2006). However, not all of these fish are equally dependent on estuaries. Category IIa species are 100% dependent on estuaries to complete their life cycles. Because the juveniles of Category IIb species are largely confined to estuaries, their level of dependence on estuaries was considered to be very high, and was estimated as 90%. The overall numbers of Category IIc species, whose juveniles mainly occur in marine environments, are augmented by the presence of estuarine habitat areas. Estuarine area comprises about 30% of the juvenile habitat available to these species, and those juveniles using estuaries are frequently in better condition than those in marine habitats (De Decker & Bennett 1985). It is thus estimated that 30% of the marine catches of Category IIc species can be attributed to estuarine export. Thus in calculating the contribution of the different types of species to fishery values, estuaries are assumed to account for 100%, 90, and 30% of the value of Category IIa, IIb and IIc species, respectively. Category III species are not included in this value.
The estimated contribution from estuaries to inshore marine fisheries on the West Coast is 2.4% of the total value, or about R15.4 million per year (2005 rands, Turpie 2006). This is the value that would be lost if estuaries were ‘removed’ from the coastline.
The portion of the West Coast inshore fishery value that is due to estuaries (R15.4 m) is the nursery value of estuaries on the West Coast. How much of this comes from the different estuaries is unknown, and depends on several factors such as estuary size and mouth status, as well as geographical location. The Berg estuary makes up about 60% of the available estuarine habitat on the West Coast. This is a conservative estimate because the Olifants and Berg estuaries probably contribute more than the Orange, due to the location of the fisheries. Thus a conservative estimate of the nursery value of the Berg estuary is some R9 million per year (2005 rands). This is similar to the range of R5‐10 million estimated by Turpie & Clark (2007b) on the basis of regional data.
4.8 Export of materials and nutrients
The export of sediments and nutrients to the marine zone is an important function of some river systems. For example, the prawn fisheries of KwaZulu‐Natal depend on such exports (DWAF 2004a). However, this function is far more important on the east coast, which is
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 41 Anchor Environmental
relatively nutrient‐poor, than on the west coast, where the outputs of estuaries do not compete with the nutrients supplied by the Atlantic upwelling systems (Turpie & Clark 2007a). Sediment exports could be important, however, but there is no information on this.
4.9 Genetic resources
Genetic resources are valuable in many systems, but probably least valuable in freshwater and estuarine systems, where most species are extremely widespread. There are also few species that have widespread commercial potential (e.g. for agriculture or horticulture). Nevertheless, there are endemic species, and there is a possibility that these may become useful. It is not possible to determine this value.
4.10 Tourism and recreational value
The Berg River Catchment is a popular tourist destination for South Africans and overseas tourists. Much of the appeal is lies in the natural features of the area, particularly the mountainous areas which provide opportunities for peaceful activities or adventure sports involving a variety of aquatic and non‐aquatic outdoor activities. The winelands in the upper‐ middle part of the catchment are an important tourist draw card and several tour operators offer tours to wine farms in the area. The town of Franschoek is a popular tourist destination due to its renowned restaurants, delicatessens, spas and hotels. Aquatic ecosystem‐based activities in the area include canoeing (notably the annual four day Berg River Canoe marathon from Paarl to the mouth), boating (an annual power boat event – the Metropolitan Rola Motor Group Cansa Berg River Challenge ‐ takes place) fly fishing and coarse fishing. Tourism is also an important industry for the areas in the vicinity of the Berg estuary, with a range of adventure, eco‐tourism and consumptive (fishing) activities available to visitors.
The north bank of the lower estuary is almost completely urbanized, extending from Laaiplek at the mouth through the Port Owen Marina a little further upstream (Figure 24) to the town of Veldrif centered on the Carinus bridge. Numerous holiday cottages have been erected along both banks of the estuary. Various hotels, the Stywelyne Caravan Park and other accommodation establishments in the area cater for visiting tourists. These establishments are all generally full during the major holiday periods. Several farms along both banks of the estuary offer tourist accommodation and eco‐tourism and/ adventure sports (including waterskiing) activities. A questionnaire survey amongst holiday makers to the region was conducted by “Die Beplanningsvennootskap” (1997) to determine draw cards of the area and activities undertaken. A total of 75 completed questionnaires were analyzed. The majority (64%) of visitors were from nearby rural areas (Pikietberg, Malmesbury, Hopefield) or the Cape Town Metropole. Seventy percent of visitors came to the area once a year during the main December‐January holidays, whilst nearly 20% came up to four times per year. The natural beauty of the area (64% of respondents), climate (51%) and affordability (45%) were the main attractions. The majority of visitors made use of the estuary with fishing (51%, swimming (38%) and walking/bird watching (21%) being the main activities. A concerning statistic was
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 42 Anchor Environmental
that only 58% of respondents found the management of the estuary acceptable, most complaints related to the lack of facilities, walkways etc.
Figure 24. The Port Owen Marina on the Berg estuary
4.11 Recreational and subsistence fishery value
Although recreational use of estuaries is significant in South Africa, with an estimated total of 67 000 recreational anglers and 5 700 cast netters, it is limited on the west coast, mainly due to the lack of suitable angling fish, with only about 0.2% of effort taking place in this area (equivalent to 147 average angler‐days; based on Lamberth & Turpie 2003).
The Berg River line fishery was recently investigated in a study by Hutchings et al. (2007). Anglers on the Berg estuary fish for either subsistence or recreational reasons. Recreational fishers fish from the shore using rod and reel and from boats. The boats used range from small dinghies to ski‐boats of up to 6 m in length. Average total annual line fishing effort is estimated as 449 ± 29 (mean ± SE) boat angler days, 1 299 ± 118 recreational shore angler days. Recreational shore and boat angling effort was strongly seasonal, occurring predominately during the summer months (November‐March) and was largely confined to the lower 15 km of the estuary (Figure 25). Species diversity in catches from the cool temperate Berg estuary was low, with only 15 species caught, of which three, elf Pomatomus saltatrix (56%), harders Liza richardsonii (31%) and carp Cyprinius carpio (11%) dominated the catch. The species most commonly caught by recreational shore anglers was elf which were caught at an average rate of 1.43 ± 0.09 fish per angler hour over the period 2003‐2005. The catch rate and size of elf caught by recreational anglers increased significantly after closure of the commercial gill net fishery in 2003. The total average annual elf catch was estimated at approximately 9 500 fish (2.9 tons) per year for recreational shore anglers and 3 000 fish (0.95 tons) per year for recreational boat anglers for 2004‐2005. Other species caught included barbel Galeichthys feliceps, white stumpnose Rhabdosargus globiceps and white steenbras LIthognathus lithognathus.
Of these, the stocks of white steenbras are collapsed and those of elf and white stumpnose are overexploited. Estuarine fish stocks cannot be considered as discrete and in isolation from the
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 43 Anchor Environmental
marine environment. The current status of estuarine stocks is largely a reflection of the nationwide decline that has occurred for most line‐fish species.
f 5 ri 4 ld 2 e 8 16 V 18 10 19 23 1 22 11 Kersefontein 12 6 24
k e 7 o 17 h 3 p 20 li 9 15 K 13 14 21 25 Jantjiesfontein
500
450 Estimated Handline Fishing Effort Shore anglers (rods) 0.35 400 0.3 350
300 0.25
250 0.2 200 0.15 150 0.1 100
50 0.05
0 0
600 Shore anglers (handlines) Estimated Rod Fishing Effort 0.35
500
) 0.3 -1
400 0.25
300 0.2
0.15 200
Effort (Days.year Effort 0.1 100 0.05 0 0
300 Estimated Boat Fishing Effort survey per observed number Average Boat anglers 0.35 250 0.3
200 0.25
150 0.2
0.15 100 0.1 50 0.05
0 0 1 3 5 6 2 4 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 14 10 11 12 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec mouth Head Section number Month
Figure 25 Angler survey area on the Berg estuary (top) and spatial and seasonal distribution of angling effort in the Berg estuary (bottom). Hand line anglers are considered subsistence fishers whilst boat and rod anglers are considered recreational fishers.
Subsistence anglers on the Berg Estuary fish use hand lines or simple bamboo rods and line (usually without reels). These fishers are active an estimated average of 1 394 ± 57 days per year. Subsistence shore based fishing effort was also seasonal, but persisted for a larger portion of the year and only decreased significantly during the late winter months (August‐ October) presumably when flood waters prohibited effective fishing. Subsistence angling effort along the length of the estuary was bimodal with peaks in the lower (mouth to 15 km upstream) and upper estuary reaches (45‐60 km from mouth). Subsistence fishers caught harders and elf in the lower 15 km of the estuary and carp in the upper reaches. The average annual catch by subsistence fishers was estimated at 12 500 harders (1.8 tons), 7 700 elf (2.9) tons and 1 500 (~1 ton) of other species (including carp). As with recreational anglers,
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 44 Anchor Environmental
subsistence fisher catch rates and the average size of elf and harders caught increased significantly over the period 2003‐2005 following the closure of the gill net fishery.
The estimated total annual catch of elf and harders by recreational and subsistence shore based line fishing (excluding boat based anglers) in the Berg estuary increased from an estimated 2 627 ± 93 kg (16 911 ± 606 fish) in 2003 to a high of 7 781 ± 203 kg (36 194 ± 1 123 fish) in 2004 and decreased slightly to 6 478 ± 153 kg (24 304 ± 638 fish) in 2005 (Figure 26).
Ninety‐eight percent of the 360 hand line/bamboo rod fishers interviewed lived within 10 km of the Beg estuary, highlighting the importance of subsistence line fishing as a food source for the local community. In contrast, nearly half (42%) of the 246 recreational rod anglers interviewed were from further afield (> 20 km from the estuary) and their presence and expenditure must contribute significantly to the local economy.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Estimated annualcatch (tons) 1
0 2003 2004 2005
Elf Harders
Figure 26 Estimated annual catch of elf and harders by shore anglers in the Berg Estuary (2003‐2005) (Source: Hutchings et al. 2007)
The economic value of the recreational fishery can be considered in terms of the expenditure on fishing by recreational fishers (= income to subsidiary industries such as accommodation and fuel). While the commercial and traditional fisheries are forms of generating cash or subsistence income, and are largely valued in terms of the market value of their catches, the value of recreational angling does not lie mainly in the market value of the fish caught. Recreational anglers value the sport and experience, and expend considerable sums on this activity, largely irrespective of their catch returns (McGrath et al. 1997). The value attributed to this fishery is mostly in terms of gains to subsidiary industries that benefit from angler expenditure (McGrath et al. 1997).
Turpie & Clark (2007b) estimated the subsistence fishery value to be in the order of R0.5‐1.0 million per annum. The recreational value of the estuary, including all forms of estuary recreation and turnover in the real estate sector attributable to the estuary premium on property prices, to be in the order of R10‐20 million per annum.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 45 Anchor Environmental
4.12 Sheltered harbour for marine fisheries
In addition to the above, the estuary provides a sheltered harbour that enhances the recreational value of the area and that also supports the commercial fisheries offshore (Figure 27‐Figure 28). There are relatively few sheltered harbours on the West Coast and the presence of this harbour is thus of particular significance on a regional scale. It should be noted, though, that the relative importance as a recreational versus commercial fishing harbour is changing as commercial fisheries are being depleted and recreational use of the estuary increases.
Figure 27. Commercial fishing harbour at the mouth of the Berg estuary. Photo: Common Ground Consulting
Figure 28. Jetties and factories on the Berg estuary where harders (mullet) are offloaded and processed)
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 46 Anchor Environmental
5. LEGISLATION AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
5.1 The main threats and opportunities to be considered
There are a number of factors that threaten the future health of the Berg estuary and hence its biodiversity and capacity to deliver ecosystem services. The main threats to the system or areas of potential conflict are as follows:
1. Water quantity and quality: a. Reduction in freshwater inflows due to water abstraction in the catchment, and continuing increase in demand for abstraction; b. Increasing nutrient enrichment due to agriculture in the catchment; c. Potential risk of pollution entering from the harbour area and sea; 2. Exploitation of living resources: a. Historical overexploitation of fish stocks and continued poaching with gill nets conflicting with nursery function; b. Potential for future overexploitation by recreational fishers;
3. Land‐use and associated disturbance: a. Current and future residential/resort development around the estuary leading to change in sense of place and existence value, increased human disturbance of biota, and damage or loss of estuarine habitat; b. Potential damage to environment and sense of place due to current and future harbour civil engineering and industrial activities; and
4. Tourism: a. Increased demand for both nature‐wilderness based eco‐tourism and adventure type activities. Good management of tourism development will require providing facilities for and balancing the needs of both.
In addition to meeting the existing legislation governing the above activities, opportunities to protect the health and value of the system over the medium to long term include:
1. The establishment of terrestrial and estuarine protected areas, and 2. Implementation of rehabilitation measures.
All of the above issues are discussed below in the context of the prevailing policies and legislation.
5.2 General policy and legislative background
This section provides an overview of legislation and policy applicable to management of estuaries in South Africa and specifically to the Berg estuary. More details on the legislative framework for estuary management including international and regional treaties and
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 47 Anchor Environmental
obligations, national policies and laws, and provincial and local policies and legislation is provided by Smith & Cullinan (2000), McKenzie 2001, van Niekerk & Taljaard (2002), McGwynne & McKenzie (2006) and Taljaard (2007).
The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and provides the legal framework for legislation regulating environmental management in general. Section 24 of the Constitution states that:
"Everyone has the right: to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well‐being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that – prevent pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
This lays the basis for environmental law in South Africa (Breen & McKenzie 2001) and is a very important justification for the wise use of estuarine biodiversity.
Because they are not freshwater, terrestrial or marine, estuaries have tended to be neglected in past legislation. However, the fact that estuaries contain freshwater, terrestrial and marine components, and are heavily influenced by activities in a much broader catchment and adjacent marine area, means that they are affected by a large number of policies and laws. The situation has improved with newer policies and legislation, but there is still no specific provision for Estuarine Protected Areas.
Estuary management falls mainly under two national government departments: the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, responsible for water resources, and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), responsible for everything else, e.g. land use, living resources. Environmental management in most instances is devolved to provincial level through whichever provincial department is responsible for environmental matters. Management and conservation of marine living resources is an exception in this respect, in that this is retained as a national competency, responsibility residing with the Branch Marine & Coastal Management (MCM) of DEAT. In instances where provincial or local legislation are in conflict with national legislation, national legislation prevails. At a local (municipality) level, municipal councils pass municipal by‐laws, which in turn, cannot conflict with provincial and national laws (McKenzie 2001).
A brief summary of the most relevant policies is given here (Table 3 and Table 4). Policy and legislation which affects estuaries directly can be roughly divided into that affecting (a) water quality and quantity, (b) land use and infrastructure development, and (c) living resources within estuaries (Van Niekerk & Taljaard 2002, Taljaard 2007).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 48 Anchor Environmental
Table 3. Summary of national policies which affect water quality and quantity in estuaries in general, landing use, development and resource use in the estuarine environment.
White Paper (= Policy) Bill or Act (= Law) Lead Agent Implications
White Paper on National National Water Act 36 of 1998 DWAF Defines the environmental reserve in terms of quantity and quality of water; provides for Water Policy for SA (1997) national, catchment and local management of water
White Paper on Integrated Marine Pollution (Control and DOT/ DEAT Provides for the protection of the marine environment from pollution by oil and other harmful Pollution and Waste Civil Liability) Act (1981) substances, the prevention and combating of such pollution, and the determination of liability in quality Management for South certain respects for loss or damage caused by the discharge of oil from ships, tankers and quantity
& Africa (2000) offshore installations. Water Dumping at Sea Control Act DEAT Provides for the control of dumping of substances in the sea (including estuaries) (will be (1980) as amended repealed by the Integrated Coastal Management Bill). Seashore Act DEAT/ Ownership of the seashore (includes the water and land between the low‐water mark and the (1935) as amended DEADP high‐water mark in tidal rivers such as the Berg Estuary) is vested in the State; currently used to control recreational boating activities in estuaries. (To be replaced by Integrated Coastal Management Bill) Environmental Conservation Most of the provisions of this Act have been repealed by NEMA, apart from the regulation on Act (1989) Sensitive Coastal Areas.
National Heritage Resources Act DEAT Provides for managements of national heritage resources (including landscapes and natural &
(1999) features of cultural significance, and for participation of communities in the identification, use conservation and management of cultural resources Land
management White Paper for Sustainable National Environmental DEAT Provides for integrated coastal and estuarine management in South Africa, and sustainable
Coastal Development in Management: Integrated development of the coastal zone, defines rights and duties in relation to coastal areas; includes a South Africa (2000) Coastal Management Bill National Estuarine Management Protocol for South Africa, and requires that estuarine management plans be developed and implemented for all estuaries White Paper on Spatial Local Government: Municipal DPLG Requires each local authority to adopt a single, inclusive plan for the development of the Planning and Land‐use Systems Act (2000) municipality intended to encompass and harmonise planning over a range of sectors such as Management (2001) water, transport, land use and environmental management.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 49 Anchor Environmental
White Paper (= Policy) Bill or Act (= Law) Lead Agent Implications
White Paper: Mineral and Mineral and Petroleum DME Deals with environmental protection and management of mining impacts, including sand and Mining Policy for South Resources Development Act coastal mining. Africa (1998) (2002)
White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity (1998) National Environmental DEAT Provides for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Management: Protected Areas Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; and for establishment of a Act (2003) national register of national, provincial and local protected areas, describes the different types of
protected areas that can be declared which may also apply to estuaries. World Heritage Convention Act DEAT Provides for the incorporation of the World Heritage Convention into South African Law, and for areas (1999) the recognition and establishment of World Heritage Sites in South Africa Protected National Environmental DEAT Provide for the conservation of biological diversity, and regulates sustainable use of biological Management: Biodiversity Act resources (2004)
Marine Fisheries Policy for Marine Living Resources Act MCM/DEAT Regulates living resource use within marine and estuarine areas, mainly through licensing; South Africa (1997) (1998) provides for establishment of Marine Protected Areas
resources
MPAs
& living of
Use
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 50 Anchor Environmental
Table 4. Provincial and local government legislation applicable to the Berg estuary
Act/Ordinance Lead Agent Implications Municipal Ordinance (Cape) (1974) DEADP Grants local authorities in the province of the Western Cape the power ‘to drain storm water into any natural water course’. Land Use Planning Ordinance (1985) as DEADP Provides for the establishment of the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board. Most planning applications received by amended the provincial department are in terms of this Act including applications for departure, rezoning or subdivision and appeals against planning decisions taken by a municipality Western Cape Planning and Development Act DEADP Provides guidelines for the future spatial development in province of Western Cape (1999) Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) WCNCB Provides for the establishment of provincial, local and private nature reserves and the protection of indigenous species of flora and fauna. Protected and endangered species of flora and fauna are listed in schedules to the ordinance. It is administered by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB) and grants certain powers to the WCNCB.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 51 Anchor Environmental
5.3 Water quantity and quality requirements
Legislative context
Water quality and quantity are mainly controlled from the terrestrial side under the National Water Act 36 of 1998, under DWAF (Table 3). Legislation being developed under the White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for SA (2000) will also have a bearing on river systems. The risk of marine pollution is addressed by the Combating Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 6 of 1981, under DEAT. This discussion focuses on National Water Act as being the most pertinent to the development of the Berg Estuary Management Plan.
The White Paper on National Water Policy for SA (1997) promotes efficiency, equity and sustainability in the use of water resources through its slogan “some, for all, for ever”. The policy explicitly recognises the environment as a legitimate user of water and makes provision to protect the environment from overexploitation of water resources. The National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) provides the legal framework for this policy. The NWA makes provision for water “Reserve” which provides the quantity and quality of water flow required in aquatic ecosystems required to meet basic human needs and to protect the natural functioning of a water resource. The latter portion of the reserve is known as the environmental Reserve.
The classification process
The extent to which an estuary’s functioning is catered for is determined by the designated “class” (= future state of health) of that estuary, with some estuaries being assigned a low class to allow maximal water provision and others being assigned a high class in order to meet conservation needs. The decision as to the designated class of the estuary is thus a critical one. In future, this will take place using a classification process that has recently been devised by DWAF and is being gazetted. This process will entail consideration of the trade‐offs in value generated by allocating water (or pollution rights) to off‐stream users (e.g. irrigation agriculture), flow‐reducing activities (e.g. plantation forestry) and polluters (e.g. municipalities, farmers) versus allocating water to the environment for the provision of ecosystem services (e.g. fishing, tourism). The Catchment Management Agencies will in future probably play the key role in this decision –making process, but until these agencies are operational, decisions are being made with the aid of water situation assessments known as Internal Strategic Perspectives (ISPs) that were developed as an interim aid.
The reserve determination process
The environmental Reserve is currently determined on the basis of recommendations emanating from a reserve determination study using the Resource Directed Measures methodology (DWAF 2004b) in conjunction with considerations of the demand for water in the catchment (the classification process described above will effectively standardise the way this is done). In the case of the Berg River System, a Reserve Determination Study has recently been commissioned by DWAF, and should be complete by the end of the year (2009).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 52 Anchor Environmental
However, it may be some time after this before the ecological reserve is signed off by the Minister. A preliminary assessment of the water requirements of the Berg estuary was completed as part of the Western Cape Systems Analysis (Ninham Shand 1994) at the time when the Berg River was identified as a viable source of freshwater for the Greater Cape Town area. A detailed baseline assessment of the Berg River System and all hydraulically linked systems (i.e. estuary and groundwater systems) was completed in the period 2002‐2007 (Ractliffe 2007a, b, Clark 2007a, b, Clark & Ractliffe 2007), as a requirement in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the Berg River Dam. A detailed Reserve determination study must, however still be completed for the Berg River System and the estuary as per requirements stipulated in the National Water Act of 1998.
The preliminary assessment of the water requirements of the Berg estuary completed by Ninham Shand (1994) identified minimum freshwater requirements for individual components of the estuary as follows:
a. Vegetation • Perennial base flow and on to two floods per annum (between 15 and 30 x 106 m3 each). Floods should occur between May and October with residual inundation enduring for 3 to 5 months during winter.
b. Herpetofauna • Winter breeding frog species require inundation through June while summer breeders require this in September. Innundation for at least one month is required for the majority of species. c. Aquatic invertebrates • Winter inundation is considered essential to create desirable habitat, with two floods per year required for this – one of 20‐30 x 106 m3 in early June and a “top‐up” of 15‐18 x 106 m3 in late August. d. Fish • Sufficient regular flushing is required to keep salinity down (considered important for plankton production which is important for larval fish). An annual cueing flood is required in early winter, together with sufficient smaller floods that can inundate the floodplain until mid‐August. A large flood every 3‐5 years was also listed as being important to ensure detritus from the floodplain is incorporated into the estuary at semi‐regular intervals.
e. Birds • Flow required to meet requirements for vegetation and aquatic invertebrtaes was considered satisfactory for birds. Recommendations for a general persistence of water between mid‐June and late August through an early small to medium flood followed by a small flood in August. It was also recomendated that summer floods and hypersalinity be avoided.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 53 Anchor Environmental
5.4 Exploitation of living marine resources
Legislative context
The exploitation of marine living resources in South Africa (which includes those in estuaries) is governed by the Marine Fisheries Policy for South Africa (1997) and the Marine Living Resources Act (1998). Objectives of the policy are as follows:
• to achieve optimum utilisation and ecologically sustainable development of marine living resources; • to conserve marine living resources for present and future generations, to use marine living resources; • to achieve economic growth, human resource development, capacity building within fisheries and mariculture branches, employment creation and a sound ecological balance consistent with the development objectives of national governments; • to protect the ecosystem as a whole, including species which area not targeted for exploitation; and • to preserve marine biodiversity.
The Marine Living Resources Act (1998) defines the species that can be exploited, and protection measures for those species, such as closed areas, closed seasons and size and bag limits. Various types of resource‐use permit systems are also defined under this act.
Issues surrounding recreational fishing
Compared to othe estuaries along the South African southwest and east coasts, the Berg estuary is currently utilised by a relatively low number of recreational fishers (Hutchings et al. 2007). This is partly due to the perceived lack of suitable angling species along the west coast and partly due to the fact that in the past angler catch rates were low. However, many suitable angling species do exist in the Berg estuary (elf, white steenbras, leervis, springer) and the catch rates and average size of some of these species have improved significantly subsequent to the closure of the estuarine gill net fishery (Hutchings et al. 2007). Improvements in the average sizes and catch rates of the other species are likely to also take place in the future (although this is partly dependent on the national status of these stocks). Recreational fishing effort on the Berg estuary has expanded considerably in recent years following the cessation of gill net fishing on this estuary (Dr B. Clark, pers. obs.), and appears to be related to this improvements in catches. Increased tourism and real estate development along the banks of the Berg estuary will also lead to increases in recreational fishing effort (fishing been one of the top drawcards to the area).
Due to the large number of participants, and associated expenditure (tackle, bait, accommodation, food, travel costs), recreational fisheries have been shown to contribute significantly to regional economies (Mann et al. 2002, Lamberth & Turpie 2003, Pradervand et al. 2003). It has been shown that the demand for recreational angling is largely driven by a desire for relaxation and that the quantity of fish caught does not negatively affect the expenditure by recreational anglers (McGrath et al. 1997). As a result, although the linefishery
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 54 Anchor Environmental
on the Berg estuary will always land substantially fewer fish than the gill net fishery ever did, the recreational and subsistence linefishery is likely to be more valuable in terms of overall economic contribution, especially since estuarine gill net fisheries are marginal enterprises (Hutchings et al. 2002). From a conservation perspective, the lower overall fishing mortality from line fishing compared with gill net fishing is certainly preferable for conserving fish stocks both within the estuary and in the adjacent marine environment. This is particularly pertinent for the conservation of juvenile fish that use the estuary as a nursery area and are vulnerable to capture in the mesh size gill nets (44‐54mm stretched mesh) that were used in the commercial fishery (Hutchings & Lamberth 2002a). However, continued increases in development up the west coast could eventually lead to recreational overfishing in the estuary (as has occurred in other estuaries along the SA coast and world wide) if the situation is not carefully managed. Increased recreational fishing may also lead to increased harvesting of bait organisms (e.g. prawns) and this will also need to be managed carefully.
Issues surrounding gill net poaching in the Berg estuary
Gill net fishing in estuaries is of serious concern because of the impact that this activity can have on the fish stocks, and because these estuarine fish stocks, in turn support far more valuable fisheries around the coast. As such, it would appear that this activity is not well aligned with the objectives of the Marine Fisheries Policy. The reasons that gill nets have such a major impact in estuaries as follows:
• Gill nets are very size selective, but not species specific – all fish with a body circumference greater than the mesh size are either caught or cannot pass through the netted area. • Fish entangled in a gill net are usually fatally injured and cannot be released. • Estuaries are confined bodies of water between two banks, fish utilizing estuaries usually migrate/swim in narrow channels which are easily blocked by gill nets set perpendicular to the tidal or river flow. • Nearly all overexploited linefish species that use estuaries as nursery areas are considerably deeper bodied that the target species (in this case harders) and are vulnerable to capture within several months of the post flexion larvae recruiting to the estuary. Nearly all by‐catch in estuarine gill nets is well below the legal minimum size limits (for species where size limits exist) applicable to commercial and recreational fisheries (Hutchings et al. in press. Hutchings & Lamberth 2002a, b). • Gill nets are an extremely efficient gear type, easily operated by one or two fishers, but have an average linefish catch rate of 27 line anglers (Hutchings & Lamberth 2002a, b). • Gill net fishing in an estuary, even at very low effort levels, can therefore nullify the value of the estuary as a nursery area with severe detrimental consequences for the estuarine and coastal ichthyofauna, ecology and fisheries.
These concerns, as well as the scarcity of estuaries on the West Coast of South Africa and their known importance as nursery areas and refuges for fish during upwelling and low oxygen events, were considerations in the development of the gill net and beach‐seine net fishing policy by MCM. In 2003, MCM rescinded all 120 gill net permits for the Berg Estuary and stated their intention to phase out the Olifants Estuary gill net fishery over 10 years (Policy on the allocation of rights in the beach‐seine and gill net fisheries, MCM 2003).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 55 Anchor Environmental
The closure of the Berg Estuary gill net fishery has been largely successful, with some quantitative evidence showing recovery of fish stocks within the estuary (Hutchings et al. 2007). This has facilitated the development of a flourishing recreational linefishery in the estuary and the benefits of the rehabilitated nursery fuction in the Berg estuary should assist with the recovery of overexploited fish stocks in the marine environment. Although attempts were made to include fishers dependent on estuarine gill net fishing into the marine gill net fishery, there have, undoubtedly been socioeconomic costs related to the closure of the Berg estuarine gill net fishery. Some people previously employed by the estuarine commercial gill netters as assistants (“stropers”) have probably resorted to subsitence handline fishing in the estuary, whilst the reduced availability (or stability of supply) of harders may have impacted negatively on the “ bokkom” (salt cured harders) industry in Veldrift. From an ecological and resource economic viewpoint the benefits of not having a gillnet fishery in the Berg estuary probably outweigh the socioeconomic costs that resulted from the closure of the fishery. These benefits can however, be severly reduced or even negated by gill net poaching in the Berg estuary and effective management is required to prevent this.
5.5 Land use and management of estuary margins
Legislative context
Land use management and control of development in the coastal zone is mostly the responsibility of the provincial government and local authorities (municipalities), and is administered through the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act (2000), the Seashore Act (1935), the National Environmental Management Act (2003) (NEMA) and associated EIA regulations. The recently promulgated National Environemental Management: Coastal Management Act (2009), will dictate to a large extent how land on estuary margins is developed.
Development planning has been rather ad hoc in the past, but has now been formalised under the Municipal Systems Act, which requires that all municipalities (i.e. Metros, District Municipalities and Local Municipalities) have to produce Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). As the IDP is a legislative requirement it has a legal status and supercedes all other plans that guide development at local government level. The IDP process is one of the key tools for local governments to cope with their developmental roles and responsibilities. It is the principal strategic planning instrument which guides and informs all planning, budgeting, management and decision‐making in a municipality for a five‐year period. IDPs are also supposed to guide the activities of other spheres of government, corporate service providers, NGOs and the private sector within the municipal area. Because of the participatory process it takes approximately 6 – 9 months to complete an IDP. The IDP is updated every five years.
Every municipality is required to produce an indicative plan, called a Spatial Development Framework (SDF)’, showing desired patterns of land use, directions of growth, urban edges, special development areas and conservation‐worthy areas. It must also produce a scheme, called a Land use Management System (LUMS)’ recording the land use and development rights and restrictions applicable to each erf in the municipality. The plan should be flexible enough
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 56 Anchor Environmental
to accommodate changing priorities, and the scheme has to conform to the plan. The plan (SDF) is a guide to development, and the scheme (LUMS) is binding. Development within the coastal zone is also to some extent controlled through National Environmental Management Act (2003) (NEMA) and associated EIA regulations. A range of listed activities are included in the annexures to the regulations for which either a Basic or full EIA are required. In the event that a developer wishes to undertake project involving any of the listed activities, the developer is required to appoint an independent EIA practitioner to conduct a Basic Environmental Assessment (in the case of the former) or initiate a scoping exercise in the case of the latter). Following completion of such an assessment, an application must then be made to the relevant authority (Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning or DEAT in the case of the Kogelberg area) for approval of the project. The application will be considered by the MEC/Minister and his/her staff and a Record of Decision issued indicating that the development may either proceed under certain conditions, must be subject to a more detailed assessment (i.e. full EIA), or may not proceed at all. The Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the authority (DEADP) may be appealed by the applicant (or anyone opposed to the development) which could result in the ROD being upheld, additional conditions being imposed on the development, or the ROD being overturned. Such an appeal must be lodged within 30 days of the ROD being published, using the appropriate forms. Further details on the EIA process, application and appeal forms are available on the Cape>Gateway website (www.capegateway.gov.za/eng/directories/services/11537/10199).
In addition to the above, for development on any land below the high water mark, land required for the purpose must be leased from the state under the Seashore Act of 1935. Responsibility for administration of this Act, and hence the lease of any land below the high water mark in the Western Cape Province, has been devolved to the Provincial Government in the Western Cape Province, the relevant authority being Cape Nature. This is set to change in the near future, however, following the recent proclamation of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (2009).
The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (2009) is projected to come into force later this year, and seeks to: • promote the conservation of the coastal environment, and maintain the natural attributes of coastal landscapes and seascapes, and to ensure that development and the use of natural resources within the coastal zone is socially and economically justifiable and ecologically sustainable; • define rights and duties in relation to coastal areas; • determine the responsibilities of organs of state in relation to coastal areas; • prohibit incineration at sea; • control dumping at sea, pollution in the coastal zone, inappropriate development of the coastal environment and other adverse effects on the coastal environment; and • give effect to South Africa’s international obligations in relation to coastal matters
The Act designates all land below the high water mark as coastal public property that is held in trust by the state on behalf of the citizens of the country, and requires that the state take “whatever reasonable legislative and other measures it considers necessary to conserve and protect coastal public property for the benefit of present and future generations”. In terms of the Act, all land within one kilometre of the high water mark zoned for agricultural or undetermined use and not part of a lawfully established township at the time at which the Act
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 57 Anchor Environmental
came into force, and all other land within 100 metres of the high‐water mark will be incorporated within a “coastal protection zone”. The purpose of coastal protection zone is to protect ecological integrity, natural character and the economic, social and aesthetic value of the land and sea below the high water mark and to maintain the natural functioning of the littoral active zone. Authorisation for construction of any structures within this zone may only be issued in terms of the NEMA EIA regulations provided the structure in question is inconsistent with the purpose for which the coastal protection zone was established, is likely to cause irreversible or long‐lasting adverse effects to any aspect of the coastal environment that cannot satisfactorily be mitigated nor is likely to be significantly damaged or prejudiced by dynamic coastal processes. Provincial MEC’s are required to establish or coastal set‐back lines in which the erection of any structures shall be prohibited. All municipalities in the country are required to facilitate public access to the seashore through the designation of coastal access land.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations promulgated under the national Environmental Management Act (I998) stipulate that the execution, construction or upgrading of activities and developments within the coastal protection zone, including:
Marinas, (fishing) harbours and structures below high‐water mark; Bridges, roads, railways and airfields; Dams, reservoirs, levees or weirs; Canals, channels and water‐transfer schemes; Public and private amenities and resorts; Sewage treatment works and solid waste dump sites; Rezoning for residential or industrial development in and around estuaries; Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse (e.g. mouth breaching, bank stabilisation, storm water outlet structures, dredging, dredge‐spoil dumping, sedimentation or erosion issues, dune stabilisation); Reclamation of land below the high‐water mark of the sea and in inland waters; Salt works (e.g. in flood plains and salt marsh areas); and Other (e.g. electricity generation, nuclear reactors, cableways, communication network structures and access roads, racing tracks, industrial and military facilities associated with explosives or ammunition and transport routes, structures and facilities involving hazardous substances), require that an environmental impact assessment be undertaken to assess potential impacts on the environment, socio‐economic condition and cultural heritage, the results of which must be reported to the authority charged with authorizing, permitting or otherwise allowing the implementation of an activity (in this case DEA&DP).
The national government (DEAT), all coastal provinces and coastal municipalities are also all required to prepare coastal management programmes for managing the coastal zone within their areas of jurisdiction. These coastal management programmes are required to set out a vision, objectives, priorities and strategies for achieving objectives, norms and standard for management of the coastal zone, and a framework for co‐operative governance that identifies the responsibilities of different organs of state in respect of the management of the coast. Coastal management programmes are required to be consistent with other planning documents (e.g. IDP and SDF documents) and vice versa. Coastal municipalities are also
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 58 Anchor Environmental
empowered to pass bylaws in terms of the Act for the purpose of administrating and enforcing their coastal management programmes.
Certain sections of the coast may be designated as “special management areas” in terms of the Act for the purpose of conserving, protecting or enhancing coastal ecosystems and biodiversity in the area and for facilitating the management of coastal resources by a local community. The Act requires that all estuaries in the country be managed in a co‐ordinated and efficient manner and in accordance with a national estuarine management protocol.
Minister and provincial MECs are also empowered to remove any structure on or within the coastal zone deemed to be having an adverse effect on the coastal environment by virtue of its existence or because it has been erected, constructed or upgraded in contravention of this Act or any other law.
Agricultural activities in and around the Berg estuary, including livestock grazing, cultivation of crops and husbandry involving invasive alien species (plants or animals), are all subject to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (1983) which gives the Minister of Agriculture the power to prescribe control measures to achieve the objectives of the Act (viz. the maintenance of the production potential of land, by the combating and prevention of erosion and weakening or destruction of the water sources (including estuaries), and by the protection of the vegetation and the combating of weeds and invader plants).
Development planning pertaining to the Berg estuary
The Berg estuary lies wholly within the Western Cape Province, within the West Coast District Municipality and the Berg River Local Municipality. These provincial and local government structures have also enacted certain legislation that has a bearing on the Berg estuary. Pertinent aspects of this legislation are summarised in Table 4.
The Spatial Development Framework for the Western Cape Province is pitched at a very broad level, encapsulated in the vision “a home for all in the Western Cape”. It offers very little material guidance of specific relevance to the management of the Berg estuary, except to say that estuaries are unique ecosystems under serious threat both directly from human activities such as overexploitation, waste discharges, and through activities in the catchment.
The Western Cape Government has also released a Coastal Management Policy which includes a suite of goals, objectives and strategies designed to achieve sustainable coastal development in the Western Cape. These are closely aligned with the National Coastal Management Policy and are organised within five themes: Theme A: Governance and Capacity Building Theme B: Our National Asset Theme C: Coastal Planning and Development Theme D: Natural Resource Management Theme E: Pollution Control and Waste Management
A number of goals within each of these themes are of relevance to the management of the Berg estuary (Table 5).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 59 Anchor Environmental
Table 5. Goals and strategies in the Western Cape Coastal Management Policy of particular relevance to management of the Berg estuary.
Goal # Goal Strategies Goal B3: To preserve, promote or protect archaeological, historical and cultural B3.1.1: Implementation of section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act resources and activities of the coast B3.1.2: Encouragement of heritage conservation planning B3.1.6: Termination of inappropriate uses of places, illegal activities Goal C1: To promote the diversity, vitality and long term viability of coastal economies C1.7.1: Diversify tourism opportunities and activities, giving preference to those that are distinctly coastal or C1.7.3: Build capacity of communities to initiate and effectively participate in sustainable tourism dependent on a coastal location ventures C1.7.4: Identify and address the limits imposed by natural and manmade environments when planning tourism (and other) initiatives Goal C3: To maintain an appropriate balance between built, rural and wilderness C3.4.2: Ensure the protection and conservation of natural/wilderness areas coastal areas in the Western Cape Goal C4: To design and manage coastal settlements to be in harmony with the C4.1.1: Determine adequate setback and buffer zones along the coast aesthetic, environmental and cultural attributes of the Western Cape Coast C4.1.2: Control the siting of infrastructure in the coastal zone C4.1.3: Restrict non‐coastal related land uses from being located in the coastal zone C4.1.4: Encourage appropriate forms of coastal settlement and building C4.1.5: Formulate design guidelines for all buildings and structures in the coastal zone C4.2.1: Develop regulations to restrict the alteration of landforms and vegetation cover in dynamic coastal zones C4.2.3: Manage pedestrian and vehicular access in coastal environments Goal C5: To plan and manage coastal development so as to avoid increasing the C5.1.1 Protect and maintain dynamic coastal features that act as a buffer against natural coastal incidence and severity of natural hazards and to avoid exposure of people, processes and hazards property and economic activities to significant risk from dynamic coastal C5.2.1: Incorporate appropriate preventative and adaptive measures into all planning and processes management policies, plans and decision‐making processes to account for projected changes in climate, particularly increases in sea level Goal D1 To maintain the diversity, health and productivity of coastal and marine D1.2.1 Identify and protect unique sensitive environments and habitats in the coastal and marine processes and ecosystems zones Goal D2: To establish and effectively manage a system of coastal protected areas D2.1.3: Ensure proper management of protected areas that caters for ecological and human use requirements
Goal D3: To ensure that the use of renewable resources and associated user practices D3.1.2: Adopt holistic rather than single species management approaches do not compromise the regenerative capacity of coastal ecosystems D3.1.3: Set harvest levels that correspond to the regenerative capacity of coastal resources D3.1.5: Develop adequate strategies for monitoring and compliance
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 60 Anchor Environmental
Goal # Goal Strategies D3.1.6: Promote participation of all stakeholders in management
Goal D5: To rehabilitate damaged or degraded coastal ecosystems and habitats D5.1.1: Identification of significantly degraded coastal areas and ecosystems and development of rehabilitation management plans D5.2.1: Put in place procedures to enforce rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas by those responsible Goal E1: To implement pollution control and waste‐management measures in order E1.2.3: Inclusion of pollution and waste management into land‐use planning to prevent, minimize and strictly control harmful discharges into coastal ecosystems Goal E2: To manage polluting activities to ensure that they have minimal adverse E2.1.7: Reduce pollution entering rivers and estuaries by promoting catchment management impact on the health of coastal communities, and on coastal ecosystems and their ability to support beneficial human uses
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 61 Anchor Environmental
Table 6. West Coast Region Spatial Development Framework (SDF)
Component Strategy with spatial implications Strategy without spatial implications Wilderness areas 1. Expand statutory wilderness status to more 1. Maintain intrinsic value of wilderness areas than 6% of West Coast Region; 2. Promote insight into the significance of wilderness areas; 2. Establish buffer zones around wilderness 3. promotes users of wilderness areas with wilderness experiences; areas and core conservation areas 4. establish wilderness conservation as economically viable, also as a form of land use
Conservation 1. Expand statutory conservation status to at 1. Conserve the social and ecological integrity of natural areas and provide a wide spectrum of recreational areas least 12% of the West Coast Region opportunities ; 2. ensure effective public participation in environmental conservation
Natural 1. Regulate the exploitation and utilisation of 1. Reduce the “loss” of agricultural lands to acceptable levels; resources all geological and mineral resources with a 2. Establish viable and sustainable irrigation schemes to ensure sustainable agricultural development; Soil view to curbing environmental degradation; 3. Ensure the conservation of all catchment areas in the West Coast Region; Water 2. Ensure the effective management of all 4. Ensure reasonable rates for all water consumers; Plants catchment areas in the West Coast Region; 5. Ensure reasonable access to water for all legitimate consumers; animals 3. Conserve the diversity of indigenous plants 6. Ensure sustainable exploitation of alternative water sources such as groundwater; at species, population and community 7. Reduce flood damage to infrastructure and developed land to acceptable levels levels; 8. Maintain minimum acceptable population levels of rare and endangered plant species; 4. Consolidate and enlarge the natural habitats 9. Promote the sustainable economic exploitation of indigenous flora; of indigenous animal communities in the 10. Conserve natural habitats of indigenous animal species; West Coast Region 11. Conserve the diversity of indigenous plants at species, population and community levels; 12. Maintain minimum acceptable population levels of rare and endangered animal species; 13. Promote the sustainable economic exploitation of indigenous fauna. Cultural 1. Conserve representative historical buildings and structures; environment 2. Conserve all archaeological resources on government and private land; 3. Conserve all intangible cultural resources such as spoken history, languages, place names, social activities and human habits.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 62 Anchor Environmental
Rural 1. Provide the infrastructure and services 1. Conserve the social and ecological integrity of natural areas by means of effective environmental planning; development needed to improve the quality of life of 2. Ensure effective environmental control in rural areas; communities in rural areas. 3. reduce negative impact on the ecological, social and natural environment to acceptable levels; 4. Regulate the disposal of solid waste. Urban 1. Provide the necessary infrastructure and 1. Develop the necessary infrastructure and facilities to accommodate future development; development services needed to improve the quality of 2. Implement location specific planning with reference to rural planning with a view to protecting the cultural, life of communities in urban areas. social and aesthetic al environment; 3. Ensure effective management of municipal functions; 4. Limit negative impact of urban development to acceptable levels; 5. Regulate the disposal of solid waste.
Economic sectors 1. Advance the development of tourism 1. Ensure the conservation and preservation of the area’s character and natural aesthetics by imparting information Tourism infrastructure in keeping with location‐ to tourists; agriculture specific architectural, environmental and 2. Ensure effective management of tourism at all levels; aesthetic requirements; 3. Promote community‐based and driven industry with inherent direct and indirect benefits for the communities; 2. create new irrigation schemes within the 4. Promote the development of sustainable agricultural enterprises; limitations of sustainable resource 5. Combine professional management skills with human, mechanical and financial resources in order to ensure utilisation; sustainable agriculture; 3. Provide sustainable opportunities for small 6. Diversify agricultural enterprises; and emerging farmers. 7. Make the status of natural resources and the environment determinants for sustainable agriculture.
Human wellbeing 1. Ensure sustainable development 2. Create a safe, healthy and aesthetically acceptable social environment for all communities; 3. Create equal opportunities for professional education and training in order to ensure sustainable human resources and access to available job opportunities 4. Promote land reform in accordance with the Land Reform programme
Institutional and 1. Ensure effective cooperation and coordination between the various levels of government; Legislative 2. Ensure effective law enforcement framework
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 63 Anchor Environmental
The IDP, SDF and IEP (Integrated Environmental Programme) for the West Coast District Municipality and the Berg River Local Municipality IDP contain much more of direct relevance to management of the Berg Estuary. The West Coast District Municipality SDF is currently being updated but excerpts from the existing (2002/2006) documents of direct relevance to this management plan have been collated in Table 6 (West Coast District Municipality SDF), Table 7 (West Coast District Municipality IDP), and Error! Not a valid bookmark self‐reference. (West Coast District Municipality IEP). Relevant material contained in the Berg River Municipality IDP is included in (Table 9) (Vision, goals, objectives and specific strategic goals directly relevant to the estuary).
Table 7. The vision, mission and objectives of the West Coast District Municipality as outlined in the 2002/2006 IDP document
Vision Mission Objectives A better Through The purposeful improvement of the quality of life for all the residents quality of participating of the west coast region life for all and co‐ The establishment and preservation of a safe environment operation in The pro‐active and responsible stimulation of the regional economy the district to The furtherance and conservation of the natural environment and the develop the conservation of natural resources people to its The advancement of pro‐active co‐operation between everyone that optimum fulfils a role in development
Table 8 Aspects of the West Coast Region Integrated Environmental Programme (IEP) relevant to the Berg Estuary
IEP GOALS & OBJECTIVES PREDERTERMINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK Theme 1: Overarching Environmental Goals Sustainable development • To promote conservation & secure ecologically sustainable development • To promote a safe and healthy environment. • ∙ Responsibility for the environmental health and safety consequences of a policy, programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle. • ∙To ensure socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development practices and processes. • ∙To promote sustainable coastal development ‐ involving a balance between material prosperity, social development, cultural values, spiritual fulfilment and ecological integrity, in the interests of the current and future generations of the Western Cape.
Human Welfare • To work with communities in creating environments and human settlements in which all people can lead uplifted and dignified lives. • To pursue environmental justice so that adverse environmental impacts shall not be distributed in such a manner as to unfairly discriminate against any person, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged persons. • To pursue equitable access to environmental resources, benefits and services to meet basic human needs and ensure human well‐being. • The environment is held in public trust for the people, the beneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 64 Anchor Environmental
people´s common heritage.
Environmental Management • ∙To provide for the effective protection and control of activities that may have a detrimental impact on the environment. • Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated and it must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option. • The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits, must be considered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and assessment. • Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably. • To provide for the protection and management of conservation‐worthy places and areas by local authorities. • The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects and of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution. Environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment.
Pollution prevention • To prevent pollution and ecological degradation. • To protect the environment, including its unique fauna and flora, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable measures.
Theme 4: Economic development & job creation Sustainable Development • To ensure socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development practices and processes.
Theme 6: Resource Use Sustainable Utilisation • To ensure sustainable resource use and impact management; • To ensure better and fair control over access to all natural resources, including access to the coast; • To ensure sustainable use of agricultural resources; • To ensure the sustainable use of tourism resources; • To manage water demand in all the municipalities, including underground water and regulate unaccounted for water; • ∙To manage state land along the high‐water mark for the coastal area • Implement Community Based Natural Resource Management guidelines Specific to the Coast: • Manage coastal resources in a sustainable manner • Ensure fair control of access to the coast • Ensure a balance between coastal development and conservation • Maintain the natural diversity of coastal environments with distinctive features of characteristics within the coastal zone • Concentrate coastal development into compact nodes and prevent urban sprawl; • Ensure that the construction of surface infrastructure on the coast does not cause unacceptable degradation of the ecological and aesthetic qualities of the coastal zone • Manage state land along the high water mark
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 65 Anchor Environmental
Theme 8: Biodiversity Protection/ Conservation Conservation • To conserve the biodiversity of the ecologically sensitive coastal zone. • To ensure the maintenance and protection of essential ecological processes; • To preserve biological diversity; • To conserve aesthetic and sensitive environmental features; • To establish and conserve biodiversity corridors; Utilisation • To provide for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner. • To promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas for the benefit of people, in a manner that would preserve the ecological character of such areas. ISSUES AND GAPS Theme1: Overarching Environmental Goals • Goals outlined for human welfare and pollution prevention but no specific projects in response to goals • Focus of decision making needs to be holistic: sustainable development, human wellbeing, environmental equity and economic integrity • Sustainable Development is an overall goal but poorly defined for the region and no measurement • Municipal Services must legally be environmentally sustainable but this does not always occur. Overloaded wastewater and solid waste disposal and treatment are examples of non‐ sustainable services in the area
Theme 3: Co‐Ordination & Co‐Operation Co‐operation • There is the perception that the municipalities need to compromise development priorities in favour of conservation priorities and this issue complicates co‐operation with conservation initiatives; • Municipalities need to clarify their attitude towards conservation and define sustainable development, closer co‐operation could be achieved • Lack of common goals for environmental planning, management and conservation • There is a need to co‐operate to protect the area, but co‐operation agreements have often proven to be unsustainable; • Limited co‐operation between large environmental initiatives in the West Coast Region;
Co‐ordination • CAPE’s success relies on the co‐ordination of the different implementing agencies and incorporation of the CAPE strategy into processes such as the IDP and SDFs; • There is a need for political buy‐in and assistance from the municipalities in the initiatives e.g.CWCBR; LandCare AWP, GCBC • Integration of activities such as meetings and coordination between initiatives required • Coastal interface often neglected because of uncertainty regarding mandates
Theme 6. Resource use • New housing and resort developments impacting public access to the coast; • Unregulated fishing occurring; • Research needed to ensure decision are based on facts • Improved compliance monitoring and law enforcement needed • Infrastructure maintenance critical for environmentally sound management. • Infrastructure upgrades/ development must keep pace with development • Monitoring, access control and conservation of coastline must consider the presence and significance of archaeological and palaeontological heritage resources located along it. • Access to Berg River is limited
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 66 Anchor Environmental
• Marketing of tourism not a municipal priority • Public access to beaches should be enabled through provision of parking, ablutions etc. • Ecotourism encouraged on beaches such as atElandsbaai • The coastline is a finite resource, the whole coastline of South Africa is only 3000 km long • It is a functionally important resource, with a very high use value, particularly for tourism • The state of the West Coast coastline has been identified by the community of the West Coast as critically important to tourism development in the region. • The coastline is both a rare and a diverse habitat and landscape • The coastal area is, however, declining due to uncontrolled tourism use, mining, urban development and economic growth in certain areas • In the West Coast District, a large percentage of all development happens in the coastal area • The coastline is under pressure from transformation and bad development • Only about 200 km of the Western Cape coastline is protected ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN Theme1: Overarching Environmental Goals • To meaningfully engage around biodiversity issues with the other Environmental bodies in the WCDM. • Utilise existing structures such as CAPE and Fynbos Forum to assist engagement • Ensure professional and world class management of protected areas within the area of the WCDM • Donor funding should be investigated. WC Municipalities to provide assistance and support of funding applications to donors • Determine, safeguard and improve the environmental integrity of natural areas not under formal conservation Theme 3: Co‐Ordination & Co‐Operation • Constitute a West Coast Regional Coastal Committee (WCRCC) • Inform relevant roleplayers of Provincial guidelines outlining coastal responsibilities and mandates Theme 4: Economic development and job creation • Quantify the economic value of biodiversity • Create sustainable job creation projects/ provide mentoring for Environmental Planning Conservation and Management projects (biodiversity) Theme 6: Rersource use • Establish MOU between District authority, DWAF, DEA&DP and DEAT to ensure comprehensive protection of river channels, estuaries, wetlands and groundwater dependent ecosystems • Manage the informal recreational activities along the West Coast • Evaluate the performance of institutions that regulate coastal resource use frequently and create reporting mechanisms to regional institutions. • Monitoring, access control and conservation of coastline must consider the presence and significance of archaeological and palaeontological heritage resources located along it.
The Berg River Local Municiaplity SDF is currently under revision. The latest draft has been approved by the Muncipal Council and is currently under consideration at the provincial level, but there are outstanding appeals against this document. The draft SDF (Rode & Associates CC, Africon, Anneke de Kock Environmental Consultants, Prof. Wolfgang Thomas June 2008) recognizes the limited potential for natural resources (agriculture, fishing etc.) to support further economic development but supports the notion that natural attributes of the area (specifically including the Berg River estuary and its navigable portion) have a regional value for development opportunities e.g. ecotourism. The draft SDF notes that previous spatial planning
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 67 Anchor Environmental
documents (Berg River SDF 2002) did not support urban development along the ecologically sensitive southern banks of the estuary and defined the urban edge as the northern river bank, but also points out that these did not fall within the Berg River Municipality (previously the Velddrif municipality) jurisdiction until 2002.
Table 9. The vision, mission, goals and strategic actions with direct bearing on the management of the Berg estuary as outlined in the 2002‐2006 Berg River Municipality IDP document
Vision: Well‐being for all residents as a result of economic growth, social welfare, community involvement and effective management in a safe and healthy environment Mission: To unite urban and rural communities of the area into one powerful human resource that will ensure the future development and growth of the area Goals Strategic actions 1 Economic Development 1.1 1.1 The successful marketing and • Expansion and maintenance of existing management of the Berg River as a tourist infrastructure area • Marketing 1.2 Utilization of natural resources as an • Initiation of a successful tourism economic catalyst initiative 2 Social development 1.2 2.1 A safe and healthy environment that • Effective utilization, management and provides protection for all citizens protection on a sustainable basis of new 2.2 The maintenance and management of and existing resources relaxation and recreational facilities for 2.1 local inhabitants and visitors • Promotion of a healthy environment 3 Environmental development 2.2 3.1 The development of place specific landuse • Upgrading, maintenance and guidelines that will promote development management of facilities that is in keeping with the existing 3.1 landscape and ensures environmental • Implementation of the biosphere sustainability planning principals 4 Institutional development 4.1 4.1 Effective interaction between municipal • Provison and improvement of line departments, sectoral and national communication channels departments and other roleplayers to promote an atmosphere of informed participation
The draft Berg River Municipality SDF refers to the West Coast Spatial Development Framework (2008) that states that the Berg River riparian zone (northern and southern sections) is deemed ecologically sensitive with detailed restrictions (i.e. setback lines from the 1: 50 year flood line) on development i.e. the conservation of the salt march area to the south of the river. The West Coast SDF is also referred to in respect of potential land based mariculture operations (mooted in the Berg River Municipality SDF as a possible development for the saltpans that may be closing when Cerbos potentially relocates to Coega in 2011). In this respect the WC SDF (2008) further identifies the possibility for land‐based mari‐culture processing facilities but highlight a cumulative negative effect within the coastal zone. The draft Berg River municipal SDF also takes cognizance of the Lower Bergriver Subregional Structure Plan (2001) which specifically suggests restricting urban development up to the area known as The Plaat (in easterly direction along river) to conserve ecologically sensitive
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 68 Anchor Environmental
estuarine habitat above this point. The draft SDF highlights the importance of the estuary and its floodplain in defining the “sense of place’ of Velddrif‐ Laaiplek). Specifically it states: “The farms to the south of the Berg River are within the jurisdiction area of the Bergrivier Municipality with no existing urban land‐uses. This area possesses a rustic and agricultural character that contributes to the aesthetic value of Velddrif if viewed from the urban area on the northern bank of the river.”
Despite acknowledging all the above, the draft Berg River Municipality SDF then highlights the increasing demand for river frontage development and the consequent pressure to cross the existing urban edge. The document then puts forward arguments motivating for the extension of the urban edge of Velddrif to beyond the southern side of the Berg River suggesting that a “soft urban edge” is adopted in this respect with the proposed development at the Plaat also incorporated within a similar “soft” urban edge. Proposed changes to the existing urban edge are shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Thus, although the draft Berg River Municipality SDF does unambiguously state “It is absolutely essential that the local communities be afforded opportunities to partake in the conceptualisation and evaluation of any development proposal before closure by the authorities” the current document favours considerable urban development on the largely undeveloped, ecologically sensitive areas of the estuary.
N
Rigid urban edge (Berg River SDF 2008) Soft urban edge (Berg SDF 2008) Veldrif Urban Border (Berg River SDF 2008) W E Pr oposed Developments
S
Farm 113 - De Plaat
Flamienkvlei Cerebos
0 123Kilometers
Figure 29. Veldrif urban boundaries with soft (blue) and rigid (red) urban edges as proposed in the Berg River SDF (2008). Proposed new developments are outlined in yellow..
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 69 Anchor Environmental
The west Coast District municipality IEP also refers to numerous other international and national legislation, planning, policy, and guideline documents as well as existing conservation initiatives applicable to the West Coast region. Information relevant to the management of the Berg estuary extracted from these includes:
South Africa is a signatory to the following two International conventions:
1 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) The convention was signed and ratified by South Africa 12 March 1975. The provisions in this convention are precise obligations and promote the following principles: • The conservation of listed wetlands; • The wise (sustainable) use of wetlands; • International co‐operation; and • The creation of wetland reserves.
2 Convention on migratory species of wild animals (Bonn Convention) The convention was acceded by South Africa in December 1991. It aims to ensure that the contracting parties acknowledge the importance of conserving migratory species and that special attention be paid to migratory species, the conservation status of which is unfavourable, and take individually, or in co‐operation the appropriate action and necessary steps to conserve such species and their habitats.
Specific golas and startegies listed in the Lower Berg River Sub‐regional Structure Plan (1999) include: • The establishment of conservation and development actions; • The identification of responsibilities; • The protection of the river and management of the river banks by means of the proclamation of a Protected Area; and • The completion of research as necessary for hydrographical management guidelines for the Berg River to be formulated.
The State of Rivers Report for the Berg River (2004) identifies amongst others the following required management action: • Improve management and monitoring of water abstraction, particularly during summer; • Improve land use practices (e.g. farming) to reduce sedimentation and water quality problems; • Improve monitoring and management of runoff and discharges from urban and agricultural areas; • Determine the ecological Reserve for the Berg Estuary before any further reduction in river inflow is approved; • Register the Berg Estuary as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention to ensure a high level of bird habitat protection; • Ensure that prescribed environmental flow releases are made from large dams in the catchment.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 70 Anchor Environmental
Issues of surrounding land use and development
Although there is already substantial development and use of the northern bank of the lower Berg estuary, much of the southern bank and estuary margins from “De Plaat” upstream on both banks remain undeveloped or are used for agricultural purposes only. Nevertheless, there is increasing demand for development up the west coast, and numerous recent applications for development around the estuary margins (an EIA is currently underway regarding development adjoining De Plaat) have been made and are likely to increase in the future.
Increased development will lead to the degradation and loss of estuary habitats, and will bring about the increased use of the estuary for recreational purposes. This, in turn, could create problems of disturbance and pollution if inadequately managed. Recreational use of the estuary is discussed further below.
Not only does future development pose a threat to the estuary habitats and fauna, it also threatens the cultural heritage and “sense of place” of the area in terms of changing the nature of the historically‐interesting settlements along the estuary.
5.6 Non‐consumptive recreational use
Legislation
There is no legislation at present that specifically controls non‐consumptive recreational use of estuaries. There are indirect means by which this can and has been achieved.
Section 10 of the Seashore Act (1935) is the most common means used to control recreational boating activities in estuaries with powers delegated to Provincial Authorities (in this case the Western Cape Provincial Government). This Act is likely to be repealed in the near future, however, to be replaced by the Integrated Coastal Management Act. The latter Act offers considerable scope for management of recreational activites in the coastal zone and estuaries in particular. It requires, for example, that all land within the coastal protection zone be managed by designated authorities (generally the local and district municiaplity authorities) in such a way as to protect the ecological integrity, natural functioning and character and the economic, social and aesthetic value of the land, to avoid increasing the effect or severity of natural hazards in the coastal zone. The Act also requires that all municipal authorities prepare coastal management plans (which may include estuary management plans) and and empowers them to pass bylaws to provide for the implementation, administration and enforcement of these plans.
In addition to this, Section 24(4) of NEMA, through the Off Road Vehicle Regulations (2001, amended 2004) regulates the licensing and control of recreational boat launching sites as well as the use of recreational vehicles in the coastal zone.
Zonation of recreational uses of estuaries has only been applied within protected areas (national parks or nature reserves).
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 71 Anchor Environmental
Management issues
The Berg estuary is used recreationally for boating, water skiing fishing, birdwatching and photography. Although pleasure boating, birdwatching and photography have not been quantified in any way, they pose little threat to the estuary at present.
Other recreational activities are of more concern. The inherent risk of overexploitation of fish and bait resources in any open access recreational fishery was discussed in section 4.11. Speedboats and jetskis can also have negative impacts on the estuary, causing disturbance of birds and bank erosion. Currently there is a no planing (speedboats travelling at speed) rule for the harbour area (Carinus bridge to the mouth) and boat speed limit signs upstream from the Carinus bridge to just past the bokkom factories. It is not clear if these regulations are formally enforced and under what legislation. Judging by comments received from concerned stakeholders, these regulations are not enforced at all.
With increasing development in the area, disturbance is likely to increase. Appropriate management measures such as protected areas and zonation could be developed to guard against impacts associated with increased use. There also appears to be uncertainty about the status of the estuary management and zonation with the change of goverment authority from Cape Nature to MCM.
Other management issues highlighted by stakeholders (Anchor Environmental Consultants 2008) include:
1. Pollution • Litter • Impacts on water quality from sewage treatment works in the catchment as detected by the work done by the St Helena Bay Water Quality Monitoring Forum • Diesel and petrol pollution from fishing vessels and recreational boats • “stink water” from the fish factories – which results in oily deposits on beaches and vegetation in the lower estuary • Nutrient enrichment causing development of algal mats on the mudflats in the estuary which impacts on bait species (invertebrates) and bird feeding 2. Management responsibility • There is an urgent need to clarify who is responsible for what in terms of the management of the estuary • Local municipality needs to be more proactive in respect of managing the estuary but is limited by funding constraints • Perceived conflict of interest for the municipality who have a role in controlling development around the estuary but benefits from increased tax base due to expanding development • Need for improved signage regarding rules that are in force • Tax payers money collected by the municipality should be invested in conservation and management of the estuary • Municipality has only recently inherited the estuary (historically the estuary used to form the southern boundary of the Bergrivier local municipality) and needs time to build management capacity and to enact appropriate bylaws required for management
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 72 Anchor Environmental
• Project team and stakeholders should take note of approach taken by management agencies and conservancies on other estuaries (e.g. the Breede) 3. Security • Problems with visitors trespassing on private property (farm land, jetties), • Illegal camping and noise at night from campers and house boats on the estuary, • Vandalism of private property, • Theft of livestock • Need compliance staff on the ground to combat these problems 4. Improved control over boating activities • Speed control to limit bank erosion, for human safety, and to limit noise pollution • Ban boating at night to control illegal fishing and address security concerns • House boats stay for long periods in certain areas in the river, discharge waste (sewage and litter), and make a noise at night. Should be restricted as to where and how long they may moor their boats on the estuary, • Need to control horse power for boats in the estuary, • Should control boating through management of launch sites (these need to be identified and registered with MCM, Cape Nature and managed properly), • Need staff to do safety check on boats at all launch sites on the estuary, • Parking for trailers at launch sites is an issue, • Currently only one legal launch site for boats on the estuary (MCM slip at the mouth). Others need to be legalized or closed. MCM plans on closing illegal launch sites 5. Navigation • Currently there is little on the estuary to mark channels and no wake zones etc. • This is problematic from a safety perspective and leads to people becoming stranded at low tide or on sand banks • The only channel markers on the estuary at present have been inserted by the Port Owen yacht club but these are not necessarily up to international standards nor is this their responsibility. 6. Development footprint • Residential/holiday development is expanding in an uncontrolled manner • EIA’s appear toothless – not providing the required level of protection for the estuary • Development has been approved below the high water mark and within the 1:10 and 1:20 year floodline on the estuary (e.g. Port Owen, golf course). This is of serious concern. • Flood lines need to be properly defined for the estuary. Whose responsibility is this? • Development is threatening to encroach on sensitive areas on the estuary (e.g. Flamienkvlei, De Plaat), • Local municipality has commissioned an SDF but this has been prepared without proper consultation and was approved by the municipality before consultation process was complete (appeals have been lodged but no response has been forthcoming) • There is strong opposition to “soft” urban edges that have been included in the SDF, • SDF does not take proper cognizance of conservation requirements of the estuary. 7. Freshwater inflows to estuary
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 73 Anchor Environmental
• Reductions in freshwater due to upstream abstractions are having an impact on the ecology of the estuary, • There is a need to formally establish the freshwater reserve for the estuary such that future demands for freshwater do not further impact on the estuary. 8. Bank erosion • Caused by boat wakes (both large and fast boats) as well as natural processes (currents, waves and winds), • Estuary channel is migrating southwards in the vicinity of the Carinus road, bridge and there is concern that it may be washed away in the future • May be associated with stabilization of the mouth, 9. Conservation • Need a greater focus on conservation for the estuary, • Concerns expressed that there are no formally proclaimed conservation areas (e.g. MPA or terrestrial reserves/conservancies) on the estuary, • Need some formal protection for the old mouth and De Plaat, • Need research into bird use of the estuary (seasonal and spatial patters, and night‐ time use by birds) • Concerns that illegal gill netting on the estuary is increasing again (particularly at night) 10. Improved visitor management • Need more amenities for visitors, • Need to improve access to the river for the public, • Need more bird hides and board walks around the estuary, • Bird hides need to be locked at night to prevent vandalism. 11. Economic development • Need to balance economic development with conservation, • Must ensure that the whole of the Cerebos saltworks is not turned into a marina which will result in loss of bird habitats and diversity on the estuary, • Need to ensure economic benefits associated with the estuary accrue to local people in the vicinity of the estuary. There is a big need for social upliftment in this area (many poor people), • Must capitalize on the estuary for economic benefits, • Need alternatives for poor people who have lost fishing rights on the estuary
5.7 Exploitation of non‐living resources
Legislation
The Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (2002) makes provision for equitable access to and sustainable development of the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Act affirms the State’s obligation to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations, to ensure ecologically sustainable development of mineral and petroleum resources and to promote economic and social development. Chapter 4 of the Act deals with Environmental Management principles as set out in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act (1998). The holder of a prospecting or mining right or permit must abide by the general objectives of integrated environmental management as stipulated in Chapter 5 of NEMA and is required to conduct an environmental impact assessment and thereby manage all
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 74 Anchor Environmental
environmental impacts in accordance with the environmental management plan. The Act also stipulates that the holder of such a right or permit is responsible for any environmental damage, pollution or ecological degradation resulting within or outside the boundaries from the mining activity. On application for a mining right, an environmental management programme is required to be submitted to the Minister and on application for a prospecting right or mining permit, an environmental management plan (as prescribed) is required to be submitted. Only on approval of the environmental management programme or plan by the Minister, can such a mining or prospecting right or licence be granted.
Salt production
Salt production is practiced in two places on the south banks of the Berg estuary, immediately adjacent to the Carinus road bridge and on the farm Kliphoek. The large National Salt (Ltd) (Cerebos) works were established in 1969 with a long term (33 year) lease of the land (Die Beplanningsvennootskap 1999). The saltponds were expanded to the area on the east of the Carinus Bridge in 1984 and further expansion is limited by the high cost of land in the area. These saltworks produce 18 000‐22 000 tons per year and employ 60 permanent workers. The establishment of the salpans has obviously caused the loss of some saltmarsh vegetation but provides an important feeding habit for flamingos.
The saltworks on Kliphoek farm started in 1990/91. This is a smaller operation that is harvested and processed by National Salt and produces about 10 000 tons of salt per year (Die Beplanningsvennootskap 1999). Overall impacts of this operation on the estuary are thought to be low.
Figure 30. Salt production on the Berg estuary (Cerebos saltworks ‐ left and Kliphoek saltworks – right).
5.8 Potential for protected area status
Legislative context
The White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biological Diversity (1998) recognises the importance of estuaries and commits the government to a number of strategies to protect wetlands in general, such as facilitating the development of appropriate
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 75 Anchor Environmental
legislation to secure their conservation, promoting the establishment of a National System of Protected Wetlands, preventing inappropriate activities and development around wetlands, finding ways to recognise wetlands in planning and decision‐making, determining the impact of fishers and developing guidelines for managing them.
Marine reserves were previously proclaimed under the Sea Fishery Act 12 of 1988 or under the National Parks Act 57 of 1976. Now all marine reserves have been re‐proclaimed under the Marine Living Resources Act (1998). However, this only affords protection up to the high tide mark. Estuaries can also be protected within regular protected areas (see below), though the latter do not have jurisdiction over the use of estuarine living resources. Estuaries may also be protected within World Heritage Sites under the World Heritage Convention Act 49 of 1999.
The General Policy in terms of the Environment Conservation Act – Terrestrial and Marine protected areas (1994) categorises protected areas into 7 categories (based on IUCN and one additional category). It prescribes the management objectives and criteria for selecting and managing each category. The policy suggests that estuaries, fish, spawning areas and seascapes should generally be treated as Category IV – Habitat and wildlife management areas, regardless of who owns those resources. In reality, estuaries could fall into any category. Those such as Kosi could be classified as Category V – Protected land/seascapes, while others could be classified as Category VI ‐ Sustainable Use Areas. Each estuary should be classified on the basis of the management objectives of the estuary (Smith 2000).
The Biodiversity Act (2004) provides for the conservation of biological diversity. It requires identification of important landscapes, ecosystems, ecological process and species for biodiversity conservation, and promotes monitoring of these. It also provides for the proclamation of protected areas, recognising South Africa’s obligations to international conventions. The Protected Areas Act (2003) provides for the declaration and management of protected areas, and can also provide for co‐operative governance, the sustainable utilisation of protected areas that preserves their ecological character, and the participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, where appropriate. A consultation and public participation process is outlined in the Act. It also contains the requirement that marine and terrestrial protected areas with common boundaries must be managed as an integrated protected area by a single management authority. It is also important to note that under this Act, commercial prospecting or mining is prohibited in any nature reserve.
Potential for protection of the Berg estuary
The Berg estuary is rated as the third most important estuary in South Africa from a conservation perspective, scoring in the top 10% for size, habitats, type rarity within its biogeographical zone, and biodiversity (Turpie et al. 2004). Based on these criteria alone, there is extremely high justification for establishment of a protected area which encompasses at least part of the estuary.
Although it would be highly desirable, based on the above arguments, to provide no‐take protection to the estuary in its entirety, it would probably not be feasible to achieve complete protection of the system.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 76 Anchor Environmental
Turpie & Clark (2007b) conducted a conservation planning exercise in conjunction with the estuarine research and management community of the CAPE region under the C.A.P.E. Estuaries Management Programme. The study aimed to elicit the minimum set of estuaries that would be required to meet conservation targets (i.e. set percentages of habitats and populations of estuary‐dependent species). Without worrying about costs, this can be done with the partial protection (50% of estuary as a sanctuary area) of some 50 of the 159 temperate estuaries. The Berg estuary was included in this set of 50. When costs and benefits of conservation measures were incorporated into the analysis, the configuration changes, and it makes sense to afford partial protection to about 80% of estuaries. This creates a good argument for a general zonation system to be applied to most South African estuaries in which 50% of the estuary is declared a no‐take zone. The Berg estuary is still included in the latter selection, in spite having relatively high opportunity costs in terms of the freshwater requirements this would impose.
The Berg estuary also forms part of the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (CWCBR), one of over four hundred and fifty designated biosphere reserves in the world. The CWCBR was inaugurated in 2001 with the aim of addressing the complex and interlinked problems of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Cape West Coast region. The Berg estuary falls within the buffer zone of the CWCBR (Cape West Coast Biosphere Consortium 2004). In the context of a biosphere reserve, the buffer zones are designated as areas where activities are organised that support or do not hinder maintaining the core, such as sustainable harvesting of natural resources, eco‐tourism, recreation, education and research. The Strategic Plan for the CWCBR (Cape West Coast Biosphere Consortium 2004) highlights the Berg Estuary as an important conservation area but unfortunately does not put forward any formal proposal for enhancing the conservation status of the system.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 77 Anchor Environmental
N
W E
S
Bu f f e r Z o n e Co r e ( D e s i g n a t e d ) Co r e A r e a Tr a n s i t i o n Z o n e Ur b a n A r e a
10 0 10 20 Ki l om e t er s
Figure 31. Zonation plan for the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve (Cape West Coast Biosphere Consortium 2004).
Recommendations and procedure for establishing a protected area
The establishment of a protected area is highly feasible and would be strongly recommended. The protection should include a substantial no‐take zone or zones and the protected area should extend to the floodplain saltmarsh areas and possibly to some of the fringing terrestrial area. Under current regulations, this would require establishment of a nature reserve that contains a marine protected area, both of which would be managed by a single authority. Specific recommendations, to be further developed in consultation with stakeholders, are as follows: 1. Establish a conservancy encompassing most of the estuary including supratidal estuarine habitats, linked to the Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve; 2. Establish a Marine Protected Area on the estuary incorporating the most significant bird habitats and fish nursery areas as well as a representative section of all habitat types present in the estuary (mudflat, salt marsh, submerged and emergent vegetation); ad
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 78 Anchor Environmental
3. The whole protected area to be managed by the provincial (CapeNature), district (West Coast District Municiaplity) or local (Bergrivier Municipality) authority.
The details of the above will have to be finalised in consultation with stakeholders. Anchor Environmental Consultants will draw up a detailed management plan including plans for the proposed protected area based on outcomes of the consultative process.
5.9 Potential and need for restoration on the Berg estuary
There is no specific legislation pertaining to the restoration of ecosystems. Athough it is in good condition, the Berg estuary has been identified as one in which there is a need for rehabilitation. In the case of the Berg estuary, restoration of the estuary to a better state of health would be fairly straightforward, and would mainly entail (in order of priority): 1. Restoration of water quality; 2. Elimination of illegal fishing activity (gill netting); 3. Restoration of the quantity of freshwater inflows; and 4. Removing significant obstructions to flow.
Apart from the last‐mentioned, these are all addressed in the management issues described above. The fourth is the lowest of these priorities and it worthiness needs to be considered.
In general, the degree to which these factors should be managed to restore the health of the system depends largely on the vision that is developed for the estuary, and on its future protection status. Protection status will provide a strong case for the provision of restorative flows and their quality. The most contentious issue remains that of the fishery??.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 79 Anchor Environmental
6. REFERENCES
Anchor Environmental Consultants 2008. Minutes of Stakeholder Meeting for Establishment of a Management Plan for the Berg Estuary held on 18 September 2008, Velddrif Municipality Hall. Adams, J.B., Bate, G., & O'Callaghan, M. 1999. Primary producers. In: B.R. Allanson & D. Baird (Eds.) Estuaries of South Africa, pp 91‐117. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Barbier, E.B. 1994. Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands. Land Economics 70: 155‐173. Barnes, K. 1998. The important bird areas of Southern Africa. Birdlife South Africa, Johannesberg. 394pp. Bate, G.C. 2006. Olifants/Doring catchment ecological water requirements study: microalgal specialist report. DWAF RDM report on estuarine component. Ninham Shand 1994. Western Cape System Analysis. Water Quality. Volume 1: General. DWAF Report No P G000/00/2891. Beck, J. & G. Basson. 2007. Chapter 2: Hydrodynamics and sediment transport. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. Bennett, B.A. 1994. The fish community of the Berg River estuary and an assessment of the likely effects of reduced freshwater inflows. South African Journal of Zoology, 29 (2), 118‐125. Boucher, C. & Jones, L. 2007 Chapter 6: Estuarine and floodplain vegetation. In: B.M. Clark (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report – Volume 2. Berg River Estuary, September 2004. Unpublished report to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 194 pp. Breen, C.M. & McKenzie, M. 2001. Managing estuaries in South Africa: an introduction. Institute of Natural Resources, Pietermaritzburg. 66pp. Brouwer, S.L., B.Q. Mann, S.J. Lamberth, W.H.H. Sauer, & C. Erasmus. 1997. A survey of the South African shore‐angling fishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18: 165‐ 177. Brown, A.C. 1969. The ecology of South African estuaries. Part X: The Great Berg and Olifants invertebrates. Unpublished manuscript. Cape West Coast Biosphere Consortium 2004. Strategic Plan Cape West Coast Biosphere Reserve. Draft 4, August 2004. Clark, B.M. (Ed.) 2007a. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/1907. Clark, B.M. (Ed.) 2007b. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 4: Social and cultural asepects. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/2007. Clark, B.M., Hutchings, K., Joske, M. & A. Duffel‐Canham. 2007. Macrophytes and Macroalage. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/1907.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 80 Anchor Environmental
Clark B.M., Hutchings, K. & S.J. Lamberth. 2009. Long‐term variations in composition and abundance of fish in the Berg estuary, South Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa In press. Clark, B.M. & S.G. Ractliffe (Ed.) 2007. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 5: Synthesis. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/2107. Clark, B.M. & S. Taljaard 2007. Estuarine Chemistry II: Nutrients. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/1907. Cooper, J.A.G. 2001. Geomorphological variability among microtidal estuaries from the wave dominated South African coast. Geomorphology 40: 99‐122. Cooper, J., Summers, R.W. & Pringle, J.S. 1976. Conservation of coastal habitats of waders in the southwestern Cape, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 10: 239‐247. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253‐259. Day, E. 2007. Water Chemistry. In: Ractliffe, S.G (ed) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report Volume 2. Report to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Project No. 2002/069. Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism (DEAT) 2001. http://www.environment.gov.za/soer/estuary/catch/berg.html Site maintained by the Directorate Environmental Information and Reporting Die Beplanningsvennootskap 1999. Benede‐Bergrivier substreeksruktuurplan. (Lower Berg River Sub‐regional Structure Plan (1999) Vol 1. Cape Town. Department Of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF). 1993. Hydrology of the Berg River Basin. prepared by R. R. Berg of Ninham Shand Inc. in association with BKS Inc. as part of the Western Cape System Analysis. DWAF Report No. PG000/00/2491. Department Of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF). 2004a. Thukela Bank: impacts of flow on prawn and fish catch. Thukela water flow decision support phase. IWR. Department Of Water Affairs & Forestry (DWAF). 2004b. Water resource protection and assessment policy implementation process. Resource directed measures for protection of water resource: Methodology for the Determination of the Ecological Water Requirements for Estuaries. Version 2, Final Draft. Pretoria. Fourie, J.M. and Görgens, A.H.M. 1977. Mineralization studies of the Berg River (1974 to 1976). Report, National Institute for Water Research, CSIR, to the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope. CSIR Research Report no. 334. Harrison, A.D. & Elsworth, J.F. 1958. Hydrobiological studies on the Great Berg River. Part 1. General description, chemical studies and main features of the flora and fauna. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr.: 35(3): 127‐226. Hockey, P.A.R. 1993. Potential impacts of water abstraction on the birds of the lower Berg River wetlands. Percy FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town; Unpublished report to DWAF. Hockey, P.A.R., Navarro, R.A., Kalejta, B. & Velasquez, C.R. 1992. The riddle of the sands: why are shorebird densities so high in southern estuaries? Amer. Natur. 140: 961‐979. Howard, G. & S.G. Ractliffe 2007. Chapter 5: Hydrology. In Ractliffe, S.G. & J. Ewart‐Smith (Eds.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 1: Introduction to the Berg River Catchment; Groundwater and Riverine Environment. Anchor Environmental Consultants and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 81 Anchor Environmental
Hutchings, K. & Lamberth S.J. 2002a. Bycatch in the gill net and beach‐seine fisheries in the Western Cape, South Africa, with implications for management. South African Journal of Marine Science 24: 227 – 241. Hutchings, K. & Lamberth S.J. 2002b. Catch and effort estimates for the gill net and beach‐seine net fisheries in the Western Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 24: 205 – 225. Hutchings, K., Lamberth, S.J. & Turpie, J.K. 2002. Socio‐economic characteristics of gill and beach‐seine fishers in the Western Cape, South Africa. S.A. Journal of Marine Science 24: 243‐262. Hutchings, K., Clark, B.M., Atkinson, L. J. and C. Attwood., 2007. Monitoring of the linefishery in the Berg River estuary (Western Cape, South Africa), with evidence of recovery subsequent to closure of commercial gill netting. AFr. J. Mar. Sci. In press. Kalejta, B. & Hockey, P.A.R. 1991. Distribution, abundance and productivity of benthic invertebrates at the Berg River Estuary, South Africa. Est. cstl. Shelf Sci. 33: 175‐191. Lamberth, S.J. 2003. Orange River Ecological Water Requirements Study. Specialist report on the fish of the Orange River Estuary. Lamberth, S.J. 2006. Olifants/Doring Ecological Water Requirements Study Appendix G: Fish. Lamberth, S.J. & Turpie, J.K. 2003. The role of estuaries in South African fisheries: economic importance and economic implications. African Journal of Marine Science 25: 131‐157. Mann Q. (Ed.) 2000 – Southern African marine Linefish Status Reports. Spec. Publ. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. S. Afr. 7: 257pp. Mann, B.Q., James, N.C. and L. E. Beckley 2002 – An assessment of the recreational linefishery in Lake St Lucia, KwaZulu‐Natal. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 24: 263‐279. McDowell, C.R. 1993. Vegetation assessment of the Berg River estuary and floodplain with evaluation of likely impacts arising from proposed upstream impoundments. Western Cape Systems Analysis report on the Berg River Estuary Worksession. Vol. 1: Main Report. Appendix 43E. 4: 1‐6. McGrath, M.D., C.C.M. Horner, S.L. Brouwer, S.J. Lamberth, W.H.H. Sauer & C. Erasmus. 1997. An economic valuation of the South African linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18:203‐211. McGwynne, L and McKenzie M. 2006. Objective 1: Profiling estuaries in IDP planning. Policies and procedures for incorporating information and knowledge on estuaries into the integrated development planning and related processes are established through collaboration between researchers and authorities at local, district and provincial levels. Water Research Commission Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003. Ecosystems and Human‐wellbeing: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 245. Murison, G. & P.A.R. Hockey. 2004. Conservation management of the lower Berg River wetlands, South Africa – avian perspectives. Final report for the Ramsar project SGF/98/South Africa/DAB/ahp. Percy FitzPatric Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701. O’Callaghan, M.G. 1994. The saltmarsh vegetation of the lower Berg River. Bothalia 24: 223‐ 228. Parsons, R. 2007. Chapter 4: Geohydrological conditions. In: Ractliffe, S.G. & J. Ewart‐Smith (Eds.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 1: Introduction to the Berg River Catchment; Groundwater and Riverine Environment. Anchor Environmental Consultants and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 82 Anchor Environmental
Pradervand, P., Beckley, L. E., Mann, B. Q. and P. V. Radebe 2003 – Assessment of the linefishery in two estuarine systems in KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 25: 111‐130. Ractliffe, S.G. (Ed.) 2007a. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 1: Introduction to the Berg River Catchment; Groundwater and Riverine Environment. Anchor Environmental Consultants and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. DWAF Report P WMA 19/G10/00/1707 Ractliffe, S.G. 2007b. Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme 2007. Chapter 2. The Berg River catchment. In: Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 1: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. Rebelo, T. 1996 Fynbos. In: Low, A.B. and Rebelo, A.G. (eds.) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs ad Tourism, Pretoria. Pp. 68‐70. River Health Programme 2004. State‐of‐Rivers Report: Berg River System. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria. Sauer, W.H.H., A.J. Penney, C. Erasmus, B.Q. Mann, S.L. Brouwer, S.J. Lamberth & T.J. Stewart. 1997. An evaluation of participation in and management of the South African boat‐ based linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18:147‐163. Schumann, E. 2007. Chapter 3: Water Chemistry I – Temperature, Salinity, Oxygen and Turbidity. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. Shillington, F.A. 1998. Chapter 20: The Benguela up welling system off south‐western Africa. The Sea: The Global Coastal Ocean, Regional studies and syntheses (eds: A.R. Robinson and K.H. Brink), 11, 583‐604. Slinger, J.H. & Taljaard, S. 1994. Preliminary investigation of seasonality in the Great Berg Estuary. Water SA. 20: 279‐288. Smith, N and Cullinan, C. 2000. Review of South African Environmental Laws regulating Estuaries. In Report on the National Estuaries Workshop. 3 – 5 May 2000, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Boyd, AJ, Barwell, L & Taljaard, S (eds.). Report No. 2, Marine and Coastal Management implantation Workshops. Cape Town: Marine and Coastal Management. Snow, G. & Bate, G. 2007. Chapter 5: Micro algae. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water AffairsBath, A. 1993. Summers, R.W., Pringle, J.S. & Cooper, J. 1976. The status of Coastal Waders in the south‐ western Cape, South Africa. Report on the summer 1975/76 ornithological survey of coastal wetlands and shorelines of the south‐western Cape by the Western Cape Wader Study Group. Percy FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town. 162pp. Taljaard, S. 2007. C.A.P.E. Estuaries Guideline 1: Interpretation of Legislation pertaining to Management of Environmental Threats within Estuaries. Report prepared by the CSIR for C.A.P.E. estuaries programme, DEAT/Cape Nature. Taylor, P.B., Navarro, R.A., Wren‐Sargent, M., Harrison, J.A. & Kieswetter, S.L. 1997. Co‐ ordinated Water bird Counts in South Africa, 1992‐97. Avian Demography Unit, University of Cape Town. Turpie, J.K. 1995. Prioritising South African estuaries for conservation: a practical example using waterbirds. Biological Conservation 74: 175‐185.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 83 Anchor Environmental
Turpie, J.K. 2004. South African Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, Technical Report Vol 3: Estuary component. DEAT: SANBI. Turpie, J.K. 2006. Olifants/Doring Ecological Water Requirements Study Appendix H: Birds. Turpie, J.K. 2007a. Chapter 10: Estuarine birds. In: B.M. Clark (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report – Volume 3. Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. Turpie, J.K. 2007b. C.A.P.E. Estuaries Guideline 9: Maximising the economic value of estuaries. C.A.P.E. Estuaries Programme. Turpie, J.K. & Clark, B.M. 2007a. Chapter 5: The influence of freshwater flow on the Berg River estuary: a conceptual model. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs. Turpie, J.K. & Clark, B.M. 2007b. The health status, conservation importance, and economic value of temperate South African estuaries and development of a regional conservation plan. Report to CapeNature. Turpie, JK., Adams, J.B., Joubert, A., Harrison, T.D., Colloty, B.M., Maree, R.C., Whitfield, A.K., Wooldridge, T.H., Lamberth, S.J., Taljaard, S. & van Niekerk, L. 2002 Assessment of the conservation priority status of South African estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water SA. 28: 191‐206. Turpie, J.K., Clark, B., Knox, D., Martin, P., Pemberton, C. & Savy, C. 2004. Improving the biodiversity rating of South African estuaries. Vol 1. Contributions to information requirements for the implementation of resource directed Measures for estuaries. WRC Report no. 1247/1/04. 121pp. Van Niekerk, L. & Taljaard, S. 2002. Recommendations on a framework for effective cooperative governance of South African estuaries. CSIR Environmentek Draft report 8 July 2002, Eastern Cape Estuaries management Programme, Co‐operative governance sub‐project. van Niekerk, L. & S. Taljaard 2007. Proposed Framework for Estuarine Management Plans. C.A.P.E. Estuaries Management pla. CSIR, Stellenbosch. 44 pp. Velasquez, C.R., Kalejta, B. & Hockey, P.A.R. 1991. Seasonal abundance, habitat selection and energy consumption of waterbirds at the Berg River Estuary, South Africa. Ostrich 62: 109‐123. Whitfield, A.K. 1994. An estuary‐association classification for the fishes of southern Africa. South African Journal of Science 90: 411‐417. Wooldridge, T.H. 2007. Invertebrtes. In: Clark, B.M. (Ed.) Berg River Baseline Monitoring Programme Final Report ‐ Volume 3: Berg River Estuary. Anchor Environmental Consultants CC and Freshwater Consulting Group for the Department of Water Affairs.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 84 Anchor Environmental
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
The development of the Berg Estuary Management Plan will be carried out in two phases, as follows:
Phase 1: Situation Assessment
1. Review of legislation pertaining to the management of environmental threats within estuaries The focus of this task will be explaining the specific relevance of legislative instruments highlighted in the generic legislative review compiled for the GEMP, on how interaction of the respective Governmental Departments will affect management of the Berg estuary, and also the relevance of any local by‐laws to management of the estuary. A summary of all relevant information will be included in the Phase 1 Situation Assessment Report. 2. Description and GIS map of the estuary A clear GIS map of the estuary will be prepared indicating important biophysical features (open channel area, macrophyte beds, invertebrate beds, etc.), protected/conservation areas, areas earmarked for rehabilitation, land‐use and planning provisions of surrounding lands, infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges), cultural & heritage sites, recreational activities (e.g. swimming, boating), living resource exploitation (e.g. bait collection, fishing areas, etc), mariculture activities, wastewater discharges (sewage, industrial), stormwater drains, and solid waste dump sites. 3. Description of goods and services provided by the estuary Information on goods and services provided by the Berg estuary will be extracted from recent studies completed on the system, focusing on the recent RDM study, and the DWAF Rivers’ Classification project in which the Berg estuary was used as a case study. 4. Identification of issues relating to the exploitation of living resources A brief description of current levels and trends in exploitation of living resources in the Berg estuary will be provided, and on the likely impacts of this harvested on goods and services provided by the system. 5. Synopsis of water quantity and quality requirements Details on water quantity and quality requirements of the system will be extracted from recent studies on the Berg estuary, focusing on the recent RDM study and the DWAF Rivers’ Classification project, and will be summarized in the Phase 1 Situation Assessment Report. 6. Determination of priority restoration actions. All issues affecting or impacting on the health of the estuary will be identified, prioritized and specific rehabilitation measures proposed. 7. Determination of protected area potential Protected area potential of the Berg estuary will be assessed using information provided in the recently completed C.A.P.E. Estuaries Programme: Classification, prioritization, protection and rehabilitation document as well as other relevant documents. Specific recommendations will be provided as to the type of protection that should be applied and associated application procedure that must be completed in order to achieve this status. 8. Plan for awareness‐raising and public participation/stakeholder involvement A generic awareness programme for the Berg estuary will be prepared that will include details on processes for involving relevant stakeholders and user groups in estuary management and decision‐making processes. Much of the necessary material will be drawn from relevant reports produced by the East Cape Estuaries Management Programme.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 85 Anchor Environmental
9. Work plan and budget for Phase 2 A detailed workplan and budget for Phase 2 of the project will be prepared and submitted to the C.A.P.E. Estuaries Task Team for approval along with the Task 1 Situation Assessment Report before work on Objective 2 is initiated.
Phase 2: Stakeholder consultation and compilation of Estuary Management Plan
1. Vision & Strategic Objectives The primary activity for this task will be to convene a stakeholder workshop aimed at developing a local vision and associated objectives for the Berg estuary. This vision will underpin the entire EMP and will need to be consistent with the vision and Strategic Objectives for the Estuaries of the CFR and with the findings of the C.A.P.E. Estuaries Conservation Planning report (Turpie & Clark 2007). 2. Management Strategies Clear management strategies will be formulated that will ensure that the Vision and Strategic Objectives developed for the Berg estuary are achieved that makes optimal use of available financial and human resources. 3. Estuarine Zonation Plan & Operational Objectives Management strategies developed as part of task 2 above will be spatially explicit and linked with the GIS map prepared during Phase 1 of the project. This will become the Estuary Zonation plan (EZP). Appropriate annotations will be added to the map to ensure that management objectives and visions for all sections of the estuary are clearly laid out and easy to follow. 4. Management Action Plans Detailed Management Action Plans (MAPs) will be developed to ensure that all defined operational objective can be achieved in an efficient and effective manner. MPAs to be developed for this purpose will include those dealing with conservation, social issues, land‐ use and infrastructure development, water quality and quantity, and exploitation of living resources. Each MAP will include a prioritized list of management actions, related legal, policy and/or best practice requirements, monitoring plans, work and resource plans. 5. Implementation A detailed 5‐year implementation plan for the EMP will be developed in which agencies and individuals responsible for implementation of all aspects of the EMP are identified. Qualifications required by key individuals responsible for implementation of the plan will be clearly articulated as will opportunities for capacity building and empowerment of Historically Disadvantaged Individuals (HDIs). The implementation plan will take cognisance of available human and financial resources. 6. Monitoring and evaluation An appropriate monitoring programme will be designed for the Berg estuary with the primary objective being the ongoing evaluation of the health of the system and success of the EMP. The following key components of the monitoring programme will be defined within the monitoring plan: monitoring objectives, parameters (indicators) to be monitored, staff and budgetary requirements, spatial and temporal resolution of monitoring activities, sampling and analytical techniques to be employed, and protocols for evaluation and reporting, and for incorporation of results into the MAPs. 7. Research Focal areas for further research effort that will contribute to improved management of the estuary.
Berg Estuary Situation Assessment 86 Anchor Environmental