Project Location

Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PROJECT TITLE: Ecological Specialist Report for the Proposed Demolition and Rebuilding of a House on Stand 365, along the Kariega Estuary, Kenton-On-Sea PROJECT LOCATION:

Kenton-On-Sea, Ndlambe Local Municipality, Eastern Cape PROJECT ASSESSMENT TYPE: Ecological Specialist Assessment

Prepared by: Prepared for: Submission date: Ms D.C. Vromans Ms S. van der Waal/Mr B. Cobbing 16 August 2013 PO Box 133 Conservation Support Services Bathurst, 6166 PO Box 504, Grahamstown, 6140 Tel: 046 625 0300/ 082 714 6904 61 New Street, Grahamstown, 6139 Email: [email protected] Tel: 46 6224526 Email: [email protected]

Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

SPECIALIST STATEMENT DETAIL

This statement has been prepared with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), any subsequent amendments and any relevant other National and / or Provincial Policies related to ecological or biodiversity assessments in mind, such as the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004) and National Water Act (36 of 1998).

Report Prepared By: Ms Deborah Vromans

Expertise / Field of Study: MSc Botany (Estuaries), BA Environmental & Geographical Science, ND Horticulture, Botanical assessments (terrestrial, wetland and estuarine), Environmental Impact Assessments, Biodiversity and Planning Professional.

I, Ms Deborah Vromans, declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs

Signed: Date: 16 August 2013

Report Reviewed By: Dr. Brian Colloty Pr.Sci.Nat. (Ecology) / Certified EAP / Member SAEIES & SASAqS

Expertise / Field of Study: BSc (Hons) Zoology, MSc Botany (Rivers), Ph.D Botany Conservation Importance rating (Estuaries) and interior wetland / riverine assessment consultant from 1996 to present.

I, Dr. Brian Michael Colloty declare that this report has been prepared independently of any influence or prejudice as may be specified by the National Department of Environmental Affairs.

Signed: Date: 16 August 2013

Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...... 11 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND MOTIVATION ...... 11 3. THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES)...... 16 4. STUDY METHODOLOGY ...... 18 5. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION ...... 19 5.1. CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPH (LANDSCAPE), GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 19 5.2. TERRESTRIAL HABITATS: VEGETATION TYPE ...... 19 5.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Endemic) ...... 22 5.2.2. STUDY SITE ASSESSMENT AND OBSERVATIONS ...... 22 5.3. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: RIVERS, WETLANDS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH ...... 27 5.3.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 34 5.4. FAUNA ...... 34 5.4.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 35 5.5. BIRDS ...... 35 5.5.1. Important Bird Areas (IBA) of South Africa ...... 36 5.5.2. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 37 5.6. REPTIILES ...... 37 5.6.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 37 5.7. AMPHIBIANS ...... 38 5.7.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 38 5.8. INSECTS ...... 38 5.8.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) ...... 38 6. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS DEVELOPED FOR THE REGION ...... 39 6.1. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLAN OR CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS MAP (2012) ...... 39 6.2. THE NATIONAL FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITY AREAS ASSESSMENT (2011), INCLUDING THE NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT: ESTUARINE COMPONENT, 2011)...... 40 6.3. MAPUTALAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY HOTSPOT’S (MPAH) BIODIVERSITY MAP (2010)...... 41 7. OTHER STRAGETIC SPATIAL PLANS THAT MAP BIODIVERSITY ...... 42 7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK: CANNON ROCKS TO GREAT KEI RIVER ...... 42 7.2. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 43 8. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ...... 43 9. CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 44 10. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 45

Table of Contents Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

10.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) ...... 45 10.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 ...... 46 10.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 ...... 46 10.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009 ...... 47 10.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 ...... 47 10.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) ...... 48 10.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPAA) 57 OF 2003 ...... 48 10.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 ...... 48 10.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 ...... 48 10.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) ...... 48 10.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 ...... 48 10.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 ...... 49 11. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 50 11.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 50 11.2. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSED ...... 53 11.3. DESIGN OR PLANNING PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ...... 55 11.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ...... 57 11.4.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 57 11.4.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 59 11.4.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 61 11.4.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 62 11.4.5. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)...... 63 11.4.6. IMPACT 6: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ...... 65 11.4.7. IMPACT 7: LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 67 11.4.8. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ...... 68 11.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ...... 71 11.5.1. IMPACT 1: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 71 11.5.2. IMPACT 2: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 72 11.5.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 72 11.5.4. IMPACT 4: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)...... 73 11.5.5. IMPACT 5: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ...... 73

Table of Contents Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.5.6. IMPACT 6: LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) ...... 75 11.5.7. IMPACT 7: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) ...... 75 11.6. POST CLOSURE / DECOMMISSIONING PHASE – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT ...... 76 11.7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 77 12. REFERENCES ...... 87

Table of Contents Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Conservation Support Services (CSS) was appointed by Mr Alan to undertake a Basic Assessment in terms of the regulations promulgated under Section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). The Basic Assessment is for the construction of a new residential house, which will involve the demolition of existing residential unit (excluding a double garage and separate unit). An ecological assessment for the proposed residential unit is the subject of this report and will provide input into the Basic Assessment Report.

The proposed residential unit is positioned along the Kariega Estuary at Kenton-On-Sea, on Erf 365 (±1 000 m²), falling within the Ndlambe Local Municipality (Sarah Baartman District Municipality formerly the Cacadu District Municipality), Eastern Cape. The motivation for the proposed dwelling is to upgrade an existing dwelling to a larger residential unit. The existing dwelling (with an estimated total footprint of 376.67 m²), excluding the double garage and detached ‘Flat’, will be demolished and a new residential unit erected, resulting in a development footprint of approximately 512 m². A BIOROCK sewage system is proposed for the storage and biological treatment of sewage. Liquid effluent will be discharged into the ground and de-sludging will be required every 3/4 – 5 years. This system is capable of producing wastewater effluent four times the minimum standard for water quality (Global norms: Biochemical Oxygen Demand of 20mg/ℓ, Suspended Solids of 20mg/ℓ and Ammonia as Nitrogen of 20mg/ℓ or 20:20:20, BioRock typically: 4:3:3).

The property is transformed due to residential structures and a formalized garden, which has a number of indigenous Thicket plants, of which a few are protected either by the National Forest Act, namely a mature Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), and the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance (19 of 1974). Species protected under the Ordinance include three Aloe plants, Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig), and two Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies).

The Kariega Estuary is a permanently open estuary that is ranked number 27 in South Africa in terms of its conservation importance (out of 250). It is a priority estuary or Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2002) and a Critical Biodiversity Area (Skowno and Holness, 2012). Numerous fish species inhabit and rely on the estuary, it is even considered a potential habitat for the Zambezi Shark. According to the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012), the water quality is “fair” and the estuary is in a ‘’C’’ Ecological Category (provisional Present Ecological Status) i.e. it is moderately impacted.

The only Species of Special Concern, other than the protected plants mentioned above, which may potentially frequent the property, is the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis), an endemic and ‘’Rare’’ mouse. Other Species of Special Concern known to frequent the Kariega Estuary and Thicket areas, e.g. Pallid Harrier and Ground Hornbill, will not be destroyed by the proposed residential dwelling.

The property is classified as an Ecological Support Area by the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map, the most current and detailed biodiversity map for the Municipality (1:10 000), while the estuary floodplain (5m contour) and natural Thicket areas are Critical Biodiversity Areas. All developments should be restricted to above 5 m contour and/or the projected 1:100 year flood line.

Municipal spatial planning needs to consider the future predictions of climate change where properties are sited within the coastal protection zone, as is Erf 365, and as a result, in close proximity to the high water mark. Climate change researchers have predicted a rise in sea level, increased freshwater flooding, scouring and increased storm surges. The Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy requires the mapping of the projected 1:50 and 1:100 year flood lines; and the identification of flood prone zones in Spatial Development Frameworks. In addition, and in terms of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009), the Provincial Environmental Authority must determine a coastal set back line. The Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2011) maintains that a 15 cm rise in sea level will impact all coastal areas below the 20 m contour (also included in the Ndlambe SDF, 2012). Flooding, due to the

6 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

predicted sea level rise and more frequent flood events or storm surges, is considered unlikely in the case of the Kariega Estuary, given the relatively steep incline and significant vertical height from the 5 m contour (floodplain) to the 20 m contour.

Apart from the Basic Assessment required in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998), other legislative requirements triggered by the proposed development, include: (1) A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the general measures of the National Environmental Management: Waste Management Act (59 of 2008) Act, as part of the Basic Assessment Report, (2) Waste generated during construction must be disposed of at a licensed waste disposal site, which is likely to be licensed in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act (73 of 1989), and (3) the landowner (developer) will be responsible for clearing alien invasive plants within the property.

Design or planning phase recommendations to reduce the impact on the natural environment, which the Applicant should consider:

 Geotechnical study to confirm the stability of eastern portion (estuary side) of the property given the proximity of the residential structure to the 15 m contour and steeper incline leading towards the estuary, although it appears that the valley slopes are stable because there are residential structures sited along the valley edge. (The motivation for requesting a study, however, is based on an incident in Port Alfred where an existing residential unit partially collapsed due to close proximity to the edge of a steep incline above the Central Business District).  Approval of the BIOROCK sewage system by the Department of Water Affairs and the Ndlambe Municipality.  Alternative energy sources e.g. solar power, wind power, gas.  Low flush toilets.  Low flow showers.  Rainfall harvesting (5 000 litre tank is required under Municipal by-laws for any new developments).  Building with local resources, as far as is possible.  Design to incorporate natural heating and cooling mechanisms e.g. large north facing windows.  Implement design measures that enhance run off infiltration into the ground e.g. increase natural plant cover (along the drive way and patio areas) to reduce potential soil erosion and sedimentation downslope (rainfall harvesting should assist with reducing this impact).

In other words, apply ‘’Green Building Principles’’ as far as is possible.

Summary of Potential Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation, for the three development alternatives, that were identified and assessed where relevant:

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) SPREAD OF ALIEN MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) LOSS OF FAUNA LOW LOW LOW LOW N/A N/A (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

7 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT DEVELOPMENT NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFEERRED LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE: OPTION) ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE) ENVIRONMENTAL PRE- POST PRE- POST PRE- POST IMPACT: MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A EROSION, (54) (48) SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) EFFLUENT POLLUTION MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT N/A N/A IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL further impact further impact (No further (No further PROCESS AREAS from the status from the status impact from impact from (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) quo) quo) the status the status quo) quo) DISTURBANCE OF NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT N/A N/A HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS further impact further impact (No further (No further AREAS – ESTUARINE from the status from the status impact from impact from FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD quo) quo) the status the status LINES (HYDROLOGICAL quo) quo) PROCESSES)

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

SPREAD OF ALIEN MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) LOSS OF FAUNA VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW NO IMPACT NO IMPACT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) (No further (No further impact from impact from the status the status quo) quo) LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW NO IMPACT NO IMPACT INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY (No further (No further LOSS) impact from impact from the status the status quo) quo) TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) EFFLUENT POLLUTION – MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW LIQUID EFFLUENT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL further impact further impact (No further (No further (No further (No further PROCESS AREAS from the status from the status impact from impact from impact from impact from (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) quo) quo) the status the status the status the status quo) quo) quo) quo)

8 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Summary of Findings:

The current residential dwelling will have the lowest impact on the natural environment because it maintains the status quo; and existing garden habitat will not be reduced. The proposed residential development (Preferred Layout) and Alternative Development Alternative (Extension) will have an equal impact on the natural environment, post mitigation.

The proposed development layout (Preferred Layout) should not cause any significant ecological impacts post mitigation, especially if effluent management is implemented.

A summary of key mitigation measures:

SUMMARY OF KEY MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

TO REDUCE SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE/EFFLUENT

1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste management plan, as required for the Basic Assessment. 2. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs regarding discharge of wastewater effluent and the water quality standards required (although it is acknowledged that effluent will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary, it may have a detrimental impact on water resources when considering cumulative impacts of septic tanks with French drains in the catchment (General Authorisations Section 21f, 21g and 21h of the National Water Act). 3. The BIOROCK sewage system must be managed to ensure no effluent wastewater, which is of inadequate water quality standard, is discharged in to the ground. The water quality standards must meet the National Water Act General Authorisations Section 21f, 21g and 21h (Table 3.1) and the South African Water Quality Guidelines – Marine and Coastal Waters – Recreational Use (Volume 2) or as directed by the Department of Water Affairs. 4. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and Sanitation Services By- Law” (permeability tests etc.) or be approved by the Municipality. Currently, there is a directive from the Department of Water Affairs that all new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or install a conservancy tank. Hence the need for Department of Water Affairs approval prior to municipal approval. 5. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be dealt with in points 2 and 3 above. 6. Installation of the BIOROCK sewage system at the position as indicated on the Architectural Drawing i.e. at a significant distance above and from the 5 m contour / estuary floodplain (as recommended by the National Estuarine Assessment).

TO REDUCE TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY

9 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

SUMMARY OF KEY MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT

1. Implement storm-water control measures to reduce sheet run off e.g. excavate a swale on the eastern boundary (estuary side), and maintain as much plant cover as possible downslope of construction. 2. Immediate planting of indigenous species after construction (rehabilitation). The homeowner is a keen gardener and will in all likelihood supervise procedures. 3. Removal of vegetation within the construction / development footprint only (although it is acknowledged that much of the existing plant cover will be removed in order to establish the larger dwelling). TO REDUCE IMPACTS ON PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN 1. A license application to the Department of Forestry will be required for the removal of the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree. 2. Purchase another medium to large sized Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) on removal of the existing Milkwood, and plant on the property. 3. Translocate Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Aloe arborescens, Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Mesems or Vygies) species (which will be removed to construct the dwelling).

TO REDUCE THE SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANTS OR DECLARED WEEDS

1. Remove typical alien or non-indigenous plants as they establish. 2. Removal of listed alien plants within the development footprint / construction area, and property boundaries, where they occur, namely: Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper). However, S. terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper) is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act.

TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF FAUNA

1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These species should not be destroyed. 2. No fauna should be destroyed.

Strategic Planning Recommendations

 Either the local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should delineate the coastal set back line, which will incorporate the projected 1:100 year flood line and flood prone zones. Funding via all three sources should be investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where possible.  No development within the 5 m contour or estuary floodplain.  Only 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark, of priority estuaries, namely the Kariega, Bushmans and Great Fish River estuaries, should remain undeveloped (within the urban edge), although all estuaries are Critical Biodiversity Areas that should be appropriately managed.  The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works to ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.  The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) should determine the Reserve for the Bushmans and Kariega Estuaries to prevent the negative culmination of potential long term cumulative impacts. The Municipalities Environmental Department could encourage the DWA.

10 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The following Scope of Work and required deliverables were provided by Conservation Support Services (CSS):

1) Submit an Ecological Specialist Report including all the information as stipulated in the Terms of Reference (Appendix A of the Contract). 2) Conduct a site visit for the purposes of the Report. 3) Prepare necessary maps (Appendix A of the Contract) and/or assess relevant GIS data for the purposes of the Report. 4) Present the Terms of Reference in the required format (as Stipulated in Appendix B of the Contract).

Deliverables:

1) The Ecological Specialist Report to CSS in MSWord format. 2) An electronic copy of all GIS data (vector data) you may have used for map production. 3) Electronic copies of all maps produced for the Ecological Specialist Report.

2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND MOTIVATION

The proposed project or development is the construction of a new, larger residential unit (Figure 1a). The existing residential unit, apart from the free standing double storey garage (double) and ‘flat’ (ground floor), will be demolished in order to establish the new unit.

A BIOROCK package sewage treatment system is proposed for the storage and treatment of sewage (Figure 1b). The system will be installed underground and on the eastern side (estuary side) of the existing flat and double garage. According to the manufacturers of BIOROCK, Biobox, the system produces effluent to an effluent standard of 4:3:3 (BOD 4mg/l; TSS 3mg/l; NH3 3mg/l), which means that the system is four times as clean as the minimum global norms (20:20:20).

The BIOROCK sewage system is comprised of three components (process units), namely:

1. The primary receiving tank where all wastewater flows are collected by gravity. This tank operates similarly to a septic tank whereby sludge settles and anaerobically digests at the bottom, a scum develops on the surface and, essentially solids-free liquor separates in the middle. This solids free liquor passes, by displacement, into the BIOROCK trickling filter, flowing through a brush filter on the primary tank outlet. The primary tank provides mixing, thereby blending the influent concentration and in this way caters for occasional peaks beyond the PE loading of the BIOROCK model selected. The BIOROCK can also be retrofitted to an existing septic tank provided it is sound and of adequate capacity. In accordance with good design practice, the primary tank (or your existing septic tank), should allow for 500 litres capacity per head, which will result in a 4 – 5 year de-sludge frequency when loaded with typical domestic effluents.

11 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

2. The BIOROCK trickling filter – the treatment unit – a biological filter with both aerobic and anoxic layers, with air introduced by means of the innovative and electricity-free draft aeration system, comprising of a low level air inlet and a high level chimney (>4,000mm above air inlet) with a ventilator on the outlet. Air passes through the BIOROCK, providing much needed oxygen for the aerobes to respirate and metabolise the waste in the incoming waste stream, leaving clear and odourless treated effluent.

3. The discharge and disinfection system, which would vary depending on the site. In this case, the system will discharge treated effluent into the ground (either into a soak-away or on a sloped installation flow down the slope where it will soak away and evaporate).

The location of the proposed residential unit is along the Kariega Estuary within the urban edge of Kenton-On- Sea, in the Ndlambe Local Municipality (Sarah Baartman District Municipality, previously Cacadu District Municipality), Eastern Cape. Kenton-On-Sea is approximately 30 km south of Port Alfred (Figures 1c & d).

The study site is Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827° 26.675908°), while the study area constitutes the Kariega Estuary catchment and the Ndlambe Municipality.

The construction period will most likely be approximately 1 year (+).

The motivation for the proposed residential unit is to upgrade the existing unit to a larger residential dwelling that will provide the required space for the Applicant’s possessions. In addition, the existing dwelling has been damaged by damp. As a result, problems associated with damp will persist and future reparation work will be required. Demolishing the existing residence and constructing new foundations would eradicate the damp.

Refer to the Basic Assessment Report for a more detailed motivational explanation, and Section 11.2 for a comparison of the alternative layouts.

Geological stability of the property (due to proximity to the relatively steep valley slope): A geotechnical study has not been undertaken. It appears, from the existing residential dwellings along the valley, that the area is stable, however this cannot be stated with certainty.

12 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 1a: The proposed development, an upgraded residential unit. The existing house, apart from the free standing double storey garage (double) and ‘flat’ (ground floor), will be demolished and replaced with a modernized residential unit.

13 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 1b: The proposed Biorock sewage system discharges liquid effluent of a suitable water quality meeting the relevant guidelines.

14 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 1c: Locality map showing the position of the new proposed residential unit along the Kariega Estuary, Kenton-On-Sea, Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827° 26.675908°).

Figure 1d: Aerial photograph showing the position of the new proposed residential unit along the Kariega Estuary, Kenton-On-Sea, Erf 365, number 55 Eastbourne Road, Kenton-On-Sea (GPS: -33.676827° 26.675908°).

15 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

3. THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES)

The alternative development layout involves a double-storey extension of the existing residential dwelling in order to provide additional space to accommodate the Applicant’s possessions (currently in storage in Port Elizabeth). The existing residential structure will therefore remain, including the double storey structure comprising the detached double garage and flat (ground floor). The double storey extension is positioned parallel to the Kariega Estuary (Figure 1e). Refer to Section 11.2 for a comparison of the alternative layouts.

The alternative development layout was regarded as unfavourable due to the following:

The existing dwelling would be retained and thus, with it, the structures that have been damaged by damp. The problem would most likely persist and require future reparation. Demolishing the existing dwelling, and building new foundations for the ‘preferred alternative’ or proposed development layout, would ensure that the damp problem is eradicated.

16 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 1e: The Alternative Development Layout, which is an extension to the existing residential structures.

17 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

4. STUDY METHODOLOGY

A site assessment was conducted on 29 July 2013 in order to assess the ecological character of the property, with the objective to determine vegetation type, as well as other associated biota (plants, mammals, birds and insects etc.) and presence of Special Habitats i.e. the Kariega River Estuary and associated buffer.

Coupled with the site assessment, was the use of 2010 Spot 5 Satellite images, Aerial photographs (2009) and Google Earth (2012) images. Estuary delineation was directed by the South African National Biodiversity Institutes (SANBIs) national estuary layer, which is the 5 m topographical contour (available from SANBIs Biodiversity Geographical Information System website – BGIS website).

The study site (Erf 365) is a developed residential erf with a formalized garden; although several protected species were identified on site, some of which may or may have not been planted. GPS coordinates of these Species of Special Concern were recorded in the field and used in GIS software (Quantum GIS version 1.8) to map the location of each plant. Plant species were identified along the fence line (outside of the erf) to identify general habitat type. Literature was consulted to determine the ecological character of the surrounding environment i.e. local biota, Kariega Estuary and Species of Special Concern.

The National Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas (NFEPA) Map (Nel et al., 2011) was consulted to determine if the estuary and associated catchment was mapped as important i.e. mapped as Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas or FEPAs.

Literature was consulted to determine the vegetation unit or habitat type that depicts the biodiversity of the surrounding environment, presence of Special Habitats and Ecosystem Status, including potential presence of Species of Special Concern. The distribution of Species of Special Concern in the Ndlambe Municipality was mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010) according to their location in a Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South African topographical map). Systematic biodiversity plans developed for the region were consulted to assist with determining the ecological importance of the surrounding landscape, for example presence of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas. These biodiversity features were mapped with Quantum GIS (Version 1.8), as well as level of degradation or sensitivity of the larger study area indicated (including the estuary catchment).

18 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

5. THE BIO-PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: A DESCRIPTION

5.1. CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPH (LANDSCAPE), GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The climatic conditions of the Ndlambe municipal region are warm-temperate, with mild temperatures representing both the winter and summer season. Temperatures range between 10-22oC. Summer winds reduce temperatures and humidity levels (Lubke 1988a). A maximum mean daily temperature of 22oC (December and January) is experienced; and a minimum mean daily temperature of 14oC (July). The average annual temperature is 17ºC. All months present a minimum of 60mm rainfall. Rainfall is generally bi-modal, although somewhat erratic, with spring (October/November) and autumn (March) usually representing the periods of maximum rainfall (Lubke 1983, Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). The minimum rainfall usually takes place during June. It should be noted that a period of drought was experienced during 2009 to 2010, with intense rainfall and flooding occurring during the latter part of 2012, experienced mostly during October; and onwards.

The topographical landscape of the Ndlambe Municipality is incised with large river valleys and floodplains along the coastline, and an undulating, hilly landscape in the inland areas. The coastline has a varied dune landscape covered by dune thicket. The inland areas are interspersed with grassland and patches of forest and fynbos, while the river valleys are covered by thicket.

The geology is characterised by the Algoa Group overlain by the Alexandria Formation. The Alexandria Formation is comprised of alternating layers of calcareous sandstone, conglomerate and coquinite (shelly conglomerate) (1:250 000 Geological Series). It is a limestone and therefore a good aquifer. A thin strip of the Bokkeveld Group runs adjacent to the western boundary of the estuary near the property. Bokkeveld is composed largely of black shales, compact siltstone and subordinate sandstones (Mouton, 2004).

5.2. TERRESTRIAL HABITATS: VEGETATION TYPE

The study site (property) is currently transformed with a formalized garden, which contains many indigenous species. Two large, mature trees, Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) and Harpephyllum caffrum (Wild-Plum) are likely to be historical species prior to residential development

Historical Vegetation prior to Urban Development

According to the Eastern Cape Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010), the study site supports Albany Dune Thicket with Forest. The vegetation map for the Environmental Management Framework was mapped at a scale of 1:10 000, by integrating the South African vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2005), the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) vegetation map (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002), and a grassland map (PHD Thesis: Judd, 2010 cited in SRK, 2010); as well as ground-truthing.

According to the South African vegetation (Mucina and Rutherford, 2005), the vegetation or habitat type that typified the property, prior to residential transformation, was Albany Dune Strandveld (Figure 2a), in close proximity to Cape Coastal Lagoons and Cape Estuarine Salt Marsh which represents vegetation associated with the Kariega Estuary.

In terms of the National Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Albany Dune Strandveld is Least Threatened. It is well protected. Some of the dominant species of this habitat comprise: Trees and shrubs - Azima tetracantha, Brachyleana discolor (Silver Oak), Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood - protected species),

19 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Zanthoxylum capense, Cassine peragua, Cussonia thyrsiflora; Climbers: Asparagus asparagoides, Rhoicissus digitata; Herbs: Dietes iridoides, Sansevieria hyacanthoides.

The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) Vegetation Map (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002), was largely incorporated into the national South African Vegetation Map, however it entailed a more detailed map of the thicket units (Note how the mapped unit boundaries are very similar in the figures below).

According to the STEP Vegetation Map, the property falls within Albany Thicket (no Spekboom) and Kasouga Dune Thicket (Albany Dune Mosaic with Grassland mosaic) (Figure 2b).

In terms of the STEP Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Albany Thicket (no Spekboom) is Least Threatened. The dominant species include: Trees and shrubs - Allophylus decipiens, Canthium inerme, Elaeodendron zeyheri, Olea europaea subsp. africana, Pittosporum viridiflorum, Ptaeroxylon obliquum, Rhus lucida, Schotia latifolia and Scutia myrtina. Ground covers occur where the canopy is not developed, comprising grasses (e.g. Panicum coloratum, P. deustum), ferns (e.g. Cheilanthes viridis, Mohria caffrorum), succulents (e.g. Crassula cordata, C. pellucida), and herbaceous species (e.g. Dietes iridioides, Hypoestes forskaolii). Lianas comprise Rhoicissus digitata, Pelargonium peltatum, Senecio angulatus and S. tamoides.

In terms of the STEP Biodiversity Thresholds/Targets (Ecosystem Status), Kasouga Dune Thicket is Least Threatened. The dominant species comprise: Trees and shrubs - Azima tetracantha, Brachylaena discolor, Cordia caffra, Ekebergia capensis, Erythrina caffra, Euphorbia triangularis, Plumbago auriculata, Rhus pallens, Sideroxylon inerme and Tecomaria capensis, with a matrix of grassland dominated by, for example Cynodon dactylon, Eragrostis curvula, Sporobolus fimbriatus, Stenotaphrum secundatum and Themeda triandra.

20 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 2a: The South African (SA) vegetation type, called Albany Dune Strandveld, characterising the property (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Figure 2b: The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) vegetation type, called Kasouga Dune Thicket, characterising the property (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002).

21 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

5.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Endemic) No endemic species are supported by Albany Dune Strandveld (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) or the Albany Thicket (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002).

Kasouga Dune Thicket supports Brachystelma campanulatum, Cyrthanthus loddegesianus and Selago recurva, some of the rare or endemic species, while Merremia malvaefolia, an endemic, which is probably extinct (Vlok and Euston-Brown, 2002).

5.2.2. Study Site Assessment and Observations

The property is currently transformed by residential structures, patio and a formalized garden that contains many indigenous species and lawn (Cynodon dactylon or Star Grass and Panicum deustum or Broad-leaved Panicum). A large, mature Harpephyllum caffrum (Wild Plum) is positioned in the garden area, but will not require removal as it is located outside of the development footprint. A number of protected species are sited in the garden area, a Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig), three Aloe species and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Vygies) species. Refer Section 4.2.2.1 below.

Declared alien / weed plants on the property Listed in terms of

Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) 43 of 1984 - Category 3. This category species does not require removal.

The vegetation habitat to the east of the property (outside of the property), which grows adjacent to the Kariega Estuary on a relatively steep slope, is likely to be Albany Dune Strandveld or Albany Dune Thicket with Forest.

Species recorded along the fence line, outside of the property comprised:

Plant type Species Grass Panicum deustum (Broad-leaved Panicum)

Herbaceous Hypoestes aristata (Purple Ribbon Bush), Limonium perezii (Sea Lavender), Pelargonium alchimilloides (Pink Trailing Pelargonium).

Climbers Asparagus setaceous (Asparagus), Senecio tamoides (Canary Creeper).

22 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Trees and Shrubs Azima tetrachantha (Needle Bush), Ekebergia capensis (Cape Ash), Euphorbia triangularis (River Euphorbia), Lycium cinereum (Desert thorn), Plumbago auriculata (Plumbago), Ptaeroxylon obliqum (Sneezewood), Scutia myrtina (Cat Thorn), Searsia incisa (Rub Rub Currant), Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood), Tecomaria capensis (Cape Honeysuckle), Zanthoxylum capense (Small Knobwood)

Alien plants Agave americana (Century Plant), Bouganvillae glabra (Bouganvillae), Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory), Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper), Thunbergia alata (Black Eyed Susan).

The following are listed aliens (2001 publication) in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) 43 of 1984: - Ipomoea purpurea (Common Morning Glory) – Category 3. - Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) – Category 3.

Category 3 species are invader plants that may no longer be propagated or sold. Existing plants do not need to be removed.

5.2.2.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) The following species are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). These species may or may not require removal depending on their position within the development and/or construction footprints. All the plants are positioned within a formal garden and therefore a permit application will NOT apply as it is likely that they were planted (Pers. Comm. Mr Southwood, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism). Where the plants are not within the development and construction footprints, they can be cordoned off and designated as a ‘’no-go’’ area.

1. Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe) - This species will not require removal, where it is located adjacent to the double garage, as it is located outside of the development footprint. The area can be designated as a ‘’no- go’’ area. Where the species is located close to the development line and possibly within the construction footprint, the homeowner should rescue and translocate. 2. Aloe barbarae (Tree Aloe) - This species will not require removal, as it is located outside of the development footprint adjacent to the double garage. The area can be designated as a ‘’no-go’’ area. 3. Aloe ciliaris (Common Climbing Aloe) - This species will not require removal, where it is located adjacent to the double garage, as it is located outside of the development footprint. The area can be designated as a ‘’no-go’’ area. 4. Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig): This species may be sited within the construction footprint, if so, the homeowner should rescue and translocate. 5. Mesembryanthemacea species (Vygies): Two species may be sited within the construction footprint, if so, the homeowner should rescue and translocate. 6. Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) - Two individuals will require removal. The homeowner should rescue and translocate.

The following species is protected by the National Forest Act (84 of 1998):

7. Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) - This large, mature tree will require removal as it is sited within the development footprint.

23 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Other species that are indicated as Species of Special Concern (SANParks metadata, 2010), which may occur in the Thicket habitat, but which do not occur on the property:

Clivia nobilis or Clivia (Vulnerable), Crinum lineare or River Lilly (Vulnerable), Encephalartos altensteinii or Eastern Cape Giant Cycad (Vulnerable), Encephalartos arenarius or Alexandria Cycad (Endangered), Encephalartos trispinosus or Bushmans River Cycad (Vulnerable), Syncarpha sordescens (Endangered).

24 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Plate 1: Photographic images showing the property with vegetation on site and along the Kariega Estuary.

Milkwood

1a. The property, Erf 356, looking from the R72. 1b. The property, patio and lawn, with Milkwood in the background.

1c. The property, looking towards the Kariega Estuary and 1d. The property, looking northwards, showing the stepped Indian Ocean. garden, lawn areas and formal garden beds.

1e. Looking up towards the existing house. 1e. Entrance to the property.

25 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Plate 2. Protected Species

Milkwood

Existing Water Tank

2a. The large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) that 2b. Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe), Carpobrotus edulis (Sour will need to be removed to make way for the new residential Fig) and two other Mesembryanthemacea species are unit. The existing water tank. positioned within the formal garden, which are likely to be removed.

2c. Two Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) plants that will need 2d. Three Aloe species, that will not require removal as this to be removed. area will not be developed. The area can be demarcated as a no-go area to prevent damage during the construction phase.

Plate 2e (to Left): Two Mesembryanthemaceae species, proximate to the development line (also proximate to the Aloe arborescences plants)

26 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 2c: Position of ‘’Protected’’ plant species.

5.3. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: RIVERS, WETLANDS, ESTUARIES AND ASSOCIATED FISH

The Ndlambe Municipality has a number of relatively large rivers and associated estuaries, as well as several smaller non perennial streams, along the coastline. The property is located along one of these large rivers and its associated estuary, the Kariega Estuary. The property is situated high above the high water mark, at a maximum vertical distance of approximately 10 m (from the 5 m contour to the 15 m contour), and the erf boundary (estuary side) is at a horizontal distance of some 13.7 m (measurements based on Quantum GIS estimations).

The Kariega River is some 138 km long in length with a catchment area of 685 km2. The Kariega Estuary is a large, warm temperate and permanently open estuary (Figure 2c & d). The catchment area is roughly 686 km2 and estuary some 18 km long, with a spring tidal range of approximately 1.6 min the lower reaches. The main channel is approximately 100 m wide in the mouth region and narrowing to 40–60 m upstream. Channel depth is on average 2.3 m deep (Grange et al., 2000 cited in Richardson, 2006). Sand flats and salt marshes border the estuary, which are up to 3.3 m wide in the upper reaches and 5.2 m in than the lower reaches. The Kariega Estuary is a marine dominated system as it has very little freshwater input with an average spring tidal prism of approximately 1.9 × 106 m3, and a 106:1 ratio of prism volume to river flow volume (Allanson and Read 1995; Grange et al. 2000; Strydom et al. 2002 cited in Richardson et al., 2006). It has a well-mixed water column with little thermal stratification, low turbidity (<10 NTU) and average salinity at 35 psu (practical salinity units). During drought periods hyper saline conditions develop at the head of the estuary (Whitfield and Paterson 2003 cited in Richardson et al., 2006).

27 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Harrison (2000) measured the following average variables in the Kariega Estuary: Depth (2.39), Temperature (22.95ºC), Salinity (31.59 parts per thousand), Dissolved Oxygen (6.59 mg/litre) and Turbidity (4.7 - Secchi disc).

Because the Kariega Estuary has a small catchment with three dams (Settlers, Howiesons Poort and Moss’), it receives limited freshwater input, receiving a negligible annual inflow of approximately (15 × 106 m3) (Allanson and Read, 1987, cited in Orr, 2007). Several storm-water drains discharge into the estuary. There is no industrialization in the catchment (Jennings, 2005 cited in Orr, 2007). Impoundments empty during dry periods due the freshwater requirements of Grahamstown and riparian farmers, which have caused the river to stop flowing downstream of these dams (Allanson and Read, 1987, cited in Orr, 2007).

It has been shown that the numerically dominant fish in the Kariega Estuary are Atherina breviceps, Caffrogobius superciliosus, Gilchristella aestuaria, G. callidus, Diplodus capensis, Liza dumerili, Monodactylus falciformis, M. cephalus and Rhabdosargus holubi (Ter Morshuizen & Whitfield, 1994; Paterson & Whitfield, 1996 cited in Harrison, 2005). Other fish species that are known to inhabit the Kariega Estuary (Richardson et al., 2006) include:

Solea bleekeri Clinus superciliosus Glossogobius callidus Platycephalus indicus Heteromycteris capensis Gobiopsis pinto Caffrogobius nudiceps Pomadasys olivaceum Rhabdosargus holubi Syngnathus temminckii Caffrogobius gilchristi Lithognathus lithognathus Psammogobius knysnaensis Lithognathus mormyrus Caffrogobius natalensis Pseudorhombus arsius Diplodus cervinus hottentotus Chelidonichthys kumu Pomadasys commersonnii Amblyrhynchotes honckenii Diplodus sargus capensis Dasyatis chrysonota Stephanolepis auratus

Harrison (2000) considered the Kariega Estuary to be in a good ecological state, based on geomorphology, fish community structure and aesthetics. This conclusion was further substantiated by Matcher et al (2011) due to the absence of pathogenic bacteria.

The 5 m contour delineates the functional zone of estuaries and represents those areas that may be inundated during flooding i.e. the estuary floodplain (Figure 2c). In the event of sea-level rise due to global climate change, the 5 m contour should also provide a buffer area that can allow an estuary to ‘’migrate’’ to. However, in some instances, the functional zone may go beyond the 5 m contour due to e.g. deeply incised floodplains, the bed of a river/estuary is meters below the mapped floodplain, tidal action and/or back-flooding may be detected further upstream (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012). Erf 365 is approximately 13.7 m horizontally and some 10 m vertically from the 5 m contour, in other words, a fair distance.

The Kariega Estuary was given the following health condition in the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012):

28 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Change in Flow Medium Pollution Low Habitat Loss Medium

Mining 0 Artificial 0 Breaching

PRESSURES Fishing effort Low Fishing Effort 2.2 (Catches in tons) Bait collection Yes Hydrology Fair Hydrodynamics Excellent Water Quality Fair Physical habitat Fair Habitat State Fair Microalgae Fair Macrophytes Fair Invertebrates Fair Fish Final Fair Birds Good HEALTH CONDITION Biological State Fair Estuary Health Fair State Ecological Category / Provisional C Ecological Status

The overall Ecological Category or provisional Present Ecological Status for the Kariega Estuary was determined to be a C category or Moderately Modified, meaning that there has been a loss and change of natural habitat and biota but the ecosystem functions and processes are still predominantly unmodified. The recommended Ecological Category, on the other hand, is a B, meaning that the system should be Largely Natural where only a few modifications have taken place.

The Kariega Estuary is an important nursery for Kob (Argyromus inodorus) and is a highly likely habitat for the Zambezi Shark. The estuary is ranked number 27 in South Africa in terms of its conservation importance (out of 250 estuaries). The National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012) has classified it as a priority estuary or an estuary Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area (FEPA) (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2002) (Figure 2d). The national recommendation is that 50 % of the estuary extent should be sanctuary protected (no-take areas, if possible), the minimum management class should be A/B (largely natural) and rehabilitation is a high priority. Further, 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark should remain undeveloped (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2012), and should be interpreted as land within the urban edge. The catchment area is also classified as a Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, meaning that it is a priority for rehabilitation.

The most recent, large flood event took place last year, sometime during September and October 2012. The previous flood event of such magnitude occurred in 1952. Damage that resulted from the flood included sand

29 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report bank scouring (from below Mullins camp towards the mouth), channel modification (increased depth below the R72 Bridge) and mouth modifications (wider). Scouring has resulted in the uprooting of vegetation (Website: Kenton-On-Sea Ratepayers Association).

30 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 2c: The Kariega Estuary floodplain, indicated by the 5 m contour (with close up).

31 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 2d: Kariega Estuary catchment indicated as Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area, meaning that rehabilitation is a priority in order to safeguard estuary function.

32 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Land within the Kariega catchment is classified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA), Ecological Support Areas (ESA) or No Natural Areas Remaining (NNAR) (Refer Figure 2d and Section 5.1). Critical Biodiversity Areas are positioned predominantly along the estuary and river, while large tracts of land within the catchment area are Ecological Support Areas or No Natural Areas Remaining. No Natural Areas Remaining constitute transformed areas (no natural habitat remaining), which is either urban or agriculture (past or present), and which mostly occur in the mid to lower reaches of the catchment (Figure 2e). Land use activities within the Kariega catchment are mainly pineapple farming, livestock farming, and conservation / game farming (Vorwerk, 2000). Land cover within the catchment is near- natural or degraded where it is CBA and ESA. However, it should be noted that degraded areas are most likely under- estimated as data is out-dated and therefore these areas have not been mapped accurately i.e. no ground-truthing was undertaken.

Figure 2d: Kariega Estuary catchment and the degree of transformation shown as No Natural Areas Remaining (as indicated in the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas Map – Refer Section 5.1).

33 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 2e. The Kariega Estuary floodplain (5 m contour), with associated catchment; and land cover indicating the degree of transformation and degradation.

5.3.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) The Critically Endangered and endemic River Pipefish (Syngnathus watermeyerii) was last recorded in the Kariega Estuary in 2006. Juvenile S. watermeyeri were recorded in its historic range (Bushmans, Kariega and Kasouga estuaries), after an absence of four decades (Whitfield and Bruton, 1996 cited on IUCN website http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41030/0). According to Turpie et al., (2009), it was recorded in the East Kleinemonde Estuary from 1995 – 2002.

Refer below for other biota, which are Species of Special Concern.

5.4. FAUNA Large mammals will not frequent the site because the property is fenced in, is situated in a high density urban residential area and is sited above a relatively steep incline, although smaller mammals may, such as:

Bats Straw coloured fruit bat (Eidolon helvum), Egyptian free tailed bat (Tadarida aegyptiacus), Banana bat (Pipistrellus nanus), Cape Serotine Bat (Eptisecus capensis), Common slit-faced bat (Nyceteris thebaica), Sundevall’s Leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros caffer). Shrew Least dwarf shrew (Suncus infinitesimus), Greater red musk shrew (Crocidura favescens) (Endemic to SA). The Greater red musk shrew is known to inhabit houses and gardens. Mice and Mice: Striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio), Woodland mouse (Grammomys

34 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Dormice dolichurus), House Mouse (Mus domesticus), Pygmy mouse (Mus minutoides).

Dormice: Spectacled dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare), Woodland dormouse (Graphiurus murinus). Rats Vlei rat (Otomys irroratus), Cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus), House Rat (Rattus rattus). Monkeys Vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops).

5.4.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) The study site does not represent a habitat for faunal Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland- Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010).

It is possible, however, although unlikely that the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare) may frequent the property and surrounds.

This species will not be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced during the construction period.

5.5. BIRDS The following birds are potential inhabitants or visitors of the Kariega Estuary (Jafta, 2010):

Species

African Sacred Ibis: Threskiornis aethiopicus Hadeda Ibis: Bostrychia hagedash Black-headed Heron: Ardea melanocephala Grey Plover: Pluvialis squatarola Blacksmith Lapwing: Vanellus armatus Kelp Gull: Larus dominicanus Black-winged Stilt: Himantopus himantopus Little Egret: Egretta garzetta Cape Cormorant: Phalacrocorax capensis – Near Little Stint: Calidris minuta Threatened Cape Wagtail: Motacilla capensis Mountain Wagtail: Motacilla clara Common Greenshank: Tringa nebularia Pied Kingfisher: Ceryle rudis Common Ringed Plover: Charadrius hiaticula Reed Cormorant: Phalacrocorax africanus Common Sandpiper: Actitis hypoleucos Ruddy Turnstone: Arenaria interpres Common Tern: Sterna hirundo Ruff Ruff: Philomachus pugnax Common Whimbrel: Numenius phaeopus Sanderling Sanderling: Calidris alba Curlew Sandpiper: Calidris ferruginea Swift Tern: Sterna bergii Egyptian Goose: Alopochen aegyptiacus White-fronted Plover: Charadrius marginatus Great Egret: Egretta alba Yellow-billed Duck: Anas undulata Grey Heron: Ardea cinerea

Additional birds observed by the Diaz Cross Bird Club at Kariega Park (1999) and Kariega Estuary (2006) that frequent the area:

BIRD GROUPS SPECIES (COMMON NAMES) Raptors Lanner Falcon (Near Threatened) Guineafowl Helmeted Guineafowl

35 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

BIRD GROUPS SPECIES (COMMON NAMES) Terns and Plovers Caspien Tern (Near Threatened) Sandwich Tern (Endangered) Crowned Plover Blacksmith Plover Cuckoos, swifts Black Cuckoo Black Swift Alpine Swift Hornbills Crowned Hornbill Orioles Blackheaded Oriole Bulbuls Blackeyed Bulbul Sombre Bulbul Robins, Warblers, Apalis Barthroated Apalis Yellowbreasted Apalis Cape Robin Whitebrowed Robin Cape Reed Warbler Bleating Warbler White-eyes, Wagtails Cape White-eye Cape Wagtail Shrikes, Starlings, Sunbirds Fiscal Shrike Redwinged Starling Lesser Doublecollared Sunbird Grey Sunbird Touracos and Hoopoes Knysna Lourie Hoopoe Barbet, Martin, Cisticola, Redfronted Tinker Barbet Neddicky, Longclaw Rock Martin Lazy Cisticola Neddicky Orangethroated Longclaw Doves Redeyed Dove Cape Turtle Dove Greenspotted Dove Weavers Forest Weaver Spottedbacked Weaver Cape Weaver

The fiscal flycatcher (Sigelus silens), is an endemic of the region, which inhabits scrub, thicket and gardens. As a result, it may frequent the garden and surrounding areas.

A list of species observed and recorded adjacent to the Estuary and surrounds can also be sourced from Southern African Bird Atlas Project (2) (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/coverage.php). The list was consulted to identify Bird Species of Special Concern.

5.5.1. Important Bird Areas (IBA) of South Africa The Kariega Estuary does not fall within an Important Bird Area (IBA) of South Africa. The Alexandria Coastal Belt, an International Bird Area of significance, extends from the Sundays River in the west to Cannon Rocks to the east, which is approximately 16.2 km south-west of the Kariega Estuary.

36 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

5.5.2. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) The following bird Species of Special Concern are listed in the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010), which may frequent the Kariega Estuary and surrounding Thicket areas.

Scientific Name Common Name Threat Status (Red Data) Anthropoides paradiseus Blue Crane Vulnerable Bradypterus sylvaticus Knysna Warbler Vulnerable Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Near Threatened Bucorvis leadbeateri Ground Hornbill Least Concern

According to the Southern African Bird Atlas Project (2) (http://sabap2.adu.org.za/coverage.php), the following birds have been sited along the estuary, in the surrounding landscape and/or along the adjacent coastline:

- African Marsh Harrier (Circus ranivorus) - National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) protected species. - Black Harrier (Circus maurus) – Near Threatened. - The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus) – Vulnerable species also protected under NEMBA protected species. - Denham's Bustard (Neotis denhami) – Vulnerable species protected under NEMBA protected species. - Cape Cormorant (Phalacrocorax capensis) – Near Threatened species protected under NEMBA protected species. - Martial Eagle (Polemaetus bellicosus) – Vulnerable species protected under NEMBA protected species. - Gape Gannet (Morus capensis) – Vulnerable. - Half-collard Kingfisher (Alcedo semitorquata) – Near Threatened. - Black-winged Lapwing (Vanellus melanopterus) – Near Threatened. - African Openbill (Anastomus lamelligerus) – Near Threatened. - African Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini) – Near Threatened. - Greater Painted-snipe (Rostratula benghalensis) – Near Threatened.

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential unit.

5.6. REPTIILES No reptiles were observed during the site visit, although various reptiles will frequent the site, such as lizards (e.g. Yellow Throated Plate Lizard or Gerrhosaurus flavigularis), geckos (e.g. Moreau’s Tropical House Gecko or Hemidactylus mabouia), snakes (e.g. Wolf Snakes, House Snakes, Boomslang or Dispholidus typus) and tortoises (e.g. the endemic Parrot-Beaked Padloper or Homopus areolatus and Angulate Tortoise or Chersina angulata). Chameleons have been reported in Kenton-on-Sea and so would be expected to frequent the site. The species may include the Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodium ventrale) which are are usually found in forest or fynbos habitats (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009).

5.6.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) No known reptile Species of Special Concern occur within the study site and immediate environment.

It should however be highlighted that all lizards (Order – Lacertilia) are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). House Snakes, Wolf Snakes, Mole Snakes, Green and Bush Snakes; as well as Egg Eaters and Slug Eaters are also protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). Consequently, it is illegal to kill any of these snakes or lizards.

37 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced during the construction period.

5.7. AMPHIBIANS No amphibians were observed on site, although frogs are an obvious candidate where water collects and along the estuary. For example: Bronze Caco (Cacosternum nanum), which inhabits a wide variety of habitats, including Thicket and Forest, Common River Frog (Ametia angolensis), Striped Stream Frog (Strongylopus fasciatus), Clicking Stream Frog (Strongylopus grayii) (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009).

5.7.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) No known amphibian Species of Special Concern occur within the study site and immediate environment.

It should however be highlighted that all frogs and toads (Order – Anura) are protected by the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974). Consequently, it is illegal to kill any amphibians.

None of these species will be removed due to the proposed residential development, but may be displaced during the construction period.

5.8. INSECTS Springtails, mayflies, stoneflies (True Stoneflies), damselflies and dragonflies, as well as butterflies, are common insects that occur around aquatic environments, such as the Kariega Estuary, while many occur within the soil and leaf litter (e.g. springtails). The damselflies and dragonflies include, for example jewels, demoiselles, threadtails and spreadwings, while the mayflies will include small minnow mayflies that inhabit riverine habitats. Numerous beetles, bugs, moths and mantids are likely to inhabit the vegetated areas.

Butterflies that may frequent the estuary environment include Metisella metis (Gold spotted Sylph), which usually occurs along streams. The Marsh Commodore (Precis ceryne ceryne) uses wetlands (therefore estuaries) as its habitat. Its distribution is localised. Two other species that may inhabit the estuary environment include the Green-marbled Sandman (Gomalia elma elm) and the Olive-haired Swift (Borbo borbonica borbonica).

5.8.1. Species of Special Concern (Threatened or Protected) It is unlikely that any of the species mentioned above inhabit the property, as the estuary is at a considerable vertical distance from Erf 365. Further, there is a lack of food and host plants for butterfly species on the property and thus the likelihood of their presence on the property is reduced.

38 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

6. SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANS DEVELOPED FOR THE REGION

Systematic conservation plans/maps that have been produced for the region in which the study site is located include, namely:

1. The Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan or Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (2012). 2. The National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (2011), which incorporates the National Biodiversity Assessment: Estuarine Component, 2011). 3. Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010). 4. The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s (ECBCP) Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Map (2007). 5. The Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP) Map (2003).

IMPORTANT:

Both the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Berliner and Desmet, 2007) and STEP Biodiversity Map (Cowling et al., 2002) have been superseded by the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012) (Figure 3) (which incorporated key biodiversity information from both these maps). This is because the Ndlambe CBA Map is spatially more accurate than the aforementioned maps (scale approximately 1: 20 000) with respect to extant biodiversity

features and land cover (transformation). In addition, the spatial information generated for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas assessment (2011) (which incorporates the National Biodiversity Assessment: Estuarine Component, 2011) and the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010) was also incorporated into the Ndlambe CBA Map. Consequently, the Ndlambe CBA Map is the most current and detailed biodiversity map for the study site and Municipality.

6.1. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY BIODIVERSITY SECTOR PLAN OR CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS MAP (2012) According to the Ndlambe Municipality CBA Map, the property falls within an Ecological Support Area (ESA) because it is positioned adjacent to the Kariega Estuary. Sites that are not natural but proximate to the estuary (to within 100m of the estuary) are classed as ESA. Ecological Support Areas are priority biodiversity areas that require appropriate management, in which ecological processes should be maintained. Some disturbance is therefore permitted. No further hardening of surfaces should be allowed in ESA, where relevant and depending on the context of the site, which is within the urban edge on a transformed Erf.

A small portion of the eastern boundary is mapped as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA). However, this area is considered to be an ESA rather than a CBA as it is transformed (not natural Thicket cover).

The estuarine functional zone (or 5m contour) is designated as a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) where it is intact (near-natural) and an Ecological Support Area (ESA) if transformed. In addition, the Kariega Estuary (and all other estuaries in the Municipality) is buffered by 100 m. All natural areas within this 100 m zone are defined as CBA and transformed areas are classed as ESA, as is the case for Erf 365.

The land use management guideline most relevant to the property is to prevent development with the 5 m contour (i.e. the estuary floodplain = National Estuary Layer) and/or the 1:100 year flood line.

Note that the Ndlambe Municipality CBA Map incorporated the spatial data generated for the Eastern Cape Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010), which mapped the coastal area (in which the property is

39 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report sited) at a scale of 1:10 000 (Refer Section 6.1 below). It also integrated the spatial data generated for the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot’s (MPAH) Biodiversity Map (2010).

Figure 3: The Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012), which delineates the property as an Ecological Support Area (ESA) because it is positioned adjacent to the Kariega Estuary. A small portion of the eastern boundary is mapped as a Critical Biodiversity Area.

6.2. THE NATIONAL FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM PRIORITY AREAS ASSESSMENT (2011), INCLUDING THE NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT: ESTUARINE COMPONENT, 2011). Aquatic ecosystems (river with their associated catchments, wetlands and estuaries) in South Africa have been mapped on a broad-scale by various stakeholders and have been included in the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) assessment (Nel et al., 2011). The location of NFEPA wetlands was derived from the National Land Cover 2000 (Van Den Berg et al., 2008 cited in Nel et al., 2011) and inland water features from the Department of Land Affairs’ Chief Directorate: Surveys and Mapping (DLA-CDSM). All wetlands are classified as either ‘natural’ or ‘artificial’ water bodies. Due to the broad-scale nature of the NFEPA wetland map it is not spatially accurate and therefore some error is expected. Priority estuaries in terms of the National Biodiversity Assessment: Estuarine Component (Turpie and van Niekerk, 2011) were incorporated into the NFEPA map, while rivers and their sub-quaternary catchments, along with river health data (Present Ecosystem State, Reserve data etc.) was also used to determine Priority Rivers and associated catchments.

40 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

The use of the Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPA) Map is useful at the national and desktop level, while at the local planning level, ground-truthing is required (Nel et al., 2011; Driver et al., 2011), particularly with respect to wetlands.

The national estuary layer represents the 5 m topographical contour which corresponds to the extent of the estuary floodplain. The 5 m contour delineates the functional zone of estuaries and represents those areas that may be inundated during flood events. In the event of sea-level rise, due to global climate change, the 5 m contour should also provide a buffer area that can allow an estuary to ‘’migrate’’ to. The 5 m contour is also useful in that an accurate delineation of the high-water mark is not available for the entire South African coastline. It also provides the best protection against natural floods and storms, as estuarine flood lines (1:50 or 1:100) are frequently inaccurately delineated (SANBI BGIS website).

Refer to Figure 2d which shows that the Kariega Estuary is a priority estuary, while the Kariega catchment is a Phase 2 Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area. This means that the estuary requires protection (50 % of the estuary extent should be sanctuary protected and 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark should remain undeveloped), while the catchment is a priority area for rehabilitation (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012; Turpie et al., 2012).

As noted above, the data generated by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA) assessment (Nel et al., 2011) was incorporated into the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Section

5.1 above). Consequently, the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

6.3. MAPUTALAND-PONDOLAND-ALBANY HOTSPOT’S (MPAH) BIODIVERSITY MAP (2010) The Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot (MPAH) extends from Mozambique and the Limpopo River in the north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, while encompassing the majority of Swaziland (Figure 4). The systematic conservation plan that was generated for the MPAH, mapped 72 key biodiversity areas and 12 biodiversity corridors for priority conservation action. The biodiversity corridors are important for long term protection of Threatened species and ecosystem function, particularly due to future predicted climate change impacts. The distribution of these Threatened species was mapped according to their location in a Quarter Degree Square (i.e. an area of approximately 30 km by 30 km covered by one 1:50 000 South African topographical map).

Important biodiversity features relative to the proposed development: The property is not situated in one of the key biodiversity areas or corridors, although it is approximately 7.4 km from a mapped point for Threatened species (refer sub-sections above).

As noted, above these key biodiversity features have been integrated into the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map (Section 5.1 above). Consequently, the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

41 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Kariega

Figure 4: The location of the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot, extending from Mozambique and the Limpopo River in the north, through to Jeffreys Bay and the surrounds in the south, as well as the majority of Swaziland.

7. OTHER STRAGETIC SPATIAL PLANS THAT MAP BIODIVERSITY

7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK: CANNON ROCKS TO GREAT KEI RIVER The Environmental Management Framework (SRK, 2010) identified priority areas along the coastline at a scale of 1:10 000. The Kariega Estuary is delineated as ‘’Conservation’’, with the property falling within the urban edge, indicated as a residential land use type.

Note that these priority areas, in this case ‘’Conservation’’, were integrated into the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012) (Figure 3). Consequently,

the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

42 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

7.2. THE NDLAMBE MUNICIPALITY SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Map has been revised by Metroplan (2012) and approved by Council (2013).

The SDF Map has incorporated the Ndlambe CBA Map (Skowno and Holness, 2012). Consequently, the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map will apply (Figure 3).

Erf 365

Figure 5: The Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework (SDF) Map (Metroplan, 2012) indicating Open Space along the Kariega Estuary (Orange Circle = position of Erf 365).

8. ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

The Kariega Estuary is an Ecologically Sensitive Area, while sites along the Kariega Estuary require appropriate management measures, such as ‘no development within the 5 m contour’, which represents the floodplain of the estuary and maintenance of natural areas. Development should also occur outside potential flood areas, especially when considering future climate change predictions.

43 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

9. CLIMATE CHANGE

Given the location of the proposed development within the coastal protection zone, the implication of climate change needs to be highlighted with respect to spatial planning. Climate change impacts, such as flooding of vulnerable coastal areas, are a significant concern in the international and national community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an average sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 m by the end of the 21st century, although the maximum is likely to be an under estimate (CES, 2011). However, current predictions that consider new ice sheet understanding are twice this range, projecting an upper limit of 2 m (Umvoto Africa, 2010 cited in Vromans et al., 2012).

A coastal set back line study for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality utilized a maximum sea level rise of 1000 mm (1 m) in 100 years, coupled with a sea storm with a return period of 1:10 years. Additionally, environmental, social and economic buffers were considered (Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers, 2012). A study done by the City of Cape Town highlighted that there will be a sea level rise of 15 cm by 2020 and 0.33 m by the end of the century.

South Africa is as a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and must fulfil certain obligations in terms of adapting and mitigating the impacts of climate change. As a result, a number of policies have been generated at the national and provincial level. Although all are relevant, the most poignant to the Ndlambe Municipality are the Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy, the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009) and the Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2011).

The Draft Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy (CES, 2011), proposes numerous climate change response programmes with response options, one of which has particular relevance to spatial planning, namely: Mapping a standardized set of 1:50 and 1:100 year flood lines using projected, rather than historical data; and to identify flood prone zones in Spatial Development Frameworks.

One of the recommended targets for the Flood Management Programme is the production of a high-resolution provincial flood line map based on projected rainfall data, which is then disseminated to the relevant authorities and planners (the relevant custodian being the Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs, Eastern Cape - Spatial Planning and Land Development).

The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (24 of 2009) takes into consideration potential climate change impacts, such as freshwater flooding, ocean storm flooding, and flooding due to rising sea level, where the coastal protection zone can be adjusted (by the Minister of the Executive Committee) to account for potential future flooding. The delineation of a coastal set back line should also take into consideration flood prone areas, which will require the inclusion of climate change impacts. Refer to Section 9.4 below.

The Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2011) also requires the mapping of areas sensitive to the impacts of global climate change (i.e. sea level rise and flooding of low lying areas). The Provincial Spatial Development Framework states that a 15 cm rise in sea level will impact all areas below the 20 m contour line along the coastal areas (also included in the Ndlambe SDF, 2012). This is considered highly unlikely when considering the property, but cannot be stated with confidence without studies done relevant to the Ndlambe Municipality. The unlikelihood of the property being impacted is particularly the case for this reach of the Kariega Estuary, where the 20 m contour is high above the estuarine 5 m contour i.e. the floodplain area of the estuary is relatively small along the urban area, while the valley slope, leading up to residential areas, is relatively steep, as well as comparatively high above the high water mark.

44 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

10. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT A summary of the relevant legislation and policy that relates to potential ecological impacts that may accrue from the proposed development is provided in the table below. The legislative implication (management measures) is also indicated.

LEGISLATION AND OBJECTIVE: LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Measures must be implemented that 1) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; 2) 10.1. THE CONSTITUTION (108 OF 1996) promote conservation; and 3) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of The South African Constitution is the supreme law of the land and ensures that: '… everyone has the right natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development'. 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. It requires that development is sustainable.

45 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Measures must be implemented that prevent pollution and ecological degradation of 10.2. NATIONAL WATER ACT (NWA) 36 OF 1998 aquatic resources i.e. rivers, estuaries and wetlands. The NWA is concerned with the overall management, equitable allocation and conservation of water resources in South Africa. It controls and manages water use in terms of water abstraction, wastewater A water use licensing application will not be needed as the proposed development is not discharge, impact on watercourses, altering watercourse flow and the determination of the Reserve. The sited in close proximity to a wetland or within a river, but in close proximity to an estuary, General Authorisations in terms of Section 39 of the Act identify certain activities that require which is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). Refer registration or licensing via the Department of Water Affairs that impact aquatic resources below. (watercourses). Section 144 requires that the 1:100 year flood line be determined by a developer for township developments. The proposed development is for one residential unit, not a township.

Wastewater effluent from the BIOROCK Sewage System: In terms of Sections 21(f) and (h) of the National Water Act and the General Authorisation regarding Although the sewage system will not discharge wastewater directly into the Kariega ‘’Discharge of waste or water containing waste into a water resource through a pipe, canal, sewer or Estuary, it may detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g). The general other conduit” – a General Authorisation will only apply if: wastewater limit values set out in Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations should be - The daily discharge is equal to or less than 2 000 cubic metres (2 000 000 litres) of wastewater complied with (Section 21f and 21h). The South African Water Quality Guidelines for and if the wastewater effluent complies with the general wastewater limit values set out in Coastal Marine Waters: Recreational Use (Volume 2) should also apply, where Table 3.1 of the General Authorisations. relevant; or unless otherwise directed by the Department of Water Affairs.

Section 21(g) relates to ‘’Disposing of waste in a manner which may detrimentally impact on a water Further advise should be sought from the Department of Water Affairs because resource’’ and covers septic tanks, conservancy tanks and soak-aways. It usually applies to domestic wastewater will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary, although it may wastewater discharged into communal septic tanks serving more than 50 households. detrimentally impact on a water resource. Further, Ndlambe Municipality has advised

that only conservancy tanks or connection to existing sewage infrastructure should Further, the location of wastewater disposal sites (sewage discharge), must be (a) outside of a be permitted by the Municipality, while other instances will require the approval of watercourse (the Kariega Estuary); (b) above the 100 year flood line, or alternatively, more than 100 the Department of Water Affairs. metres from the edge of a water resource or a borehole which is utilised for drinking water or stock watering, whichever is further; and (c) on land that does not overlie a Major Aquifer (to be indicated by Although this 1:100 year flood line has not been determined, it is highly likely that the the Department). BIOROOCK sewage system is sited well above the line due to the significant height

above the 5 m contour or floodplain.

10.3. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA) 107 OF 1998 A Basic Assessment must be implemented for the proposed development. Listed Activity The NEMA provides for overarching principles that should inform South Africa’s environmental Notice 3 requires that development within a Critical Biodiversity Area (accepted by the management and governance. The NEMA is mainly regarded as a reasonable legislative measure DEDEAT) must be authorised as well. required from the State in order to fulfil the environmental right (Section 24) of the Constitution. It requires development to be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, gazetted in terms of Section 24, trigger an authorisation process for certain activities.

46 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

The proposed development is located within the coastal protection zone. The Authority 10.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT (National Department of Environmental Affairs) may insist on an environmental ACT (ICMA) 24 OF 2009 assessment where a significant impact may occur as a result of a proposed development, The objective of the Act is to establish a system of integrated coastal and estuarine management, to however, this is dealt with by the National Environmental Management Act (107 of 1998). promote conservation and to ensure that development and natural resource use within the coastal zone Refer above. is ecologically sustainable and socio-economically justifiable. The Act identifies (i) the coastal protection zone (100m – 1km belt) and (ii) the coastal public property (low to high water mark) that should be The proposed development is within the coastal protection zone, and cannot restrict protected for safeguarding biodiversity and public access. The coastal protection zone, as determined by public access to the coastal public property or discharge effluent into the Kariega Estuary without an authorisation. the Minister of the Executive Committee, should take into account the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding of vulnerable areas). A coastal set back line has not be delineated by the provincial Authority, and can be determined by the local Authority (Ndlambe Municipality), but must then be approved by Discharge of effluent into coastal waters, including estuaries, is controlled via Section 69, either through the provincial Authority i.e. Developers are not responsible for determining set back lines, the National Water Act (Section 32 & 33) or an ICMA permit. provincial and local Authorities are. The coastal set back line delineation should take into account the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. flooding of vulnerable areas). (Refer A coastal set back line should be established or approved by the provincial Authority (Department of Section 8 regarding the Provincial Climate Change Response Strategy). Environmental Affairs) within four years of the promulgation of the Act (Section 25). There is no Estuary Management Plan for the Kariega Estuary. Developers are not In terms of the Draft National Estuarine Management Protocol (2012), municipalities must compile responsible for compiling this plan, the local Authority is. Estuary Management Plans for estuaries under their jurisdiction. The proposed development must consider biodiversity and in particular threatened and 10.5. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: BIODIVERSITY ACT (NEMBA) 10 OF 2004 important biodiversity features. The Act provides for the protection of listed endangered ecosystems and restricts activities according to the categorization of the area (not just by listed activity as specified in the Environmental Impact Although the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map and Eastern Assessment regulations). It promotes the application of appropriate environmental management tools to Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan’s CBA Map are not bioregional plans, they are the protect biodiversity. precursor to one (with the Ndlambe CBA Map representing the more accurate map to be used), and should ideally be consulted in decision-making. Chapter 3 allows for the publication of bioregional plans. The Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, in terms of Section 97 (Chapter 8), requires an authorisation process to be followed. Chapter Any Threatened or Protected Species cannot be removed without an authorisation. No 5 of the Act refers to the introduction and control of alien invasive species. species listed under this Act were recorded on the property.

Alien species invasion should be controlled by landowners. No alien species listed under this Act were recorded on the property.

47 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

10.6. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT (NEMWA) 59 OF 2008) A waste management programme will need to be compiled that is aligned with the The Act administers matters pertaining to waste minimisation, recovery, re-use, recycling, treatment, general measures of the Act, and as part of the Basic Assessment Report e.g. storage of disposal and integrated waste management. Part 5 and 6 relate to general storage, collection and waste (e.g. bins), disposal of waste (such as concrete, fuels, litter), prevention of oil leaks transport of waste, including the prevention of littering. The NEMA EIA regulations apply to several listed from construction vehicles, ablution facilities etc. waste management activities, in which a Basic Assessment or EIA is required. No National Protected Area (PA) is sited within or adjacent to the proposed property and 10.7. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS ACT (NEMPAA) 57 OF therefore this Act does not apply i.e. permission would need to be granted in terms of this 2003 Act if the proposed development occurred within a PA or impacted on a PA. The Act provides for the declaration of Protected Areas (PAs) in three forms (Chapter 3), namely Special Nature Reserves (Part 2), Nature Reserves (Part 3) and Protected Environments (Part 4). National Parks The study site is however situated approximately 736 m from a formal Protected Area, are the equivalent of National Protected Areas. Section 10 states that a Protected Area, declared in terms which extends along the coastline from the eastern bank of the lower reaches of the of provincial legislation, is either a nature reserve or protected environment. Kariega Estuary.

10.8. NATIONAL FORESTS ACT (NFA) 84 OF 1998 One large, mature Sideroxylone inerme (Milkwood) tree was recorded on the property. A Any area that has vegetation that is characteristic of a closed and contiguous canopy is defined as a license application will apply because this tree will need to be removed as it is sited within ‘forest’ and as a result falls under the authority of the Department of Forestry. No person may cut, the development footprint. disturb, damage or destroy any protected tree The removal of any indigenous or protected trees or clearing of any woodland, thicket or forest requires a permit.

10.9. ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT (ECA) 73 OF 1989 All wastes (general and hazardous) generated during the construction phase must be Section 20 of the Act requires for the appropriate disposal of waste and licensed waste disposal site, disposed of at an ECA licensed waste disposal site, if applicable, by the although any new waste licenses are subject to approval via the NEMWA. contractor/developer.

Although seven listed plants are sited within the property, these are part of a formal 10.10. CAPE NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (19 OF 1974) garden and therefore a permit application will NOT apply (Pers Comm. Mr Alan Also known as the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PCNO). The Ordinance allows for Southwood, Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs, and Tourism). conservation of the natural environment; and the protection of wildlife. Certain biota are scheduled and therefore protected. A permit must be obtained from Department of Economic Development, Environment Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT), Provincial Environment Affairs (Biodiversity Unit), to remove or destroy any plants listed in the Ordinance.

10.11. PROVINCIAL NATURE CONSERVATION BILL (EASTERN CAPE) 2003 As above, but because this is not an Act, it does not yet apply and therefore the Cape The Bill provides for the protection, preservation and conservation of the environment and biodiversity, Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance applies.. and utilization of living resources to ensure sustainable economic growth and human development and a sound ecological balance with the development objectives of the provincial government. Several species are listed under this Bill for protection.

48 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

10.12. CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ACT (CARA) 43 OF 1983 This Act is not implemented if not associated with an agricultural application. However, [to be replaced by the Sustainable Use of Agricultural Resources Bill] the NEMA, ICMA and NWA effectively deal with the potential impacts of proposed Section 6 of the Act, relates to the prescription of measures which all land users have to comply with, e.g. developments in relation to erosion, alien invasive plants and impacts on aquatic the prohibition of modifying run-off flow patterns; the control of invader plants; and the restoration of resources. eroded land. Section 7 protects any vlei, marsh, water sponge or watercourse.

49 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT

11.1. ECOLOGICAL RISK/IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The risk/impact assessment methodology was provided by Conservation Support Services, which is, for the most part, aligned with the DEAT guidelines for assessing impacts, and standard assessment methodologies development in the field of Environmental Impact Assessments. The first stage of the risk/impact assessment is the identification of environmental activities, aspects and impacts. This is supported by the identification of receptors and resources, which allows for an understanding of the impact pathway and an assessment of the sensitivity to change. The definitions used in the impact assessment are given below.

 An activity is a distinct process or task undertaken by an organization for which a responsibility can be assigned. Activities also include facilities or pieces of infrastructure that are possessed by an organization. An activity may include, for example, the clearing of vegetation.  An environmental aspect is an ‘element of an organizations activities, products and services which can interact with the environment’1. The interaction of an aspect with the environment may result in an impact.  Environmental risks/impacts are the consequences of these aspects on environmental resources or receptors of particular value or sensitivity, which include the biophysical environment. For example, an impact associated with the activity of clearing vegetation is loss of vegetation or loss of habitat.  Receptors comprise, but are not limited to, people or man-made structures.  Resources include components of the biophysical environment.  Frequency of activity refers to how often the proposed activity will take place.  Frequency of impact refers to the frequency with which a stressor (aspect) will impact on the receptor.  Severity refers to the degree of change to the receptor status in terms of the reversibility of the impact; sensitivity of receptor to stressor; duration of impact (increasing or decreasing with time); controversy potential and precedent setting; threat to environmental and health standards.  Spatial scope refers to the geographical scale of the impact.  Duration refers to the length of time over which the stressor will cause a change in the resource or receptor.

The significance of the impact is then assessed by rating each variable numerically according to defined criteria as outlined in Table 1a. The frequency of the activity and impact together comprise the likelihood of the impact occurring. The severity, spatial scope and duration of the impact together comprise the consequence of the impact. The values for likelihood and consequence of the impact are then read off a significance rating matrix (Table 1b), and Table 1c is used to determine whether mitigation is necessary2.

The assessment of significance should be undertaken twice. Initial significance is based only on natural and existing mitigation measures (including built-in engineering designs). The subsequent assessment takes into account the recommended management measures required to mitigate the impacts. Measures such as demolishing infrastructure, and reinstatement and rehabilitation of land, are considered post-mitigation.

The model outcome of the impacts is then assessed in terms of impact certainty and the consideration of available information. The Precautionary Principle is applied as per the National Environmental Management Act (No. 108 of 1997) in instances of uncertainty or lack of information by increasing assigned ratings or adjusting final model outcomes.

1 The definition has been aligned with that used in the ISO 14001 Standard. 2 Some risks/impacts that have low significance will however still require mitigation.

50 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Table 1a: Criteria for assessing significance of impacts

Severity of impact RATING Insignificant / non-harmful 1 Small / potentially harmful 2 Significant / slightly harmful 3 Great / harmful 4 Disastrous / extremely harmful 5

Spatial scope of impact RATING Activity specific 1 Mine specific (within the mine boundary) 2 Local area (within 5 km of the mine boundary) 3 Regional 4

CONSEQUENCE National 5 Duration of impact RATING One day to one month 1 One month to one year 2 One year to ten years 3 Life of operation 4 Post closure / permanent 5

Frequency of activity/ duration of aspect RATING Annually or less / low 1 6 monthly / temporary 2 Monthly / infrequent 3 Weekly / life of operation / regularly / likely 4 Daily / permanent / high 5 Frequency of impact RATING

LIKELIHOOD Almost never / almost impossible 1 Very seldom / highly unlikely 2 Infrequent / unlikely / seldom 3 Often / regularly / likely / possible 4 Daily / highly likely / definitely 5

51 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Table 1b: Significance Rating Matrix

CONSEQUENCE (Severity + Spatial Scope + Duration) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90

impact) 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98 105 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

LIKELIHOOD (Frequency of activity + Frequency of of Frequency + activity of (Frequency LIKELIHOOD

Table 1c: Positive/Negative Mitigation Ratings Value Significance Rating 126-150 Very high 101-125 High 76-100 Medium-high 51-75 Medium-low 26-50 Low 1-25 Very Low

Risk/impact assessment guidelines - The following points are considered when undertaking the assessment:

 Risks and impacts must be analysed in the context of the project’s area of influence encompassing:  Project site and related facilities that the client and its contractors develops or controls;  Areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts for further planned development of the project, any existing project or condition and other project-related developments; and  Areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location.

 Where necessary, impacts should be assessed for all stages of the project cycle including:  Pre-construction;  Construction;  Operation; and  Post-closure.

Identifying mitigation and performance improvement measures

 Mitigation and performance improvement measures that address both positive and negative impacts are identified and described.  Measures and actions to address negative impacts favour prevention over minimization, mitigation or compensation.  Measures comply with applicable laws and regulations.  Desired outcomes are defined, and are measurable events with performance indicators, targets and acceptable criteria that can be tracked over defined periods, with estimates of the resources and responsibilities for implementation.

52 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

 For the purposes of compiling an Environmental Management Programme, the following is addressed: (1) Measures that are specific to laws and regulations; (2) Measures are prioritized; and (3) A time-line for implementation.

11.2. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ASSESSED

The Proposed Development Layout or Preferred Alternative

Refer to Section 2 for a detailed description of the proposed development alternative (Figure 6). The development footprint is approximately 512 m². This alternative has a larger development footprint than the no-go alternative (existing residential unit) and the alternative development layout. The development line is approximately 4 m from the erf boundary (estuary side), about 17.7 m from the 5 m contour, and roughly 1.9 m from the incline of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour), which leads to the estuary and natural Thicket vegetation.

The Alternative Development Layout (Extension)

Refer to Section 2 for a detailed description of the alternative development layout (Figure 6). The development footprint is approximately 462 m². This alternative has a larger development footprint than the no-go alternative (existing residential unit) and a slightly smaller development footprint than the proposed development layout. The development line is approximately 6.4 m from the erf boundary (estuary side), about 20.1 m from the 5 m contour, and roughly 4 m from the incline of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour), which leads to the estuary and natural Thicket vegetation.

The No-Go Alternative

The no-go alternative represents the no development option, meaning that the existing residential dwelling will remain as it is currently (Figure 6), namely one house with a free standing double storey garage (double) and ‘flat’ (ground floor). The existing development footprint is approximately 275 m². The existing development footprint (at the water tank) is approximately 21.6 m from the 5 m contour.

Comparison of Alternatives

The proposed development footprint is estimated at approximately 512 m2, of which 57.60 m2 will be patio (excludes formal garden). The property is roughly 1 000 m², therefore constituting some 51 % of the property.

The footprint of the Alternative Development Layout (Extension) is some 462 m², which constitutes roughly 46 % of the property (excludes formal garden).

The existing footprint is approximately 275m², which constitutes roughly 27.5 % of the property (excludes formal garden).

The new development footprint (buildings only) will therefore be slightly larger in extent when compared to the alternative layout and roughly double that of the existing residence. However, it should be noted that the remaining land on the property is a formalized garden, for all alternatives. Consequently, the development footprint (structures, patio and garden = transformed area) is equivalent for all residential units. The most important implication this has for the assessment of impacts relates to storm water run-off and potential erosion, sedimentation and turbidity. However, the significance of these impacts for the proposed versus alternative development options are only slightly different, whereas for the no-go option, this impact does not take place or no change from the status quo will occur.

53 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 6: The various development alternatives.

54 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.3. DESIGN OR PLANNING PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

The residential dwelling has been designed as a brick and mortar structure on concrete beams with concrete columns (on approximately 1.5 m x 1.5 m bases). The concrete column bases will have less impact compared with the conventional strip footings and walls, which are built to floor level with backfilling i.e. the proposed design will have a slightly smaller development footprint where the columns are sited (at the estuary boundary).

The BIOROCK sewage system was part of the original proposal by the Applicant to provide a system that is ‘environmentally friendly’ (Refer Section 2). The potential for discharged effluent that is not of adequate water quality standard is assessed in the operational phase, despite the fact that system is supposed to discharge liquid effluent of a good water quality standard.

In terms of layout and footprint size, the objective of the new residential unit is to establish a larger, residential unit for the Applicant’s possessions. This leaves very little land on the property available for a layout alternative that will reduce potential ecological impacts in any meaningful or significant way.

The alternative layout (Extension) is essentially a design alternative, but as mentioned, the degree of impact significance is comparatively small when compared to the Proposed Development Layout (Preferred), and potential impacts are considered equivalent to the construction phase impacts. The potential impacts are therefore assessed under the Construction Phase, and where applicable, the Operational Phase (Section 11.4 and 11.5 below).

Design or planning phase recommendations to reduce the impact on the natural environment, which the Applicant could consider:

In other words, apply ‘’Green Building Principles’’ as far as is possible.

These design/planning phase measures are not assessed because the assessment scores should not be significantly altered. The use of concrete columns, which reduces the development footprint very slightly, does not significantly or even moderately reduce potential ecological impacts discussed in the construction or operational phases below, and therefore this design measure is not assessed in the planning phase i.e. the

55 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report potential impacts are related to the development footprint (m²) of each development option, which is adequately dealt with in the construction and operational phases.

56 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASE - POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

With regards to the impact: Loss of Thicket Vegetation (Natural Plant Cover and Thicket Habitat), it is important to note that natural Thicket vegetation or Albany Thicket cover will not be removed because the property is a formal garden. Nature of the impact: The proposed residential unit will require the removal of vegetation. However, the vegetation on site is representative of a formalized garden with planted beds and lawn. The plants are mostly indigenous, and therefore some Thicket species do occur on site, but this does not necessitate, in the author’s opinion, an impact assessment. The impact has already occurred due to the existing residential dwelling and thus this impact has not been assessed in this assessment.

11.4.1. IMPACT 1: LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: Although the vegetation on site is representative of a formalized garden with planted beds and lawn, there are several protected species on site. One large Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree will require removal, which is protected under the National Forest Act (84 of 1998).

Two Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) will also require removal. This species is protected under the Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1974). Three species of Aloes, namely Aloe arborescens (Krantz Aloe), Aloe barbarae (Tree Aloe) and Aloe ciliaris (Common Climbing Aloe); and two Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies), are also protected under the Ordinance. The patch of Aloe plants adjacent to the existing garage (Figure 2d) will not require removal, while the Aloe arborescence and two Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies) near the existing water tank will require removal (Figure 2d). However, all these species are formal garden plants and a permit for their removal will not be required (Pers. Comm. Mr Alan Southwood – Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism).

11.4.1.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Replace the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood) tree that will be removed with a reasonably sized new S. inerme (Milkwood) tree. A National Forest Act license application will need to be processed with the Department of Forestry for the removal of the existing Milkwood tree. 2. Translocate the Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower) individuals into pots for re-planting post construction, or plant immediately into the garden outside of the development/construction footprint. 3. Translocate the Aloes and Mesembryanthemaceae species (Vygies) i.e. remove, pot and re-plant later, or plant immediately into the garden outside of the development/construction footprints. 4. The patch of Aloe plants adjacent to the existing garage can be cordoned off as a no-go area to prevent disturbance by construction workers.

57 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

5. Disturbance should be limited to within the construction footprint, as far as is practically possible, albeit the fact that the entire property is largely transformed, and that the remaining plant cover will be established garden and lawn.

POST-MITIGATION

POST-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.4.1.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The alternative layout will not result in any of the assessment criteria for likelihood and consequence; or the associated scores, being altered. The impact on plant species of special concern is therefore equivalent to the proposed development layout.

11.4.1.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase will not take place in this alternative. This impact will not occur as no Species of Special Concern will require removal if the development is not pursued.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of transformation and degradation within the Kariega Estuary catchment and Ndlambe Municipality (based on the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map). In addition, cumulative impacts must also consider potential future development within the Kariega Estuary Catchment, which has been based on the Ndlambe Municipality Spatial Development Framework, as this Framework is designed to direct future development within the Municipality and should consider socio- economic trends. It should be noted that the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map was integrated into the development of the latest Spatial Development Framework.

According to the Ndlambe CBA Map, the total extent of transformed areas in the Municipality is 52 133.7 ha or 28.4 % of the municipal landscape. Degradation is 5 457.4 ha or 3 %, although this data is most likely an under- estimation (Vromans et al., 2012). Transformation and degradation is therefore relatively low (31.4 %). With the addition of an upgraded residential unit, which is to replace an existing unit that is smaller in extent, it is concluded that the cumulative impacts associated with loss of vegetation and Species of Special Concern in the municipality are Low-Medium, based on 31.4 % (28.4 % + 3 %) of the landscape being currently transformed and degraded. The loss of vegetation, and therefore the potential loss of Species of Special Concern, within the catchment of the Kariega Estuary, is considered relatively Moderate as the level of transformation and degradation is not extensive (Refer Figure 2e above and Figure 7 below), although future urban expansion within the delineated urban edge must be considered (Figure 5). Most of the urban development occurs within the lower reaches of the estuary near the mouth at Kenton-On-Sea, with the estuary head being located some 18 km inland. Only if future development complies with the Spatial Development Framework, the potential cumulative impact should be Moderate.

58 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 7: Agricultural land cover in the Kariega Catchment shown in orange and near natural cover indicated as green. Urban areas are shown in black and degraded areas in brown. Yellow areas are agricultural land parcels outside of the catchment (Skowno and Holness, 2012).

11.4.2. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: During the construction of the proposed residential structures, disturbed areas and exposed soils will be created. This can potentially promote the encroachment of alien invasive plants that already occur within the study site e.g. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) or within the surrounding environment. A S. terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) tree and Ipomeae purpurea (Morning Glory) were recorded along the boundary fence. If these plants set seed they become a source for further encroachment beyond the property. However, the area available for alien invasive species to establish within the property is small in extent and will be comparatively small during both the construction and operational phases. If construction occurs within a year, perennial plants may not receive the time required to set seed and become a source for further encroachment within and beyond the property.

The control of alien invasive species is regulated through the Conservation of Agricultural and Resources Act (CARA) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), which requires landowners to remove invasive alien plants. Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) and Ipomeae purpurea (Morning Glory) are listed Category 3 alien plants in terms of the CARA. Category 3 species are invader plants that may no longer be propagated or sold. Existing plants do not need to be removed. The CARA regulations (1985) state in Section 15(c) 1 - Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (3), the provisions of sub-regulation (1) (namely: Category 3 plants shall not occur on any land or inland water surface other than in a biological control reserve), removal of plants shall not apply in respect of category 3 plants already in existence at the time of the commencement of these regulations (in 1984).

11.4.2.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION

59 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Remove Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian Pepper) trees from the property, although not required by legislation. 2. Remove any alien or non-indigenous plant species as they establish during the construction period. 3. Rehabilitate/Plant disturbed areas with natural/indigenous plants. Immediate rehabilitation/planting of disturbed areas once construction is complete, with indigenous plants. It is however acknowledged that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to construct the residential unit and only a small percentage of the property will remain as formal garden.

POST-MITIGATION

POST-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.4.2.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential spread of alien invasive plants species is considered equivalent to the proposed development layout (Refer above).

11.4.2.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase will not occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing extent of alien invasive plants within the estuary catchment and the Ndlambe Municipality. Future housing and agriculture could increase this impact due to an increase in exposed soil and disturbance affects, if alien management procedures are not implemented. According to the Ndlambe CBA Map, the total extent of degradation in the Municipality is 5 457.4 ha or 3 %, which includes alien infestation, however this data is most likely an under-estimate (Vromans et al., 2012). Cumulative impacts are considered Medium-Low as the percentage cover of existing alien plants is not significantly higher than the percentage cover of natural plants in the Municipality or within the catchment (based on knowledge of the area), although invasion by invasive plants is a problem in the Municipality and along rivers and estuaries in particular, as with many in the Province. However, it should be noted that a fine- scale alien map has not been produced for the municipality and therefore this assessment is not based on accurate data.

60 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.4.3. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: Large fauna are unlikely to frequent the property as it is a fenced in formalized garden, although smaller species may, such as birds, bats, mice, rats, lizards and snakes. It should however be noted that this impact has already occurred due to the existing residential dwelling, although it is acknowledged that smaller species will frequent the garden and further loss will occur due to a decline in garden habitat that will occur due to the two development options.

It is highly unlikely that the Spectacled Dormouse (Graphiurus ocularis) (Endemic and Rare) and the Greater red musk shrew (Crocidura favescens) (Endemic to SA) frequent the property. Further, the site has not been indicated as a site for Species of Special Concern in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010).

Irrespective, these species will not be removed due to the proposed residential unit, although they may be displaced during the construction phase.

11.4.3.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These species should not be destroyed. 2. No fauna should be destroyed.

POST-MITIGATION

POST MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.4.3.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential loss of faunal species is considered to be equivalent to the proposed development layout.

11.4.3.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase does not apply because the no-go option refers to maintaining the existing residential dwelling, which has already caused the loss of Thicket vegetation and habitat; and consequently fauna, both

61 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report large and small. No further loss of fauna will occur for the no-go option during the operational phase. The loss of fauna is therefore not assessed as it has already occurred, while no further loss of garden habitat will take place which would further reduce the number and diversity of smaller fauna already frequenting the site.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Refer to Impact 1. Cumulative impacts are considered equivalent to Impact 1 because habitat degradation and transformation within the catchment and estuary determines the extent of habitat available to fauna.

11.4.4. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: Invertebrates (insects), such as butterflies, moths, praying mantis, centipedes etc. will certainly frequent the garden. During construction these species will be displaced by construction activities as available garden habitat declines, but will return once construction is complete in lower numbers because available garden habitat and plants will be reduced for both the two development layouts.

Although some butterfly species are associated with estuaries, these are unlikely to permanently inhabit the property since it is positioned some distance, both vertically and horizontally, from the Kariega Estuary. Further, the site has not been indicated as a site for Species of Special Concern in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Biodiversity Sector Plan (2012), as mapped by the Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot study (SANParks metadata, 2010).

Irrespective, insects (other than soil burrowing insects) will not be removed due to the proposed residential unit, although they may be displaced during the construction phase.

11.4.4.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. No mitigation measures feasible.

POST-MITIGATION

POST MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

62 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.4.4.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential loss of insects is considered equivalent to the proposed development layout (Preferred Layout).

11.4.4.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase does not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Refer to Impact 1. Cumulative impacts are considered equivalent to Impact 1 because habitat degradation and transformation within the estuary and its catchment determines the extent of habitat available to insects.

11.4.5. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: Topsoil will be removed during the construction of the residential dwelling, which will result in increased surface or storm-water run-off (sheet run off), which may increase soil erosion on site; as well as sedimentation (hydrological processes) downslope into the Kariega Estuary.

This will be particularly evident during rainfall events, and could potentially be exacerbated by the steepness of the slope. Sedimentation may increase turbidity levels, which may impact on estuarine biota within the immediate estuarine environment e.g. smothering of invertebrates and macrophytes (plants), lowering channel depth, reducing visibility for predation. However, the Thicket and riparian buffer area, which extends between the estuary and the property, will provide some degree of protection against sedimentation and turbidity impacts. Tidal exchange will also alleviate this impact to a short term impact.

11.4.5.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT) The new residential development is roughly 4 m from the erf boundary and approximately 1.9 m from the edge of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour).

PRE-MITIGATION PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Where possible, implement protective measures to reduce sheet run off during high rainfall periods e.g. excavation of an artificial swale to trap run off at the eastern boundary (estuary side) of the property, maintain as much grass and herbaceous plant cover adjacent to the erf boundary fence (estuary side). 2. Minimize the removal of vegetation to within the construction footprint only, to reduce the extent of bare areas. It is however acknowledged that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to construct the residential unit.

63 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

3. Immediate rehabilitation/planting of disturbed areas once construction is complete, with indigenous plants. It is however acknowledged that the majority of the property will be utilized in order to construct the residential unit and only a small percentage of the property will remain as formal garden. 4. An Environmental Management Programme (EMP) is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations and these specifications should be included to manage storm-water and ensure immediate planting to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. 5. If necessary and where possible, stockpile topsoil for re-use when planting of indigenous plants in disturbed areas/construction footprints (rehabilitation). 6. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision/Environmental Authorisation. Alternatively, the Ndlambe Municipality Building Inspector (with assistance from the Ndlambe Municipality Environmental Department) should ensure compliance with the Basic Assessment EMP when undertaking site assessments.

POST-MITIGATION

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.4.5.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential for topsoil loss, soil erosion and sedimentation is considered slightly lower than the proposed development layout. The reason is because the development line is further from the edge of the valley slope, at approximately 6.4 m from the erf boundary and roughly 4 m from the edge of the valley slope (at the 15 m contour), which should potentially reduce the degree of erosion, sedimentation and turbidity downslope to some degree when compared with the proposed development layout (Preferred).

PRE-MITIGATION PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. As per the Proposed Development Layout.

POST-MITIGATION

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Likelihood Frequency of Activity

64 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Frequency of Impact Highly 2 Unlikely Severity of Impact Non-harmful 1 4 Consequence Spatial Scope Activity 1 Duration Year 2

11.4.5.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase does not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing impacts in the estuary catchment (degraded and transformed areas) that potentially modify flow dynamics and flow patterns, which could result in increased soil erosion, sedimentation and turbidity in the Kariega Estuary. In terms of the Ndlambe CBA Map, transformation in the Kariega Estuary catchment is Moderate (Refer Figure 2e and Figure 7).

Mean turbidities of between 5 and 7 NTU were recorded by Whitfield (1994) in the Kariega Estuary, whereas Hecht & van der Lingen (1992) reported turbidities between 3 and 7 NTU (cited in Harrison, 2000). This data suggests that turbidity levels in the estuary are low, which may mean that soil erosion and sedimentation in the catchment is not significant. However, data relating to anthropogenic impacts (surrounding land use activities) that may cause an increase in sedimentation and turbidity was not available.

The degree to which the residential unit (proposed and alternative layout) will contribute to this impact during the construction phase (from a cumulative perspective) will be minimal given the local extent of the potential impact and the tidal nature of the estuary. During the operational phase, once rehabilitation has been implemented, this impact should not materialize, as is evidenced by the fact that the existing urban developments have not resulted in any significant impacts in this regard (based on available turbidity and transformation data).

11.4.6. IMPACT 6: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: During the construction of the residential unit, ground and surface water pollution impacts may accrue due to construction materials (i.e. cement); and from potential oil and fuel leakages from construction equipment (e.g. concrete mixer, JCV, compactor, generator). Ablution facilities that are not properly maintained during the construction phase may also result in pollution of ground and surface water e.g. high in nitrates etc. Raw sewage (from construction staff ablutions) also contains "heavy metals" which may not be degraded by the sewage treatment processes and may be discharged in the final effluent or through the sludge produced. Heavy metals include aluminium, calcium, cadmium, copper, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc.

Solid waste generated during the construction phase (i.e. building rubble and litter) also has the potential to cause pollution of the environment; and given that the existing structures will be demolished, the amount of rubble will be comparatively high. Pollution impacts can negatively affect flora and fauna, as well as hydrological processes.

Refer to the cumulative impacts below regarding pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals correlated with anthropogenic pollution.

65 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

The BIOROCK sewage system is proposed that will require approval from the Department of Water Affairs and the Ndlambe Municipality prior to installation due to the potential effluent pollution during the operational phase (see operational phase).

Effluent pollution and solid waste pollution is regulated through the National Water Act, the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act.

11.4.6.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to prevent accidental leakage of pollutants into the estuary e.g. oil, fuel, cement. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations. 2. The EMP to identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or burning policy) and the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site. 3. The EMP to ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur proximate to the estuary, but at a petrol station. 4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision/Environmental Authorisation. Alternatively, the Municipal Building Inspector (with guidance from the Municipality’s Environmental Department), should ensure compliance with the EMP. 5. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs and the Ndlambe Municipality prior to installation (see operational phase impact). 6. The BIOROCK sewage system to be positioned as high above the 5 m contour as possible, and to be constructed appropriately during the construction phase; and then appropriately managed during the operational phase. The proposed position is adequate and should be adhered to.

POST-MITIGATION

POST MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.4.6.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential for this impact occurring is equivalent to that of the proposed layout.

66 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.4.6.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The construction phase will not apply.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The potential cumulative impacts consider the existing effluent impacts in the estuary and potential future impacts. Existing effluent impacts include the potential for polluted storm water run-off from vehicles and Escherichia coli contamination from upstream/upslope areas (i.e. from sewage infrastructure and pet excrement) to drain into the Kariega Estuary. Although a survey has not been conducted, it appears that many residences along the estuary have septic tanks with soak-aways, as is the case for Erf 365.

According to Matcher et al. (2011), there is an absence of pathogenic bacteria in the estuary, which are usually correlated with anthropogenic pollution. A Master of Science thesis (Orr, 2007) researched metal concentrations due to anthropogenic pollution in several estuaries along the Eastern Cape Coastline, including the Kariega Estuary. Results showed that the mean concentrations of Cadmium (Cd) and Lead (Pb) during the dry season were above the target values (4 μg・ℓ-1 and 12 μg・ℓ-1, respectively) recommended for South African coastal waters (DWAF, 1995), but decreased significantly during the wet season. Freshwater inflow therefore reduced Pb and Cd concentrations in the surface water through flushing or dilution. Of import, the average Lead concentration was significantly higher in the sediment at the sampling site below the storm water drain discharging near the mouth of the estuary. Orr (2007) concluded that, absolute metal concentrations are relatively low and that these concentrations do not pose a threat to estuarine environments yet. Appropriate management however is important since rainfall is limited while impoundments reduce freshwater inflow in the estuary. A study by Harrison et al. (2000) concluded that the ecological health of the Kariega Estuary was “moderate” with water quality classed as “fair” (for suitability for aquatic life). According to the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012), which was based on a Desktop National Health Assessment, the water quality is “fair” and the estuary is in a ‘’C’’ Ecological Category (provisional Present Ecological Status) or is moderately impacted. However, detailed data is not available to accurately confirm anthropogenic impacts on water quality within the Kariega Estuary, specifically with reference to sewage discharges from septic tanks with French drains (currently on the property).

11.4.7. IMPACT 7: LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

Nature of the impact: The Kariega Estuary has been delineated as a Critical Biodiversity Area and the study site (property) as an Ecological Support Area because it is adjacent to the estuary. The 5 m contour or estuary floodplain represents the Critical Biodiversity Area. Estuaries and their associated buffer areas provide spaces for ecological processes to occur, such as animal, bird and fish movement, nutrient cycling etc. During the construction and operation of the proposed development, these process impacts are not considered significant or even plausible to assess given the fact that the property is currently developed and transformed (i.e. a residential unit with formalized garden exists) and is situated within a residential area (i.e. transformed urban area).

Birds, reptiles, small mammals (e.g. mice, rats, reptiles) and insects will obviously be the main biota that utilize the property, and will continue to utilize the site, but the existing residence has already impacted on ecological process areas and the biota using these areas.

From a project specific perspective, no further loss of Ecological Process Areas will occur due to the three development alternatives because it is currently developed; and therefore the significance rating is

67 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report concluded as “Insignificant” or “No Impact“. The property does still allow for ecological processes to occur, such as water percolation / purification, pollination, use by birds and insects etc., but the level of existing disturbance of these processes are comparatively high given that the property is transformed (formal garden and building). If the property was natural Thicket, it would still have a negligible or limited impact in terms of loss and disturbance of Ecological Process Areas because it is surrounded by urban development. There is the potential to impact on hydrological processes (e.g. infiltration of run off and seepage into ground and surface water) because there will be an increase in hard surfaces (patio, building structures, drive way) with less garden area (plant cover) for the two layout alternatives. However, this is considered to be negligible. Design measures are provided which should slightly reduce the impact on these hydrological processes adjacent to the estuary (Section 11.3).

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The proposed development will not cause a significance change in the cumulative impacts along the Kariega Estuary or within its catchment, as the property is already developed, and the proposed construction of the residential structures will not significantly increase the development footprint within the property boundaries. The proposed development will therefore not contribute much to the negative cumulative impacts that already occur along the estuary or within its catchment.

However, from a strategic municipal planning point of view, the potential cumulative impacts must consider both existing and potential future impacts on Ecological Process Areas along estuaries in the Municipality. Estuaries and their buffer areas are designated as Critical Biodiversity Areas and/or Ecological Support Areas in the Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. These ecological process areas are essentially ecological corridors required to maintain ecological processes, and therefore biodiversity pattern, in the long term. Existing impacts have already impacted on many of the estuaries within the Municipality, including the Kariega Estuary, through urban and agricultural development. The Ndlambe Critical Biodiversity Areas Map is based on targets required for the maintenance of ecological processes. These target areas are integrated into the Critical Biodiversity Areas. Consequently, if the Critical Biodiversity Areas represent the biodiversity targets, then the cumulative impacts in terms of loss and disturbance of ecological processes are Low (because the targets can still be met through safeguarding Critical Biodiversity Areas). Compliance with maintaining ecological process areas in terms of the Ndlambe Municipality Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map, as well as the recommended guidelines in terms of the National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment (2012) for priority estuaries (such as the Kariega), should not result in high cumulative impacts in the long term (Refer strategic planning recommendations below).

Municipal Strategic Planning Recommendations

 50 % of the Kariega Estuary should be sanctuary protected (if possible), the minimum management class should be A/B (largely natural), rehabilitation implemented and 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark should remain undeveloped (National Estuarine Biodiversity Assessment, van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012), within the urban edge.  No development within the 5 m contour or estuary floodplain.  The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works to ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.

11.4.8. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Negative or positive impact: Negative.

68 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Nature of the impact: The proposed layout and alternative layout indicates that the residential structures will be positioned well above and beyond the 5 m contour or estuarine floodplain, namely: at an approximate horizontal distance of 17.7 m and 20.1 m respectively, and at a minimum of approximately 10 m above the floodplain (the erf boundary is approximately 13.7 m from the 5 m contour). The impact on estuarine hydrological process area is therefore considered obsolete given that the property is located well above (vertically) and beyond (horizontally) the 5 m contour i.e. outside of the estuarine floodplain. However, it should be noted that hard surfaces (houses, roads) reduce rainfall infiltration into the ground which ultimately drains into the estuary, which provides freshwater to the system. Hard surfaces have the potential to increase soil erosion, sedimentation and turbidity (which is covered in Impact 5).

With regards to flood lines and flood damage to infrastructure, it is considered highly unlikely that infrastructure may be subject to flood damage in the future. Flood damage may be the consequence of future climate change predictions i.e. rising sea level (and therefore estuarine water level), increased storm surges, and increased freshwater flood events. This is because the residential unit is situated high above the 5 m contour.

The property is located within an existing urban residential area that has not experienced flooding in the past, and specifically during a large storm event that occurred some four years ago along the Ndlambe coastline. Further, the October 2012 flood event, caused by significant rainfall along the Ndlambe coastline, did not result in any damage to existing infrastructure (dwellings) along the Kariega Estuary.

The provincial climate change response strategy recommends that projected 1:100 year flood lines should be delineated. It is considered unlikely that the 1:100 year flood line is situated above or in close proximity to Erf 365 or other residential properties along this portion of the Kariega Estuary, because these properties are situated at a significant vertical distance from the high water mark of the estuary. However, the projected 1:100 year flood line is not available.

The impact of the residential unit on estuarine hydrological process areas is assessed as having “No Impact” because it is located outside of the 5 m contour / estuarine floodplain. The associated impact relating to flood lines and flood damage, i.e. the likelihood of the residential unit being located within the 1:100 flood line, is considered to be highly improbable. Consequently, this impact should not occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The residential unit will not contribute to cumulative impacts relating to loss of hydrological process areas (flood areas / floodplain).

On consultation of the latest imagery (Google imagery, 2012), it appears that agricultural land use activities (past or present) and degraded areas (probably due to past agriculture) are present within the estuarine floodplain (5 m contour). These areas therefore reduce the extent of natural hydrological process areas and disturb hydrological processes to some degree because they are transformed or degraded, and are susceptible to flooding i.e. flood prone areas. As indicated in the National Estuarine Assessment, there has been a moderate loss of habitat, while hydrological and physical habitat is in a ‘fair’ Ecological Health; and hydrodynamics is in an ‘Excellent’ Ecological Health. The cumulative impacts are therefore potentially Moderate, although a detailed survey has not been undertaken. This conclusion is based on Google Imagery (2012), agricultural land cover data (Skowno and Holness, 2012) and the National Estuarine Assessment (van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012). Refer Figure 8 below.

69 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Figure 8: Agricultural land cover data indicated as orange, which can be seen to be an underestimate based on the underlying Google Image (2012).

Strategic Planning Recommendations

 Where development along the Kariega Estuary is in very close proximity to the 5 m contour, especially from a vertical perspective (unlike Erf 365), the local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should delineate the coastal set back line, which will incorporate the projected 1:100 year flood line and identify flood prone zones, as well as all other necessary studies and delineations (e.g. projected sea level rise, storm surges and scouring, and high water mark). Funding via all three sources should be investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where possible. Areas that are close to the Kariega Estuary 5 m contour (floodplain) are more likely to be flooded by the projected 1:100 year flood line or other impacts associated with future climate change predictions. These areas will be sited where the valley slopes do not have a steep incline and the valley floor is wide, or the floodplain is wide, rather than deeply incised and narrow floodplain areas.  No development within the 5 m contour or estuary floodplain.

70 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.5. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

11.5.1. IMPACT 2: SPREAD OF ALIEN INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) Nature of Impact: During the operational phase, alien species may establish on the property due to the germination of alien seed species (from the existing seed bank or plants not removed on the property, and from plants growing within the surrounding environment). Seed production makes this impact a potentially permanent impact.

11.5.1.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT) Once the construction phase is completed, this potential impact will be equivalent to that prior to construction of the residential unit, and therefore the potential for the spread of alien invasive plants still exists. As a result, this impact is not altered by the new development during the operational phase. If rehabilitation is implemented (as part of the construction phase recommendations), the spread of alien plants during the operational phase, should be minimized. Although the extent of exposed soils will be greater during the construction phase, and therefore the density of established alien plants higher within the property boundaries, the operational phase impact (pre-mitigation and post mitigation) assessment scores and significant ratings are equivalent to the construction phase impacts (i.e. the methodology does not allow for such minor differences). Notwithstanding, the ‘’MEDIUM-LOW’’ and ‘’VERY LOW’’ impact ratings for the construction phase reflect the significance pre and post mitigation accurately enough for the operational phase.

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. Remove any alien or non-indigenous species as they establish. 2. Remove the alien species, Schinus terebenthifolius (Brazilian Pepper), although it is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act regulations (2001). 3. Only plant indigenous vegetation.

11.5.1.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) Equivalent to the proposed development layout above.

11.5.1.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The potential spread of alien invasive plants species is considered slightly lower than the proposed and alternative development layouts. This is because the property will not be disturbed and exposed bare areas will not be established (during a construction phase), which may in turn result in increased density of alien plants. However, the existing alien species still provide a source for the spread of alien plants into the surrounding environment through seed production. The post mitigation impact assessment scores and significant rating, however, will be equivalent to the proposed and alternative development layouts above.

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. As per the proposed and alternative development layouts above.

71 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.5.2. IMPACT 3: LOSS OF FAUNA (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

11.5.2.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT) Once the construction phase is completed, this impact will be equivalent to that prior to construction of the residential unit, although available garden habitat will be reduced for use by visiting fauna. The activity that reduces fauna is associated with clearing vegetation and garden area (i.e. plant cover). The existing residential unit has already resulted in the loss of some fauna frequenting the site (number and species of smaller fauna) i.e. the impact has already occurred. As a result, this impact is not significantly altered by the proposed dwelling during the operational phase (period of occupancy) and the further loss of fauna is considered insignificant. In terms of the assessment methodology, it is considered to have a ‘’VERY LOW’’ impact post construction because fauna that frequented the site prior to construction should in all likelihood return, although the number and diversity will decline as available garden (plant cover) will be reduced to a relatively small area on the property (i.e. most of the property is hard surface).

PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity Clearing 0 1 (removing plants) garden will Likelihood not occur Frequency of Impact Almost 1 9 VERY-LOW Impossible Severity of Impact Insignificant 2 9 Consequence Spatial Scope Boundary 2 Duration Permanent 5

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. There are no reasonable mitigation measures.

11.5.2.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) As per the proposed development layout above.

11.5.2.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE The no-go option refers to maintaining the existing residential dwelling, which has already caused the loss of Thicket vegetation and habitat; and consequently the loss of fauna. No further loss of fauna will occur for the no-go option during the operational phase. No further loss of garden habitat will occur which will reduce the number and diversity of fauna already frequenting the site. It is therefore considered to have ‘’No Impact’’ because the existing fauna will continue to frequent the property.

11.5.3. IMPACT 4: LOSS OF INVERTEBRATES – INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

11.5.3.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT) As per Impact 3 above.

11.5.3.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) As per the proposed development layout (Preferred Layout).

11.5.3.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE As per Impact 3 above.

72 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.5.4. IMPACT 5: TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Nature of Impact: No further loss of vegetation will be incurred and therefore the impacts relating to soil erosion should not materialize during the operational phase. It is therefore considered to have ‘’No Impact’’ for all development options and is not assessed.

11.5.5. IMPACT 6: EFFLUENT POLLUTION AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) Nature of Impact: During occupancy of the residence, sewage effluent will be directed to an underground BIOROCK sewage tank which will discharge treated effluent into the ground (Refer Section 2). The treated effluent from the BIOROCK sewage system exceeds most water-discharge standards and surpasses the highest regulations and norms, including the criteria for several prestigious certifications. However, it will require appropriate maintenance/management to prevent the accidental production of wastewater effluent that is not of an acceptable water quality standard. Raw sewage (from construction staff ablutions) also contains "heavy metals" which may not be degraded by the sewage treatment processes and may be discharged in the final effluent or through the sludge produced. Heavy metals include aluminium, calcium, cadmium, copper, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc.

Sewage effluent has the potential to infiltrate into and contaminate groundwater, and therefore associated water bodies, such as an estuary. Considering that the sewage tank will be positioned at a reasonable distance, both vertically and horizontally, from the 5 m contour, the potential for sewage effluent to reach the estuary is potentially unlikely. However, without data relating to soil infiltration and percolation rates, and soil depth required (to ensure that the wastewater is adequately filtered and purified before reaching the groundwater and estuary), this potential impact cannot be ascertained with certainty. According to the National Building Regulations, a percolation / permeability test must be done (prescribed by the South African Bureau of Standards) before a septic tank with French drain is installed to prevent pollution of soil and water resources. A precautionary approach has therefore been adopted by using a score of (4) for ‘’severity’’ pre-mitigation. Refer to the cumulative impacts regarding pathogenic bacteria and heavy metals correlated with anthropogenic pollution below.

Solid waste pollution is not assessed during the operational phase as waste disposal is managed by the Ndlambe Municipality.

11.5.5.1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFERRED LAYOUT)

PRE-MITIGATION – LIQUID EFFLUENT PRE-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

Reasonable and practical mitigation measures applicable to reduce or minimize the environmental impact:

1. During the construction phase, the BIOROCK sewage system must be established as high above the 5 m contour as is possible, and to be constructed according to the specifications. The proposed position is adequate and should be adhered to.

73 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

2. Appropriate management of the system during the operational phase, namely: sludge removal by the Municipality, wastewater water quality is of adequate standard (in terms of the National Water Act, General Authorisations 21f, 21g and 21h {Table 3.1} and South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters Volume 2: Recreational Use, or as directed by the Department of Water Affairs) and that it does not degrade the environment or have a detrimental impact on the Kariega Estuary. 3. The BIOROCK sewage system must be approved by the Department of Water Affairs regarding discharge of wastewater effluent (General Authorisations Section 21f, 21g and 21h). It is acknowledged that effluent will not be discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary (21f and 21h), but it may have a detrimental impact on the Kariega Estuary, especially when considering the potential cumulative impacts of septic tanks with soak-aways in the catchment (General Authorisations Section 21g). 4. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and Sanitation Services By-Law” or be approved by the Municipality, because there is a directive from the Department of Water Affairs that new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or install a conservancy tank. 5. The BIOROCK sewage system must comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be covered in points 3 and 4 above. 6. Ensure the proper maintenance of vehicles to prevent oil and fuel leakages.

POST-MITIGATION

POST-MITIGATION Descript. Score Sub-Total TOTAL Significance Rating Frequency of Activity

11.5.5.2. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (EXTENSION) The potential for this impact occurring is equivalent to that of the proposed layout.

11.5.5.3. THE NO-GO ALTERNATIVE During the operational phase, this impact is potentially higher than the proposed and alternative development layouts since the current sewage system is a septic tank with a soak-away / French drain (if a permeability test according to the National Building Regulations was not conducted). This means that sewage liquid effluent is being discharged into the ground. Further, if sludge waste is not removed regularly, and the septic tank not properly maintained/operated, (septic tanks in particular) the liquid effluent that is discharged into a French drain, may contaminate water resources (ground and surface). This is particularly so when considering cumulative impacts, if all residences along the Kariega Estuary are utilizing French drains and permeability tests were not undertaken to determine if the soils are suitable for percolation of sewage effluent that may drain into the Kariega Estuary and ground water resources. Refer to the cumulative impacts in the Section above (Construction Phase).

Current research data suggests that the water quality in the Kariega Estuary is ‘’fair’’ and that no pathogens or metals occur within the estuary. It would seem therefore that the estuary is not significantly impacted, although there is room for improvement from a ‘’fair’’ condition.

74 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

Pre-mitigation impact significance rating should be equivalent to the alternatives above (based on existing research data and because the assessment criteria and scores will not change) i.e. ‘’MEDIUM-LOW’’.

Post mitigation would include the installation of a BIOROCK sewage system, as per the alternatives above, which would result in the same significance rating i.e. ‘’VERY LOW’’.

11.5.6. IMPACT 7: LOSS OR DISTURBANCE OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS)

As per the construction phase i.e. no further impact for all development options.

11.5.7. IMPACT 8: DISTURBANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL PROCESS AREAS – ESTUARINE FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

As per the construction phase i.e. no further impact for all development options.

75 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.6. POST CLOSURE / DECOMMISSIONING PHASE – POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL RISKS/IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

A post closure phase is unrealistic i.e. demolition of the residential unit and re-establishment of Thicket vegetation (i.e. restoration of natural plant cover) within an urban area. The impacts during a post closure phase are therefore not assessed.

76 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

11.7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGIAL IMPACTS/RISK AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

Post closure or decommissioning was not assessed as this phase is considered to be an unrealistic event. No particular design or planning phase impacts were identified by the Environmental Assessment Practitioners, as impacts were considered equivalent to the construction and operational phases, although several ‘’design’’ related recommendations are provided, namely:

In other words, apply ‘’Green Building Principles’’ as far as is possible.

Eight potential construction phase impacts were identified and assessed, whereas seven of these were assessed for the operational phase (Table 2a below). None of the potential ecological impacts identified were considered to be fatal flaws.

Table 2a: Summary of Potential Ecological Impacts/Risks pre and post mitigation for the development alternatives: PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT DEVELOPMENT NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFEERRED LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE: OPTION) ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE) ENVIRONMENTAL PRE- POST PRE- POST PRE- POST IMPACT: MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

1. LOSS OF PLANT SPECIES MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A OF SPECIAL CONCERN (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) 2. SPREAD OF ALIEN MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) 3. LOSS OF FAUNA LOW LOW LOW LOW N/A N/A (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) 4. LOSS OF VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A INVERTEBRATES –

77 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT DEVELOPMENT NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFEERRED LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE: OPTION) ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE) ENVIRONMENTAL PRE- POST PRE- POST PRE- POST IMPACT: MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) 5. TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A EROSION, (54) (48) SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) 6. EFFLUENT POLLUTION MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY-LOW N/A N/A AND SOLID WASTE POLLUTION (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) 7. LOSS OR DISTURBANCE NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT N/A N/A OF IMPORTANT further impact further impact (No further (No further ECOLOGICAL PROCESS from the status from the status impact from impact from AREAS (BIODIVERSITY quo) quo) the status the status LOSS) quo) quo) 8. DISTURBANCE OF NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT N/A N/A HYDROLOGICAL further impact further impact (No further (No further PROCESS AREAS – from the status from the status impact from impact from ESTUARINE quo) quo) the status the status FLOODPLAIN AND quo) quo) FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS

2. SPREAD OF ALIEN MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) 3. LOSS OF FAUNA VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW NO IMPACT NO IMPACT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS) (No further (No further impact from impact from the status the status quo) quo) 4. LOSS OF VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW VERY-LOW NO IMPACT NO IMPACT INVERTEBRATES – (No further (No further INSECTS (BIODIVERSITY impact from impact from LOSS) the status the status quo) quo) 5. TOPSOIL LOSS, SOIL NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND TURBIDITY (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) 6. EFFLUENT POLLUTION – MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW MEDIUM-LOW VERY LOW LIQUID EFFLUENT (BIODIVERSITY LOSS/HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES) 7. LOSS OR DISTURBANCE NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT OF IMPORTANT further impact further impact (No further (No further (No further (No further

78 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report

PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMEMT DEVELOPMENT NO-GO (NO DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT (PREFEERRED LAYOUT (EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE: OPTION) ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE) ENVIRONMENTAL PRE- POST PRE- POST PRE- POST IMPACT: MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION MITIGATION: MITIGATION ECOLOGICAL PROCESS from the status from the status impact from impact from impact from impact from AREAS (BIODIVERSITY quo) quo) the status the status the status the status LOSS) quo) quo) quo) quo) 8. DISTURBANCE OF NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT (No NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT NO IMPACT HYDROLOGICAL further impact further impact (No further (No further (No further (No further PROCESS AREAS – from the status from the status impact from impact from impact from impact from ESTUARINE quo) quo) the status the status the status the status FLOODPLAIN AND quo) quo) quo) quo) FLOOD LINES (HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES)

Impact 7 (Loss or Disturbance of Important Ecological Process Areas) and Impact 8 (Disturbance of Hydrological Process Areas – Estuarine Floodplain and Flood Lines). Both impacts were identified (listed) because the property is adjacent and in close proximity to the Kariega Estuary, and the key motivation for undertaking a Basic Assessment. When considering future climate change predictions in relation to Impact 8, the post mitigation impact remains as a ‘’No Impact’’ despite the fact that data relating to projected flood lines, sea level rise and consequent rise in estuarine water level, freshwater flooding and storm surges is not available. This is because the property is at a significant vertical distance from the 5 m contour, approximately 10 m (maximum).

It should be acknowledged that the Provincial Spatial Development Framework states that a 15 cm rise in sea level will impact all areas below the 20 m contour line along the coastal areas (also included in the Ndlambe SDF, 2012). This is however considered highly improbably in the case of the Kariega Estuary, given the very steep incline and significant vertical height from the 5 m contour to the 20 m contour. Erf 365 is approximately 10 m (maximum) above the 5 m contour, which constitutes a significant vertical distance from the estuarine floodplain. The floodplain representing that area where the estuary is able to ‘’retreat’’ to if sea level rise takes place in the future.

The most significant impact or risk associated with the proposed residential unit is considered to be the potential for solid and effluent pollution during the construction and operational phases; as well as the loss of topsoil, sedimentation and turbidity during the construction phase. Both impacts received a MEDIUM-LOW significance rating pre mitigation and a ‘’LOW’’ significance rating post mitigation. Other ecological impacts are relatively minor (e.g. loss of Species of Special Concern, loss of fauna, loss of insects etc.) given the fact that the proposed residential unit is replacing an existing residential unit that has transformed Erf 365, notwithstanding the fact that the property is located within an urban residential setting. Effluent management is therefore the key mitigation measure, while other important mitigation measures relate to rehabilitation (planting of disturbed areas) and alien plant control. Minimizing the construction and development footprint does not constitute a key mitigation measure because the majority of the property will be utilized in order to construct the residential unit i.e. only a small percentage of the property will remain as formal garden (for both layout alternatives).

A summary of the recommended mitigation measures are provided in Table 2b below, which reduce the significance of each impact. These mitigation measures can be carried through to the Environmental Management Programme, which must form part of the Basic Assessment Report.

In summary, all impacts can be reduced to ‘’VERY LOW’’ or ‘’LOW’’. During the construction phase, for both the proposed (Preferred Layout) and alternative development layout (extension), two impacts were rated as

79 Proposed Residential Unit along the Kariega Estuary: Ecological Specialist Report having “NO IMPACT” (no further impact), one impact was rated as ‘’LOW’’ post mitigation and the remaining five impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post mitigation. During the operational phase, three impacts were rated as having “NO IMPACT” (no further impact) and four of the impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post mitigation

From an ecological perspective, the no-go option does not apply during the construction phase. During the operational phase, two impacts were rated as ‘’VERY LOW’’ post mitigation, namely the spread of alien plants and effluent pollution, whereas the loss of fauna and insects was considered ‘’VERY LOW’’ (Insignificant). The loss of ecological process areas and hydrological process areas were rated as having ‘’NO IMPACT’’ (or no further impact as the impact has already occurred as a result of the existing dwelling – there will be negligible change from the status quo).

Summary of Impact Assessment

In conclusion, the current residential dwelling will have the lowest impact on the natural environment because it maintains the status quo; and existing garden habitat will not be reduced. The proposed residential development (Preferred Layout) and Alternative Development Alternative (Extension) will have an equal impact on the natural environment, post mitigation.

The proposed residential development (Preferred Layout) places minimal impact on the ecology of the property and surrounds, especially if effluent management is implemented.

Strategic Planning Recommendations

80 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Table 2b. Summary of project specific recommended mitigation measures, indicating the management objective, priority of the mitigation measure, and capacity requirements

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

7 Effluent The BIOROCK sewage system must: Prevent effluent 1 1. BIOROCK 1. Once off 1. Pre- 1. BIOROCK Approval pollution and - Be approved by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) pollution and approval from application to construction from the Department solid waste regarding discharge of wastewater effluent into the ground solid waste the Department of 2. Pre- of Water Affairs: (although it is acknowledged that effluent will not be pollution pollution Department of Water Affairs. construction Unknown at this stage discharged directly into the Kariega Estuary General

Authorisations Section 21f and 21h), although it may Water Affairs: 2. Once off EMP 3. Pre- (If it meets the water detrimentally impact on the environment (Section 21g), Environmental 3. ECO/Building construction & quality standards a especially when considering cumulative impacts of existing Assessment Inspector: Start Construction General Authorization septic tanks and soak-aways in the catchment). Practitioner of construction is likely). - Comply with the municipal by-laws “Water Supply and (EAP) and then every 2. EMP compilation: 1 Sanitation Services By-Law” or be approved by the 2. EMP 2nd / 4th week week (as part of the Municipality, because there is a directive from the Department compilation - depending on Basic Assessment of Water Affairs that all new developments must either connect to existing sewage infrastructure or install a Environmental construction Report). conservancy tank. Hence the need for DWA approval prior to Assessment activities 3. EMP implementation municipal approval. Practitioner (ECO/Building (ECO / Building - Comply with the National Building Regulations relating to the (EAP) Inspector). Inspector): discharge of sewage effluent, although this should be covered 3. EMP Dependent on in the two points above. Compliance: duration of the

Environmental construction period Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP), which includes a waste Control Officer (±1 year). management plan, to: /Ndlambe - Prevent accidental leakage of pollutants e.g. oil, fuel, cement, Building sewage from ablutions. Inspector - Identify procedures for solid waste disposal (e.g. bins, no littering or burning policy) and the maintenance of ablution facilities, including the disposal of liquid and hazardous waste at a licensed waste disposal site. - Ensure no hazardous wastes to be stored on site, or where storage is required (e.g. cement) it is within the existing garage which will not be demolished (i.e. a bunded, enclosed surface

81 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

area). - Ensure that no re-fuelling of construction vehicles or maintenance activities occur proximate to the estuary, but only at petrol stations or vehicular workshops. - Installation of the BIOROCK sewage system at the position as indicated on the Architectural Drawing i.e. at a significant distance above and from the 5 m contour / estuary floodplain.

During the operational phase, the BIOROCK sewage system, if approved, must – - Be managed to ensure no effluent wastewater that is of inadequate standard is discharged in to the ground, which may reach the Kariega Estuary. - The water quality standards must meet the National Water Act General Authorisations Section 21f and 21h (Table 3.1) and the South African Water Quality Guidelines – Marine and Coastal Waters – Recreational Use (Volume 2), or other standards as directed by the Department of Water Affairs, so that it does not degrade the environment or the Kariega Estuary. - Be cleared of sludge by the Municipality, when required (according to the BIOBOX information it is 3/4 – 5 years).

6, 8 Topsoil loss, 1. Implement storm-water control measures to reduce sheet run Minimize soil 2 1. Environment 1. Once off EMP 1. Pre- 1. EMP compilation: 1 soil erosion, off e.g. excavate a swale on the eastern boundary (estuary erosion, al Assessment 2. Start of construction week (as part of the sedimentatio side), and maintain as much plant cover as possible as well. sedimentation Practitioner construction 2. Pre- Basic Assessment 2. Immediate planting of indigenous species after construction n & turbidity and turbidity (EAP) – EMP and then every construction Report). (rehabilitation). The homeowner is a keen gardener and will in nd th (hydrological all likelihood supervise procedures. compilation. 2 / 4 week Construction 2.EMP implementation - processes) 3. Removal of vegetation within the construction footprint only. 2. Environment depending on ECO / Building 4. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure al Control construction Inspector: Dependent Disturbance compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision, or Officer activities on duration of the of important alternatively the Municipal Building Inspector fulfills this role. (ECO)/Building (ECO/Building construction period ecological Inspector Inspector) (±1 year). process areas

82 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

(Biodiversity loss)

2 Loss of 3. A license application to the Department of Forestry will be Prevent loss of 3 1. Homeowner 1. Period of 1. Pre- 1. Rehab: 1 - 2 Species of required for the removal of the Sideroxylon inerme (Milkwood). Plant Species of (planting and planting and construction & weeks(translocation, Special 4. Purchase another medium to large sized Sideroxylon inerme Special Concern translocation) translocation. Construction. planting); Concern (Milkwood) on removal of the existing Milkwood, and plant on Minimize 2. Environ- 2. Once off EMP. Minimum 4 week the property. vegetation loss / mental 3. EMP 2. Pre- establishment 5. Translocate Strelitzia reginae (Crane Flower), Aloe habitat loss to the Assessment Compliance: construction period (i.e. watering arborescens, Carpobrotus edulis (Sour Fig) and two Mesembryanthemaceae (Mesems or Vygies) species. See Plate development Practitioner Start of con- period, dependent 2. footprint only. (EAP) – EMP struction & 3. Construction on rainfall). 6. Plants should preferably be planted during the rainy season or compilation. then every 2nd 2. ECO the dormant period, but this is not necessary as long as 3. EMP / 4th week employment/Buildin additional care is provided, e.g. watering, survival should be Compliance: depending on g Inspector: guaranteed, especially with reference to the succulents. Environment construction Dependent on the 7. Water the plants until they are established, unless natural al Control activities construction period rainfall fulfills this role. Officer (ECO)/ (ECO)/ Building (±1 year). 8. Removal of vegetation within the construction footprint only. Building Inspector 3. EMP compilation: 1 9. Plant disturbed areas with indigenous species immediately after construction. Inspector week (as part of the 10. Make use of compost and mulching when Basic Assessment translocating/planting to enhance establishment and survival. Report). 11. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental Management Programme (EMP) that specifies the points above. An EMP is required by the NEMA Basic Assessment regulations.

83 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

12. Employment of an Environmental Control Officer to ensure compliance with the EMP and Record of Decision/Environmental Authorisation, or alternatively the Municipal Building Inspector fulfills this role. 3 Spread of 1. Removal of alien or non-indigenous species that establish. Prevent and 4 1. Environment 1. Once off EMP 1. Pre- 1. EMP compilation: 1 alien invasive 2. Removal of listed alien plants within the development minimize spread al Assessment 2. Start of construction week (as part of the plant species footprint / construction area, and property boundaries, where of alien invasive Practitioner construction and 2. Pre- Basic Assessment they occur, namely: Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper), nd (Biodiversity species (EAP) – EMP then every 2 / construction & report). and if they establish during the construction period. Although th loss) this is a Category 3 species that does not need to be removed in compilation. 4 week Construction 2.EMP implementation terms of legislation. 2. Environment depending on 3. Construction (ECO): Dependent on 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental al Control construction duration of the Management Programme (EMP) that specifies the requirement Officer activities construction period. to remove alien plants. (ECO)/Building (ECO/Building 3. Alien Removal: Inspector Inspector) Dependent on the Photograph of Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian Pepper) with 3. Contractor 3. Construction construction period fruit, listed as an alien invasive in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act. (alien removal) period (±1 year).

84 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

4 Loss of Fauna 1. The Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (1974) protects Prevent the 5 4. Environment 1. Once off EMP 1. Pre- 1. EMP compilation: 1 amphibians, reptiles and snakes. These species should not be destruction of al Assessment 2. Start of construction week (as part of the destroyed. fauna Practitioner construction and 2. Pre- Basic Assessment 2. No fauna should be destroyed. nd (EAP) – EMP then every 2 / construction & report). 3. Compilation and implementation of an Environmental th Management Programme (EMP) that specifies that no fauna compilation. 4 week Construction 2.EMP implementation may be destroyed. 5. Environment depending on 3. Construction (ECO): Dependent on al Control construction duration of the Officer activities construction period. (ECO)/Building (ECO/Building 3. Alien Removal: Inspector Inspector) Dependent on the 6. Contractor 3. Construction construction period (instruction to period (±1 year). staff) 9 Disturbance Strategic Planning Recommendations (NOT Project Specific) Not Applicable to Not Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable of the construction Applicable hydrological  The local and/or the relevant provincial Authorities should of the dwelling process areas: delineate the coastal set back line, which will incorporate the estuarine projected 1:100 year flood line and identify flood prone zones floodplain as well as all other necessary studies and delineations (e.g. and flood projected sea level rise, storm surges & surges; and high lines - water mark). Funding via all three sources should be hydrological investigated, including other funding mechanisms, where processes possible.  No development proximate to or within the 5 m contour or estuary floodplain.  50 % of the Kariega Estuary should be sanctuary protected (if possible), the minimum management class should be A/B (largely natural), rehabilitation implemented and 50 % of the area below the 100 m from the high water mark should remain undeveloped (National Estuarine Biodiversity

85 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Time line for mitigation Commence- Impact Capacity measures to be Impact Mitigation measures Objective Priority Frequency ment (Project No. requirements implemented Phase)

Assessment, van Niekerk and Turpie, 2012), interpreted to mean within the urban edge.  The Municipality should upgrade existing sewage works, where necessary, and maintain these works to ensure that sewage leakage into the estuaries are negated.

86 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

12. REFERENCES CEPF. 2010. Maputoland-Pondoland-Albany Hotspot. Ecosystem Profile. Final Draft. Submission to Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) Donor Council.

CES. 2011. Eastern Cape Climate Change Response Strategy. Prepared for the Province of the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs. Prepared By Coastal & Environmental Services. Grahamstown.

Berliner, D., Desmet, P., Hayes, R. and Hayes, A.Y. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town.

DWAF. 2007. Manual for the assessment of a Wetland Index of Habitat Integrity for South African floodplain and channelled valley bottom wetland types by M. Rountree (ed); C.P. Todd, C. J. Kleynhans, A. L. Batchelor, M. D. Louw, D. Kotze, D. Walters, S. Schroeder, P. Illgner, M. Uys. and G.C. Marneweck. Report no. N/0000/00/WEI/0407. Resource Quality Services, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

DWAF. 2008. River health Programme. State-of-Rivers Report: Mthatha River System. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria ISBN No: 978-0-620-42131-7.

Driver, A., Nel, J.L., Snaddon, K., Murray, K., Roux, D.J., Hill, L., Swartz, E.R., Manuel, J., Funke, N. 2011. Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Report to the Water Research Commission. du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of South Africa. Struik Nature. Cape Town.

Harrison, T.D., Cooper, J.A.G. and Ramm, A.E.L. 2000. State of South African estuaries. Geomorphology, ichthyofauna, water quality and aesthetics. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, State of the Environment Series Report No. 2. 126pp.

Harrison, T.D. 2000. Biogeography and Community Structure of Fishes in South African Estuaries. MSc Thesis. Rhodes University.

Harrison, T.D. 2005. Ichthyofauna of South African estuaries in relation to the zoogeography of the region. Smithiana, Publications in Aquatic Biodiversity, Bulletin 5, December, 2005, pp. 1-27.

Henning, G.A., Terblanche, R.F. & Ball, J.B. (eds) 2009. South African Red Data Book: Butterflies. SANBI Biodiversity Series 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers. 2012. Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality Coastal Setback Lines (Draft Report_v4 April 2012). Prepared on behalf of the Environmental Management Sub-Directorate of Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality by Masande Consultants and Afri-Coast Engineers SA (Pty) Ltd.

Matcher, G.F., Dorrington, R.A. Henninger, T.O. and Froneman, P.W. 2011. Insights into the bacterial diversity in a freshwater-deprived permanently open Eastern Cape estuary, using 16S rRNA pyrosequencing analysis. Water SA Vol. 37 No. 3.

Mouton, E. 2004. Albany Coast Situation Assessment Study. Groundwater Resource. Prepared by WSM Leshika for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Report No. P WMA 15/000/00/0408.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, C. and Powries, I.W. EDITORS. 2005. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 1 000 000 SCALE SHEET MAPS. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, M. C. and Powrie, L. W. (Eds.) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

87 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M.C. (Eds). 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Pretoria. Nel, J.L., Murray, K.M., Maherry, A.M., Petersen, C.P., Roux, D.J., Driver, A., Hill, L., Van Deventer, H., Funke, N., Swartz, E.R., Smith-Adao, L.B., Mbona, N., Downsborough, L. And Nienaber, S. 2011. Technical Report for the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project. Report to the Water Research Commission. WRC Report No. K5/1801.

Ndlambe SDF. 2012. The Ndlambe Spatial Development Framework. Prepared by Metroplan. Port Elizabeth.

Nel, J.L., Smith-Adao, L., Roux, D.J., Adams, J., Cambray, J.A., de Moor, F.C., Kleynhans, C.J., Kotze, I., Maree, G., J, M., Schonegevel, L.Y., Smith, R.J., Thirion, C., 2006. Conservation Planning for River and Estuarine Biodiversity in the Fish-to-Tsitsikamma Water Management Area. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. Water Research Commission Report K5/1486: 106 pp.

Orr, K.K. 2007. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Metals in the Sediment and Water of Selected Eastern Cape Estuaries, South Africa. MSc Thesis. Rhodes University. Grahamstown.

Richardson, R., Whitfield, A.K. and Paterson, A.W. 2006. The influence of selected environmental parameters on the distribution of the dominant demersal fishes in the Kariega Estuary channel, South Africa. African Zoology Vol. 41, No. 1.

SANBI. 2009. Further Development of a Proposed National Wetland Classification System for South Africa. Primary Project Report. Prepared by the Freshwater Consulting Group (FCG) for the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

Turpie, J.K., Adams, JB., Joubert, A., Harrison, TD., Colloty. BM., Maree, EC., Whitfield, AK., Wooldridge, TH., Lamberth, SJ., Taljaard, S. and Van Niekerk, L. 2002. Assessment of the conservation priority of status of South African estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water SA Vol. 28 NO. 2.

Turpie JK, Wilson G and Van Niekerk L. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: National Estuary Biodiversity Plan for South Africa. Anchor Environmental Consulting, Cape Town. van Ginkel C.E., Glen R.P., Gordon-Gray K.D., Muasya M., and van Deventer P.P. 2011. Easy identification of some South African wetland plants. Water Research Commission.

Van Niekerk, L. and Turpie, J.K. (eds) 2012. South African National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: Technical Report. Volume 3: Estuary Component. CSIR Report Number CSIR/NRE/ECOS/ER/2011/0045/B. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch.

Vlok, J.H.J. and Euston-Brown, D.I.W. 2002. The patterns within, and the ecological processes that sustain, the Subtropical Thicket Vegetation in the planning domain for the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit. University of Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth.

Vorwerk, P.D. 2000. Ichthyofaunal community structures in different types of Eastern Cape estuaries. Rhodes University MSc Thesis, Grahamstown.

Vorwerk, P.D. 2006. Preliminary examination of selected biological links between four Eastern Cape Estuaries and the inshore marine environment. Rhodes University Phd Thesis, Grahamstwn.

Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D. and Skowno, A.L. 2012. The Biodiversity Sector Plan for the Ndlambe Municipality. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Addo Elephant National Park Mainstreaming Biodiversity Project. South African National Parks. Port Elizabeth. South Africa.

88 Specialist Ecological and Wetland Survey and Assessment: Salt Vlei

Whitfield, A.K. 2000. Available scientific information on individual South African estuarine systems. Water Research Commission Report No. 577/3/00.