Aquatic Ecological Qualification Assessment (Freshwater

KC PHYTO ENTERPRISES CC 2006/015310/23 Plants — People — Products PO Box 1 Brackenfell 7561 Mobile: 0760955129 Email: [email protected] Environmental Consulting Division

05 June 2020

Aquatic Ecological Qualification Assessment (Freshwater Specialist Report) for the Proposed Lanquedoc Access Road and Dwars River Bridge Development and Associated Upgrades

Client / Proponent / Applicant: Stellenbosch Municipality

Client Consultant: Royal HaskoningDHV (Project Ref: MD 3137) Cover Photo taken from site assessment

Report Prepared by

Earl L Herdien Pr.Sci.Nat. (Aquatic Science)

EAP, Water Use Advisor, Limnologist and Biodiversity Scientist

Qualifications

BSc (Environmental Science and Conservation Biology), BSc (Hons) in Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, UWC.

Professional affiliations

Registered as a Professional Natural Scientist with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions - SACNASP (Reg. No. 400211/11)

Field of Registration – Aquatic Science

Declaration of Independence

I, Earl L Herdien, declare that I am independent of the client and their consultants, and stand to gain no financial benefit from the proposed activity apart from remuneration for the work performed. All views expressed in this report are my own and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged.

………………………. .

Earl L Herdien

ii Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Development Proposal and Defined Water Use Context...... 3 1.3 Study Aims...... 7 1.4 Assumptions and Limitations...... 7 1.5 Applicable Legislation Context...... 8 1.6 Approach...... 8 1.7 Report Use...... 9 2. Desktop Assessment...... 11 2.1 General Hydrological Setting and Aquatic Characterisation...... 11 2.2 Initial Screening Level Water Use Risk context...... 22 3. Ground-truth Investigation...... 25 3.1 Site Habitat Description...... 25 3.1.1 Site Watercourse Description...... 30 3.1.2 Study Site Biota...... 32 3.2 Study Site Aquatic Features Condition Context Synthesis / Site Watercourse Resource Quality (PES)...... 36 3.2.1 Study Site Dwars River Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI) Status Quo...... 36 3.2.2 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS)...... 39 3.2.3 Site PES Ground-truth Summary...... 41 4. Impact consideration and DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol provision...... 42 4.1 Impact Perspective...... 42 5. Conclusions and Recommendations...... 51 6. References...... 53 7. Appendix...... 54 DWS Water Resource Management Site Catchment Classification Configuration...... 54 Risk Rating Scales for EIA configuration...... 55 Estimated Impact Ratings for EIA configuration...... 58

iii List of Figures

Figure 1: From EIA NID, Digitised Google Earth Map of the proposed development site with proposed road realignment upgrade, New Bridge Development and Refurbishment of Existing River Bridge...... 1

Figure 2: Design Concept Excerpt of proposed Bridge Access Road Upgrade with Dual NMT concept, with the addition of a new proposed bridge on the left in red and with the existing bridge to be refurbished on the right in green. See attached Plans for additional detail...... 3

Figure 3: Proposed development Associated Water Use Scope Summary...... 4

Figure 4: Digitised Google Earth Image of the proposed water use site and surrounding area...... 5

Figure 5: Images of the existing river bridge or water use activity point...... 6

Figure 6: Wetlands Delineation Guideline to the left and Status Quo to the right (DWAF 1999, DWAF 2005 and 2008)...... 10

Figure 7: Watercourse characteristics in terms of resource quality from DWS Impact and Risk Assessment Matrix Training Presentation (Dr Wietsche Roets 2015)...... 10

Figure 8: Cropped digitised google earth image of the receiving quaternary catchment G10C with an indication of catchment water resource geography...... 12

Figure 9: Dwars River SASS5 results National Rivers Database excerpts from RHP activities dating to 2014 survey at Kylemore upstream of study site...... 14

Figure 10: Dwars River SASS5 results National Rivers Database excerpts from RHP activities dating to 2014 survey within study site near downstream proximity...... 14

Figure 11: Data interpretation guidelines for the Southern Folded Mountains Ecoregion with reference results from previous sampling exercises and calculated using percentiles (after Dallas 2007) (study site sampling results fall within the red circle)...... 15

Figure 12: Digitised Google Earth image representing the updated PES 2010 DWS assessment for the catchment (study site in red circle). Note that PES classed as a C-category (moderately modified) whereas the recent SASS5 results may be classed in a D-category (largely modified)...... 16

Figure 13: Demarcated Biodiversity Priority Areas Map for the study site (portions of the river is delineated as CBA as well as an Ecological Support Area - ESA)...... 17

Figure 14: National Freshwater Ecological Areas Map for the study area – red dot (SANBI BGIS 2018) (demarcated to fall within a Phase 2 FEPA – biota conservation support zone)...... 19

Figure 15: Stormwater Flow Accumulation Model for the study area...... 20

Figure 16: Crop Senses Map for the study area...... 21

iv Figure 17:Images taken at the receiving Dwars River proposed development site, depicting an alien vegetation infested riparian zone and good instream cobblebed habitat...... 25

Figure 18: Photograph of watercourse riparian zone alien tree eradication and overgrowth of grassy weed appearance (view downstream from bridge site)...... 26

Figure 19: Photograph of watercourse active stream channel overgrown by grassy weeds (view downstream from bridge site)...... 27

Figure 20: Photograph of the aquatic scientist undertaking site investigation within the watercourse. Note the disturbed nature of the receiving site watercourse lacking any significant habitat and structure...... 27

Figure 21: Photographs of riparian zone infested with alien vegetation (red sesbania, wattle, castor oil, river gums, oaks and bramble) recruiting within riparian zone alongside remnant surviving indigenous vegetation populations of wild almond, riverine karee, palmiet and common sedge species such as juncus and other cyperaceae...... 28

Figure 22: Photograph of the receiving site watercourse instream habitat...... 29

Figure 23: Cross section of the Dwars River Macro-channel (See Engineering Plans for detail)...... 31

Figure 24: Populated DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol (See attached electronic spreadsheet model)...... 47

Figure 25: DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol Guideline...... 48

Figure 26: Catchment Water Resources Classes Definitions. Site falls within a Class 2 water resource class (DWS 2017) (See appendix)...... 51

Figure 27: Proposed Water Resource Classes for the Berg Catchment, Site Integrated Unit of Analysis zone is D8 and within a Water Resource Class 2 (DWS 2017)...... 54

v List of Tables

Table 1: WULA Application General Information...... 2

Table 2: Proposed NWA S21(c) and (i) water use registration...... 4

Table 3: Risk Framework concept for water use conditions development and consideration...... 9

Table 4: PES Summary for the Dwars River (project site situated between lower and upper Dwars)..13

Table 5:DWS Updated PES 2010 summary for the sub-quaternary catchment comprising the study site (Sourced DWS RDM information)...... 18

Table 6: Channel characteristics of the study site Dwars River during sampling assessment...... 31

Table 7: List of Fauna found during site assessment and expected within catchment proximity...... 35

Table 8: Department of Water and Sanitation River Health Categories...... 36

Table 9: Dwars River watercourse Habitat Integrity Model Assessment...... 37

Table 10: Habitat Integrity Categories (DWAF 1999)...... 38

Table 11: Definition of the four-point scale used to assess biotic and habitat determinants presumed to indicate either importance or sensitivity...... 39

Table 12: Ecological importance and sensitivity categories (DWAF, 1999)...... 39

Table 13: Results of EIS assessment for the Study Site receiving Dwars River watercourse...... 40

Table 14: Study Site Dwars River Watercourse PES modelled using RDM IHI and EIS...... 41

Table 15: Department of Water and Sanitation Impact and Risk Matrix Aspects and Models...... 45

Table 16: Department of Water and Sanitation Risk Matrix Rating Interpretation Guideline...... 45

Table 17: Criteria to be used for the rating of risk...... 56

Table 18: The significance rating scale...... 57

Table 19: Significance of impacts during planning, design & development phase (A1)(Construction Phase)...... 59

Table 20: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A1)...... 60

Table 21: Significance of impacts during design, planning & development phase (A2) (Construction Phase)...... 61

Table 22: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A2)...... 62

vi Table 23: Significance of impacts during planning, design & development phase (A3) (Construction Phase)...... 63

Table 24: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A3)...... 64

vii GLOSSARY

DEFINITION DESCRIPTION

Biodiversity The diversity of animals, plants and other organisms found within and between ecosystems, habitats, and the ecological complexes

Ecosystem A dynamic system of plant, animal (including humans) and micro-organism communities and their non-living physical environment interacting as a functional unit. The basic structural unit of the biosphere, ecosystems are characterised by interdependent interaction between the component species and their physical surroundings. Each ecosystem occupies a space in which macro-scale conditions and interactions are relatively homogenous

EcoClassification Term used for Ecological Classification - refers to the determination and categorisation of the Present Ecological State (PES; health or integrity) of various biophysical attributes of rivers compared to the natural or close to natural reference condition. The purpose of EcoClassification is to gain insights into the causes and sources of the deviation of the PES of biophysical attributes from the reference condition.

Environment In terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (No 107 of 1998) (as amended), “Environment” means the surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of: the land, water and atmosphere of the earth;

Micro-organisms, plants and animal life; any part or combination of (i) of (ii) and the interrelationships among and between them; and the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and wellbeing

Environmental A change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially, Impact resulting from an organisation’s activities, products or services.

Pollution Is the direct or indirect alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of a water resource, so as to make it (inter alia)- less fit for any beneficial purpose for which it may reasonably be expected to be used; or harmful or potentially harmful to the welfare or human beings, to any aquatic or non-aquatic organisms, or to the resource quality

Present Determined ecological system components used in terms of the eco-classification Ecological State process in an indices derived approach which measures representative changes from a perceived natural reference state per component assessed

Screening Determines whether or not a development proposal requires environmental assessment, and if so, what level of assessment is appropriate. Screening is therefore a decision-making process that is initiated during the early stages of the development of a proposal.

viii Quality of all the aspects of a water resource including - (a) the quantity, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of instream flow; (b) the water quality, including Resource Quality the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water; (c) the character and condition of the instream and riparian habitat; and (d) the characteristics, condition and distribution of the aquatic biota;

Water Quality The term water quality describes the physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic properties of water which determine its fitness for a variety of uses and for protecting the health and integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Many of these properties are controlled or influenced by constituents which are either dissolved or suspended

Water Resource A river or spring; a natural channel in which water flows regularly or intermittently; a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse, and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks. Therefore, all bodies containing water on a permanent, seasonal or temporal scale is defined as a water resource and is protected under the Act

Water Use An activity which has an impact on a water resource and affects the: amount of water in the resource; the quality of water in the resource; or the environment surrounding the resource

Watercourse Means: a river or spring; a natural channel or depression in which water flows regularly or intermittently; a wetland, lake or dam into which, or from which, water flows; and any collection of water which the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare to be a watercourse as defined in the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) and a reference to a watercourse includes, where relevant, its bed and banks.

Wetland Means land which is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is periodically covered with shallow water, and which land in normal circumstances supports or would support vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil

Wetland An unqualified water body characterised by its superficial resemblance to a natural Body/Feature or wetland or other so declared watercourse. This includes poorly defined natural Drainage water bodies and/or artificial water bodies that may have been artificially induced by body/water anthropogenic activity or landscape alteration which result in causing change to the Feature landscape from a reference terrestrial condition aspect to include an aquatic aspect or from an aquatic to a transformed aquatic aspect.

ix ABBREVIATIONS

CBA Critical Biodiversity Area

CESA / ESA Critical Ecological Support Area

CMA Catchment Management Agency (CMA) (i.e. Berg-Olifants/Doorn WMA)

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation (Previously DWA and DWAF)

ECO Environmental Control Officer (EIA and EMPR audit and management)

EC Ecological Class or Ecological Category

EG&S Ecological Goods and Services

EI&S Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

(N)FEPA (National) Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area

IHI Index of Habitat Integrity

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management (Philosophy)

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No 107 of 1998)

NWA National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998)

NMT Non-Motorised Transport

OESA Other Ecological Support Area

PES Present Ecological State (in terms of RDM EcoClassification Process)

RDM Resource Directed Measures (IWRM tools enacted by NWA)

REC Recommended Ecological Class (Desired Ecological State)

RQO Resource Quality Objective (NWA Catchment Management Classification System)

SANBI BGIS South African National Biodiversity Institute – Biodiversity Geographic Information System

WMA Water Management Area

WULA Water Use License Application (framework - process)

x 1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Independent professional aquatic science consulting services were commissioned by key client contractor RHDHV on behalf of client Stellenbosch Municipality to complete water use registration and authorisation application (WULA) for the contemplated undertaking of National Water Act (36 of 1998) Section 21 (c) and (i) water use activity in respect to the proposed development site receiving Dwars (Banghoek) River watercourse road bridge and associated upgrade works. The sub-contracting service includes undertaking of aquatic study (this report), informing for recommendations of relevant watercourse regulatory aspects and the confirmation of required watercourse regulatory compliance (i.e. provision of DWS Risk Matrix, registration of WULA) (Figure 1, Table 1). A broader project scope view entails supporting the planning management level assessment, analysis and design of the Lanquedoc bridge, assessment and upgrade of existing access road to Lanquedoc and assessment of additional transportation feasibility opportunities and identifying any constraints to any additional increased access linkages in the related surroundings (Kylemore and possibilities for additional NMT route access to the R310). The additional associative service also includes supporting the related environmental impact assessment (EIA) applications where required.

Figure 1: From EIA NID, Digitised Google Earth Map of the proposed development site with proposed road realignment upgrade, New Bridge Development and Refurbishment of Existing River Bridge

1 Table 1: WULA Application General Information

Application Name Lanquedoc Access Road and Dwars (Banghoek) River Bridge Construction and Upgrades

DWS CMA WULA Application Case WU14709 Reference

Sector Government

Activity Road and bridge construction crossing river

Catchment Management and Quaternary G10C Ref

The proposed development is subject to the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) compliance qualification needs and water use due diligence confirmations with respect to engaging in potential and contemplated water uses defined in Section 21 of the National Water Act (NWA) (No 36 of 1998) (i.e. site landscape development, associated watercourse modification, stormwater modification); and concerning where relevant other associated requirements and use compliances of the National Water Act (NWA)(No 36 of 1998). Consideration applies to whether NWA Section 21 (c) and/or (i) may be regarded to require registration and for which approval ambit authorisation may suitably permit water use associated with the proposed development water use activity (i.e. general authorisation or specific conditions as a full water license).

The proposed development is also subject to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) Environmental Impact Assessment process with respect to relevant listing notice triggers, which is a process that is integrated within the broader project planning process, in current. The EIA process is a mechanism used to regulate the impact of development activities, in accordance with the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998) EIA Regulations which gives effect to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (such as Environmental Rights).

2 1.2 Development Proposal and Defined Water Use Context

As indicated in the previous sub-section, the proposed development proposal entails the development and upgrading of the Lanquedoc Access Road, with the specific water use focus associated to the upgrading of existing river bridge and proposed additional bridge construction adjacent to the existing bridge (upgrade to include NMT) (See following sub- section images and table).

As indicated in Table 1, the proposed project is located within quaternary catchment G10C, and is currently in its final planning implementation design and management phase. The water use scope entails undertaking of water use activity as contemplated for in section 21 (c) and (i) of the National Water Act (36 of 1998). The activity will be limited to proximity with existing associative structures (i.e. existing Lanquedoc road bridge crossing) and will encompass establishing an additional access road bridge crossing the Dwars-Banghoek River adjacent to the existing access bridge. Further the existing access bridge will thus be refurbished in process and upgraded along with provision of peri-urban integration services (inclusion of dual

3 NMT, upgrading of existing road). From a planning level input integration perspective the development on watercourse banks will also include erosion protection to aid bank stability, structural reinforcement to mitigate against negative flow related effects. Other mitigation aspects includes vegetation rehabilitation which further aids or improves watercourse functional and structural integrity.

Table 2: Proposed NWA S21(c) and (i) water use registration

Water Use Activity Water Resource Bridge Works Co-ordinates Applicant Type Estimate (ha) Stellenbosch Road and Bridge River 3 33⁰53’20.10”S Municipality Upgrades and (Dwars/Banghoek) 18⁰58’09.26”E Construction

In general the ultimate purpose of the project relates to significant service improvements in transport capacity concerning the Lanquedoc township and associated locality, greater socio- economic access and greater regional integration, amongst other.

Figure 3: Proposed development Associated Water Use Scope Summary

Figure 4: Digitised Google Earth Image of the proposed water use site and surrounding area

5 Figure 5: Images of the existing river bridge or water use activity point

6 1.3 Study Aims

The primary aim of this study is to provide a high confidence aquatic status quo reference concerning aquatic features found in the proposed development site and affected by the proposed development activity (surrounding and downstream receiving catchment). The reference provision include suitable catchment water resource classification and characterisation which delineates for affected receiving water resource status quos with respect to its resource quality, present ecological state determination, importance and sensitivity, where relevant and to inform and guide responsible water use and to satisfy information requirements associated with related environmental policy compliance considerations, such as determining risks to receiving watercourse resource quality affected by the proposed development (Department of Water and Sanitation; and Department of Environmental Affairs).

This study thus serve to support in providing for supplementary information needs required for water use compliance considerations in terms of site watercourse resource quality characteristics with respect to informing for contemplated NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) watercourse water use registration and authorisation aspects (DWS Risk Matrix). The study also provides for EIA consideration where required.

1.4 Assumptions and Limitations

Limitations and uncertainties often exist with the application of various techniques adopted to assess ecosystem status quo and its aspects. The following techniques and methodology was utilised to undertake this study:

 Screening of ecological and biotic environments was undertaken using the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) endorsed South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) biodiversity screening tools ( SANBI BGIS – www.gis.sanbi.org);  Catchment characterisation data was sourced from professional studies relevant to the area (Topo Maps, Ortho Photos, DWS RDM and infrastructure planning information)  Verification of the freshwater ecosystems was undertaken according to nationally developed methodologies as defined by DWS and/or DEA; o Water resource status quo assessment provision was undertaken using the nationally developed and endorsed River-Health (RHP) and other RDM indices for determination of Present Ecological States (PES) as well as by making use of studies relevant to the study area

7 o Utilisation of historic imagery from the National GeoSpatial Information System of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform as well as the Department of Agriculture (Cape Farm Mapper) and Google Earth Timeline o Water resources were delineated according to DWS approved delineation guidelines o The proposed project is informed by water resource modelling within the engineering planning context (Bridge Design) Recommendations are based on experience, professional opinion, industry standards and best practise within South Africa.

1.5 Applicable Legislation Context The proposed project major guiding policy framework are informed by the National Spatial Development Perspective, the National Water Act, and the National Environmental Management suite of Acts, as well as relevant regional and municipal policies (EMF and IDP). The following Acts, policy guidelines and regulations apply, amongst others:  Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)  National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)(NEMA) and related SEMA’s  National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)(NWA) o The proposed project may trigger water uses as defined by NWA S21 and may require registration and authorisation such as for NWA S21(c) and (i) activities should development effect watercourses or be within regulatory floodline or riparian zones (DWA 2013)  National Water Resource Management Strategy I (2004) & II (2013) (NWRMS)  Berg Water Management Area Catchment Management Strategy (prioritised for gazetting)

1.6 Approach The standard approach to compile a medium to high confidence aquatic qualification report involves three key assessment phases, namely, a desktop situation assessment, a groundtruth status quo validation assessment, and a synthesis contextualising risk consideration to the proposed development use’s potential impact on the determined and perceived status quo of the receiving water environment’s ecosystem, in terms of its resource quality and associated sensitivities for management consideration, ideally to maintain suitably classified ecological resource class references and targets and to inform or align catchment management objectives and perspectives (Figure 6, Figure 7 and Table 3).

8 1.7 Report Use

This report reflects the professional judgment of its author. Any summary of these findings should only be produced in consultation with the author and cited accordingly. This report may be used to qualify policy compliance related to relevant water resource subject addressed as part of this study (i.e. processing of water use information for section 21 (c) & (i) water use qualifications for confirmation of General Authorisation ambits (GA) or WULA conditions, amongst others - EIA).

Table 3: Risk Framework concept for water use conditions development and consideration Risk Matrix Framework Risk confidence Resource quality Compliance requirements Impact significance Resource sensitivity Development costs Impact mitigation efficiency Resource importance Development benefits

9 Determine EIS

Have the river changed from REFERENCE CONDITIONS due to anthropogenic influences? yes no

How much has the conditions changed? Ecological Category A PES PES: EC A - F

Are they still changing? TREND

What caused the changes? CAUSES

What are the origins of the causes? SOURCES

Considering the EIS and the PES is it important / realistic to improve the conditions?

IMPROVE MAINTAIN

Determine a realistically- attainable Recommended Ecological Category

Determine the range of Ecological Categories to be assessed Figure 6: Wetlands Delineation Guideline to the left and Status Quo to the right (DWAF 1999, DWAF 2005 and 2008)

Figure 7: Watercourse characteristics in terms of resource quality from DWS Impact and Risk Assessment Matrix Training Presentation (Dr Wietsche Roets 2015)

10 2. Desktop Assessment

2.1 General Hydrological Setting and Aquatic Characterisation

The study area falls within the quaternary catchment G10C, which encompasses the study watercourse Dwars River Catchment, extending from the Groot Drakenstein Mountain watershed complex at some 1400m in height, dropping significantly to its confluence into the Berg River at about 200m elevation (study site valley elevation at about 270m) and with the broader quaternary catchment area ending in the far downstream Paarl vicinity, comprising a run of about 40km in length (see following image). The quaternary is thus considered regionally significant with rural mountain reserves and agricultural agrarian land use theme and with some urban pockets and significant township development nodes (Kylemore- Lanquedoc-Pniel-Paarl).

As with most areas in South Africa, the broad catchment water use history dates back to the pre-colonial era where “khoisan” tribes were known to have first settled and utilised the region as grazing pastures. The study site in specific has a rich settler history as the impact of colonisation and slavery contributes significantly to local heritage from which the local townships has established into recent times (Rhodes Anglo fruit farming practise). Land use and development pressures and impacts have thus characterised the study site and region significantly modifying the receiving Dwars River Catchment for the past 400 years.

11 Figure 8: Cropped digitised google earth image of the receiving quaternary catchment G10C with an indication of catchment water resource geography

Aquatic screening investigations revealed that the receiving catchment watercourse is regarded as moderately to highly modified from its natural reference state. The watercourse is also regarded as sensitive in terms of it being associated to fall within a freshwater fish priority area (Phase 2 FEPA and fish support area) which may be potentially important to support sustainable conservation of indigenous freshwater fish biota and related dependencies and associated taxa (i.e. fish and/or amphibians). As with most “cape” watercourses, the site watercourse is also identified as an Ecological Support Area (ESAs), which is classified for management purposes to be maintained such that they can continue to support ecosystem functions such as in the case of stream supporting the migration of biota between mountain catchments and the lower lying river valleys. Caution dictates that proposed development must be mindful and ensure against undue harm to freshwater fish habitat as far as possible, keep disturbance controlled and minimal within the water use activity zone and not to impede fish or amphibian migratory pathways especially during breeding seasons.

Due to the setting of the site receiving watercourse being located in a significant valley run and with the river being geomorphologically dynamic comprising of a cobblebed, the proposed development should also consider erosion as a natural significant element of the receiving ecosystem increasing its sensitivity status.

Overall the desktop resource quality status quos for the receiving affected watercourse Banghoek / Dwars River in terms of its present ecological status quo (PES) and ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS) indicated that the river is classified within a moderately modified ecological condition but of high importance and sensitivity. See following table and sub-section illustrations.

Table 4: PES Summary for the Dwars River (project site situated between lower and upper Dwars)

PES index Desired State Riparian Zone Instream Zone Upper Dwars Good Good Natural Lower Dwars Fair Poor Fair

12 The following figures are excerpts taken from the Department of Water and Sanitation recent River Health Monitoring Technical Report, indicating site Dwars River SASS5 results falling within the proposed development site river reach (DWS 2014, unpubl.).

13 G1DWAR-KYLEM SASS5 G1DWAR-KYLEM ASPT 160 8 140 7 120 6 100 5 80 4 60 3 40 2 20 1 0 0

Figure 9: Dwars River SASS5 results National Rivers Database excerpts from RHP activities dating to 2014 survey at Kylemore upstream of study site

G1DWAR-RHODE SASS5 G1DWAR-RHODE ASPT 120 8 100 6 80

60 4

40 2 20 0 0

Figure 10: Dwars River SASS5 results National Rivers Database excerpts from RHP activities dating to 2014 survey within study site near downstream proximity

14 This desktop classification synthesis of the state of the river using macroinvertebrates indicator references is based on SASS data interpretation guidelines that were generated from historic SASS data that was grouped into ecoregions and geomorphological zones. The SASS5 results from site level assessments upstream (Kylemore) and downstream (Rhodes) of the proposed development site indicates that the site generally falls within the D-ecological band which equate and links to a D-ecological category in terms of the DWS National River Health Programme present ecological state condition status (PES) (See following image). The site level results indicates a class variance from the broader catchment level PES classification where the catchment was classified as falling within a C-ecological category in terms of its PES (National PES 2010 survey), whereas the ongoing SASS5 database results indicates a gradual decline in SASS5 score in terms of its average score per taxa (ASPT) over the past 20 to 30 years, which implies from an ecosystem perspective that the overall river condition is deteriorating from a moderately modified class towards a largely modified class.

The following subsection tables and figures includes additional broad catchment characteristics references relevant to the site catchment situation.

15 Figure 12: Digitised Google Earth image representing the updated PES 2010 DWS assessment for the catchment (study site in red circle). Note that PES classed as a C-category (moderately modified) whereas the recent SASS5 results may be classed in a D-category (largely modified).

16 Figure 13: Demarcated Biodiversity Priority Areas Map for the study site (portions of the river is delineated as CBA as well as an Ecological Support Area - ESA)

17 Table 5:DWS Updated PES 2010 summary for the sub-quaternary catchment comprising the study site (Sourced DWS RDM information)

Figure 14: National Freshwater Ecological Areas Map for the study area – red dot (SANBI BGIS 2018)(demarcated to fall within a Phase 2 FEPA – biota conservation support zone).

19 Figure 15: Stormwater Flow Accumulation Model for the study area 20 Figure 16: Crop Senses Map for the study area 21 2.2 Initial Screening Level Water Use Risk context

As part of this study the screening level information was used to inform and provide initial project design input and consideration from an aquatic resource quality management perspective and in respect to resource directed measures (i.e. project area located in a potential fish management zone and should accommodate biota migratory or breeding habitat where available) during several planning level meetings with the project team at RHDHV offices, as part of ongoing progress meetings and interim project reporting platform.

Aquatic screening investigations characterises the catchment as sensitive in terms of being associated to fall within a freshwater fish priority area (Phase 2 FEPA and fish support area) regarded as potentially important to sustainable conservation of indigenous freshwater fish biota and related important taxa (also delineated as a ESA). The river catchment is also regarded as a priority ecological support area. Caution dictates that proposed development must be mindful and ensure against undue harm to freshwater fish habitat as far as possible, keep disturbance controlled and minimal within the water use activity zone and not to impede fish or amphibian migratory pathways especially during breeding seasons. Similarly instream biota such as invertebrates and avifauna habitat should not be disturbed as far as possible and make allowances for habitat and migratory pathways to be conserved during construction periods as far as possible concerning temporary flow diversions or flow alterations as required.

The receiving site watercourse Banghoek or Dwars River is appreciated to be a regionally significant water resource, generally comprising of modest and relaxed flow in appearance but also seasonally known for its moderately dynamic nature of flooding which often has a high alluvial and erosion association. As indicated water resource importance is emphasised as a possible priority ecological support area or ecological corridor forming natural ecosystem infrastructure elements associated with the fabric of the receiving fynbos ecosystem which is considered as a very important ecosystem in general.

From an existing disturbance and land use pressures perspective, the desktop study has identified that the receiving watercourse and broader catchment area has been significantly modified over the past 400 years to its current day transformed status quo. Disturbances considered as natural to the receiving watercourse regime is largely related to the rivers natural sediment deposition and accretion behaviour which as indicated is largely naturally alluvial and erosive in nature.

22 Impacts from past development such as overgrazing and broad agriculture related is a common theme to the region which includes: • alien vegetation invasion • alien fish invasion • damming of tributaries • straightening of channels • modification and re-shaping of river banks • past river works such as the installation of the existing river bridge and other river crossing • anti-erosion watercouse bank stabilisation works • agricultural runoff impairing watercourse water quality (i.e. ingress of fertilisers) • floodplain agriculture

Other existing disturbance pressures and impacts found within the catchment and associated with the transformation of the receiving site watercourse relates to: • waste water treatment works discharge • urban livelihood influence or direct human use (i.e. recreational) • inter-basin transfers • additional agricultural enterprise to existing floodplain erven • erosion induced from existing alien vegetation infestation and poor eradication practise

As indicated the project and bridge structure design planning undertaken supports for incorporation of risk management factors such as with the above required and in practice service as well as a benchmark to infer for additional risk mitigation needs (i.e. current Geotech study informing for structure efficiency, implementing controlled flow diversions as required). Watercourse resource quality risk factors and possible impacts associated to the water use activity and resource quality study currently being undertaken and identified include:  water quality impairment  A temporary impedance and/or diversion of flow (flow modification) during construction activities.  Limited disturbance of freshwater related habitats at the construction sites and possibly for a short distance downstream of the structures.  Limited alteration of watercourse habitat, bed and banks  Limited loss of biodiversity  Erosion risk to watercourse  Increased levels of sedimentation

23 The nuisance impacts of alien vegetation invasion and its residence in the river channel as well as the effect of past catchment land use to the riparian zone of the river supports for a higher degree vulnerability status quo to flow or flood related risks and impacts.

Social needs and desirability, services level upgrade provision, access modernisation and integration benefits are regarded as some of the positive impact scopes framing the water use response.

24 3. Ground-truth Investigation

3.1 Site Habitat Description

Figure 17:Images taken at the receiving Dwars River proposed development site, depicting an alien vegetation infested riparian zone and good instream cobblebed habitat

25 Site ground-truth investigations were undertaken during 4 site visits with the most recent site survey being undertaken during January 2020. It must be noted that the site habitat has changed during the project investigation period and that site assessments were conducted between the recent past wet and dry seasons. The most notable change in the appearance of the study site was associated with evidence of erosion of the watercourse from past seasonal flooding and associated with alien tree eradication practise having been undertaken in the catchment area (i.e. W4W).

Figure 18: Photograph of watercourse riparian zone alien tree eradication and overgrowth of grassy weed appearance (view downstream from bridge site)

26 Figure 19: Photograph of watercourse active stream channel overgrown by grassy weeds (view downstream from bridge site)

27 Figure 21: Photographs of riparian zone infested with alien vegetation (red sesbania, wattle, castor oil, river gums, oaks and bramble) recruiting within riparian zone alongside remnant surviving indigenous vegetation populations of wild almond, riverine karee, palmiet and common sedge species such as juncus and other cyperaceae

28 Figure 22: Photograph of the receiving site watercourse instream habitat

29 3.1.1 Site Watercourse Description

The site receiving Dwars River watercourse as presented in this report is regarded to fall within a middle reach valley setting characterised by recharge and geology of the Groot Drakenstein Mountain watershed complex and comprising embankments of significant alluvial floodplain deposits on its flood bench which forms part of the extensive Dwars River macrochannel. Over the recent past centuries this macro-channel deposits has generally been utilised for its fertile soil in agriculture practise which has resulted in a present day riparian zone that is now only limited to the active river banks. The Dwars River is also fed by foothill first and second order streams (i.e. surrounding farm dams) as well as receiving recharge from the waste water treatment works about 2km upstream of the proposed development site.

From a geomorphological perspective the receiving Dwars River comprises typical fynbos ecosystem river elements and habitat which is largely related to surrounding catchment mountain erosion and transportation of mountain vegetation with boulder, cobble and sand sediment down the catchments run over time. In general the river can be described as a cobblebed that is associated with sandstone from a sediment transport perspective and with possible bedrock granite influence (clays and muds) which overall increases the dynamics of the stream geomorphology and alludes to possible additional spring recharge via the river bed along fault lines.

Habitats found present during the site investigation assessments were in general monotonous stream hydrology runs over cobble stone loosely embedded with gravelsands. These run habitats comprise untwisted gently meandering sections of river wherein the prevailing hydrology flow as sheet flow and depending on the water level results in ripple-riffle habitat sequence of low to medium sinuosity oxygenating the water. Besides cobblebed runs, the river habitat contains sparsely distributed shallow pools resulting from past bed and bank erosion, known as eddies or where in its foothill reaches one commonly find deeper bedrock pools known as “kuils” wherein fish find refugia and overhanging vegetation supporting habitat. Other substrate distributed habitats include lee, sidepools, backwater habitats (gravel- sand-muds) and sediment islands geomorphological deposits.

River water quality appeared good in terms of its clarity and visibility with some moderately levels of turbidity. During the assessment period the river flow observed were in general comprising a moderately slow flow, well above base flow level during dry summer periods and with good to moderately higher flows during the wet winter season. See following sub-section images and table for additional site watercourse information.

30 Figure 23: Cross section of the Dwars River Macro-channel (See Engineering Plans for detail)

Table 6: Channel characteristics of the study site Dwars River during sampling assessment

Active channel width 6m low flow (10m to 20m when moderate to high flow) Bank full width 20m-25m Active channel depth 0.5m Channel depth 4-6m Average flow (cubic 0.02 - 0.2 (Summer high flows of 1-3cms) meters per second - 0.02- 0.4 (Autumn high flows of 1-3 c-m-s) cms) 0.5-1.5 (Winter high flows of 4 to 12 c-m-s) 0.5-0.9 (Spring high flows of 4 c-m-s) Water quality Good clarity somewhat turbid with presence of algae Channel sediment Cobble stone with loosely embedded gravel and sands types Habitats present Shallow pool and run, with and without reeds Riparian zone extent Left-hand wetbank = 10, Dry bank = 20m Right-hand wetbank = 20m, Dry bank = 70m Macrochannel width 100m average Fauna present Invertebrates and Cape galaxia indegenous fish was sighted in the river. However turbidity levels are indicative of good alien fish habitat (bass and trout) Vegetation quality Low to medium vegetation quality High degree of alien vegetation Low degree of natural indigenous vegetation Low degree of vegetation structure distribution and zonation Good representation of vegetation types

31 3.1.2 Study Site Biota

The distribution of a plant and animal communities, the assemblages of biota in watercourses are regarded as fundamentally important to the goods, services and functionality of the river ecosystem. Most animal communities and few plants are adapted to live in specific habitats such as river systems and some not found outside those habitats. Habitat varieties in and out of a river system increases the possibility for variety of plant and animal species assemblages to be found in the watercourse. Similarly levels of disturbances to the river system, its frequency and intensity shape habitat and build resilience to species able to adapt to the varying watercourse environment, those species which are able to adapt. Further availability and diversity of habitats are improved with responding aquatic community structure. A variety of factors, both physical and biological, combine to influence the distribution of species within a river or stream. These factors broadly fall into four categories which are; the presence of water, flow condition, substratum type, and the presence of vegetation or organic material and presence of other animals or human use influence (anthropogenic).

Riparian vegetation is defined as the vegetation on land that adjoins and directly influences or is influenced by a body of water. Ecosystem patterns, geomorphic dependencies and inter- dependencies, energy budget further characterises the overall watercourse flow regime (i.e. channel incision, flood relations, alluvial deposits, weathering of stone). These diverse habitats result in particular or peculiar riparian biota taxa which can be described as obligate, preferential, facultative and then as non-riparian species.

It must be noted that changes in the structural or functional characteristics of riparian vegetation is commonly an indicative of changes in flow regime of a river, exploitation for fuel (wood), or the use of riparian zone for grazing and/or ploughing changes in size of vegetated area, shifts in species richness and composition of vegetation, infestation of exotics or terrestrial species, decreased grass cover and increased erosion, changes in tree canopy characteristics and encroachment of reeds. The woody component of the vegetation is also regarded to provide a good indication or reflection of the long-term ecological integrity of the riparian vegetation.

In general, the receiving watercourse vegetation type may be regarded as Swartland Alluvium Fynbos ecosystem based. From a riparian vegetation perspective the receiving site watercourse riparian vegetation can be described in 3 distinct zones, namely marginal zone, lower bank (wet) zone and upper bank (dry) zone.

32 Dwars River Marginal Zone (1-3m from water edge):

This zone includes the aquatic instream vegetation zone to the stream bank margin or stream water edge zone. Vegetation structure was limited to instream alluvial island deposits comprising indegenous wild almond and aquatic sedge and reed species Juncus sp., Cyperus spp. and the horsetail restio (Elegia capensis). The reference distribution of sedge species in the marginal zone should occupy a moderate some of continuous or clumped reed and sedge species pattern but was rather found in low scattered and spars distribution during the assessment period.

Dwars River Wetbank (Lower bank) Zone (from margin zone to 10m on the left hand bank and from margin zone to 20m on right hand bank):

Key riparian tree indicator species for the receiving watercourse and found within this wetbank zone includes the wild almond (Brabejum stellatifolium), Cape gum (Metrosideros angustifolia) and willow karee (Searsia angustifolia) , wild peach (Kiggelaria Africana), Cape holly (Ilex mitis), blueberry bush (Diospyros glabra) and wild olive (Olea europaea subsp. Africana). These vegetation are regarded as important riparian vegetation of functionality value in terms of channel flow relations, bank stability and energy budget provision of organics to the river ecosystem (fauna).

These vegetation has however been largely replaced by alien tree species such as English oak (Quercus sp.) and river poplars (Populus sp.), River gum (Eucalyptus spp.), blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon), black wattle (A. mearnsii) and Port Jackson willows (A. saligna). Further the riparian wetbank has been used for agriculture practise over the past centuries and resulted weedy grasses, forbs and turf now replacing a significant portion of the upper wetbank zone.

Dwars River Drybank (Upper bank) Zone (10m from left hand bank and up to 30m from left hand bank, and 20m from right hand bank up to 50m from right hand bank):

Site indigenous vegetation comprises a scattered distribution weakly represented amongst monotonous and continuously distributed mature grass field supported by herbaceous perennial ornamental escapees, weeds and problematic plants and appearing under higher disturbance pressure closer to site pathways and human use zones.

No significant fauna was found during the site visits, however common ecosystem fauna are expected to occur and transverse the site open space. No frogs were heard during site visits but are known to occur within this catchment and is expected that these ecological linkages remain in the landscape (i.e. fauna peak breeding or migratory seasons).

33 The following indicator vegetation were noted during site assessment (See attached specialist biodiversity report for additional botanical information):

• Acacia longifolia • Kiggelaria africana • Avena barbata • Nasturtium officinale • Cynodon dactylon • Pennisetum clandestinum • Brabejum stellatifolium • Populus spp. • Briza maxima • Prionium serratum • Carpobrotus edulis • Pteridium aquilinum • Cyperus spp. • Ricinus communis • Cynodon dactylon • Quercus rubur • Diospyros glabra • Searsia angustifolia • Echium plantagineum • Sesbania punicea • Elegia capensis • Solanum mauritanica • Eucalyptus sp. • Typha capensis • Ilex mitis • Virgilia oroboides • Juncus kraussii • Zantedeschia aethiopica

34 Table 7: List of Fauna found during site assessment and expected within catchment proximity

Inveterbrates family Mayflies: baetidae> 2 sp caenidae heptageniidae leptophlebiidae teloganodidae coenagrionidae taxa Dragonflies: aeshnidae gomphidae libellulidae Beetles: corixidae dytiscidae elmidae/dryopidae gyrinidae hydraenidae Bugs: gerridae notonectidae Spiders: veliidae/mesoveliidae Caddisfly: hydropsychidae> 2 sp, leptoceridae Midge: chironomidae Mosquito: culicidae muscidae Other Flies: athericidae simuliidae tipulidae Worms: turbellaria oligochaeta potamonautidae Mites: hydracarina Snails: ancylidae physidae no high sensitivity taxa found such as stonefly nymphs Amphibians Giant Rain Frog (Breviceps gibbosus), Cape Dainty Frog (Cacosternum capense) and Landdros moss frog (Arthroleptella landdrosia) are expected to occur and regarded as conservation important. Fish Cape galaxia (Galaxia zebratus) found at site Cape kurper (Sandelia capensis) and Berg River redfin (Pseudobarbus burgi) found upstream. These 3 species are regarded as indigenous and conservation important. Presence of Rainbow trout (Onocorhynchus mykiss) which is an alien fish and potentially with alien bass fish

35 3.2 Study Site Aquatic Features Condition Context Synthesis / Site Watercourse Resource Quality (PES) Site watercourse resource quality is further synthesised in this subsection to provide additional resolution on desktop and groundtruth assessments undertaken in this study by way of ecoclassification process as promoted in DWS Resource Directed Measures (RDM) and NWA IWRM resource management tools.

3.2.1 Study Site Dwars River Index of Habitat Integrity (IHI) Status Quo The evaluation of Habitat Integrity (HI) provides a measure of the degree to which a river has been modified from its natural state. The methodology (DWAF, 1999) involves a qualitative assessment of the number and severity of anthropogenic perturbations on a river and the damage they potentially inflict upon the system. These disturbances include both abiotic and biotic factors, which are regarded as the primary causes of degradation of a river. The severity of each impact is ranked using a six-point scale with 25 (no impact), 21 to 24 (small impact), 16 to 20 (moderate impact), 11 to 15 (large impact), 6 to 10 (serious impact) and 0 to 5 (critical impact).

The Habitat Integrity Assessment is based on assessment of the impacts of two components of the river, the riparian zone and the instream habitat. Assessments are made separately for both components, but data for the riparian zone are interpreted primarily in terms of the potential impact on the instream component. The estimated impact of each criterion is calculated as follows:

Rating for the criterion/maximum value (25) x weight (percent)

The estimated impacts of all criteria calculated in this way are summed, expressed as a percentage and subtracted from 100 to arrive at an assessment of habitat integrity for the instream and riparian components respectively. The total scores for the instream and riparian zone components are then used to place the habitat integrity of both in a specific habitat category (Table below).

Table 8: Department of Water and Sanitation River Health Categories

Category Ecological Perspective Management Perspective Natural (N) No or negligible modification Relatively little human impact Good (G) Biodiversity and integrity largely intact Some human-related disturbance but ecosystems essentially in a good state Fair (F) Sensitive species may be lost, with tolerant Multiple disturbances associated with the or opportunistic species dominating need for socio-economic development Poor (P) Mostly tolerant species; alien invasion, High human densities or extensive disrupted population dynamics; species are resource exploitation often diseased

36 Table 9: Dwars River watercourse Habitat Integrity Model Assessment

INSTREAM Rating Weight Score Comment HABITAT INTEGRITY INSTREAM ASSESSMENT Water Abstraction 15 14 8.4 upstream farm dams of tributaries and direct (Impact 1 - 25) abstraction Flow Modification 15 13 7.8 significant urban stormwater and WWTW recharge as ( (Impact 1 - 25) well as IBTs Bed Modification 15 13 7.8 various river crossings associated bedrock (Impact 1 - 25) instatement, cobble and gravel associated channel straightening Channel 12 13 6.24 significant portions of river has been altered with Modification channel straightening (Impact 1 - 25) Water Quality 15 14 8.4 significant urban stormwater and WWTW recharge, (Impact 1 - 25) agriculture fertilizer Inundation (Impact 15 10 6 monotonous channelled grass overgrowth, backwater 1 - 25) pools Exotic Macrophytes 15 9 5.4 presence of algae (Impact 1 - 25) Exotic Fauna 12 8 3.84 catchment contains alien fish alongside indigenous (Impact 1 - 25) spp. Rubbish Dumping 15 6 3.6 thoroughfare use related, vagrant use (Impact 1 - 25) Instream 100 57.48 Habitat Integrity Score Class D Largely modified condition. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred. RIPARIAN ZONE ASSESSMENT Vegetation Removal 8 13 4.16 previous floodplain farming and agricultural use (Impact 1 - 25) Exotic Vegetation 10 12 4.8 riparian zone has significant alien vegetation (Impact 1 - 25) occupation impact Bank Erosion 15 10 6 banks are vulnerable to erosion with limited suitable (Impact 1 - 25) riparian vegetation. Alien clearing has further compromised bank stability. Channel 12 13 6.24 see above Modification (Impact 1 - 25) Water Abstraction 12 13 6.72 see above (Impact 1 - 25) Inundation (Impact 12 11 5.28 see above 1 - 25) Flow Modification 15 14 8.4 see above (Impact 1 - 25) Water Quality 15 13 7.8 see above (Impact 1 - 25) Riparian Zone 100 49.4 Habitat Integrity Score Integrity Class D Largely modified condition. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred.

37 Table 10: Habitat Integrity Categories (DWAF 1999)

SCORE (% CATEGORY DESCRIPTION OF TOTAL)

A Unmodified, natural. 90-100

Largely natural with few modifications. A small change in natural B habitats and biota may have taken place but the ecosystem 80-90 functions are essentially unchanged.

Moderately modified. A loss and change of natural habitat and biota C have occurred but the basic ecosystem functions are still 60-79 predominantly unchanged.

Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic D 40-59 ecosystem functions has occurred.

E The extensive loss of natural habitat, biota and ecosystem functions 20-39

Modifications have reached a critical level and the lotic system has F been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural 0 habitat and biota. In worst instances, changes are irreversible.

38 3.2.2 Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) EIS considers a number of biotic and habitat determinants surmised to indicate either importance or sensitivity. The determinants are rated according to a four-point scale. The median of the resultant score is calculated to derive the EIS category.

Table 11: Definition of the four-point scale used to assess biotic and habitat determinants presumed to indicate either importance or sensitivity

Four point Definition scale

1 One species/taxon judged as rare or endangered at a local scale.

2 More than one species/taxon judged to be rare or endangered on a local scale.

3 One or more species/taxon judged to be rare or endangered on a Provincial/regional scale.

4 One or more species/taxon judged as rare or endangered on a National scale (i.e. SA Red Data Books)

Table 12: Ecological importance and sensitivity categories (DWAF, 1999)

EISC General description Range of median Very high Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national and >3-4 international level based on unique biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are usually very sensitive to flow modifications and have no or only a small capacity for use.

High Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a national >2-3 scale based on their biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) may be sensitive to flow modifications but in some cases may have substantial capacity for use.

Moderate Quaternaries/delineations that are considered to be unique on a provincial or >1-2 local scale due to biodiversity (habitat diversity, species diversity, unique species, rare and endangered species). These rivers (in terms of biota and habitat) are not usually very sensitive to flow modifications and often have substantial capacity for use. Low/ Quaternaries/delineations that are not unique on any scale. These rivers (in 1 terms of biota and habitat) are generally not very sensitive to flow marginal modifications and usually have substantial capacity for use.

39 Table 13: Results of EIS assessment for the Study Site receiving Dwars River watercourse

BIOTIC DETERMINANTS Score

Rare and endangered biota 3

Unique biota 2

Intolerant biota 1

Species/taxon richness 3

AQUATIC HABITAT DETERMINANTS

Diversity of aquatic habitat types or features 2.5

Refuge value of habitat type 2.5

Sensitivity of habitat to flow changes 2 Sensitivity of flow related water quality changes 2

Migration route/corridor for instream and riparian biota 3

Nature Reserves, Natural Heritage sites, Natural areas, PNEs 3

RATINGS 3

40 3.2.3 Site PES Ground-truth Summary

The study site receiving watercourse, the Dwars River (Banghoek) watercourse, is regarded as the major aquatic ecosystem feature associated with the study site (bridge construction over river). This study synthesis can confirm from a present ecological state (PES) perspective by way of Habitat Integrity (IHI) model and the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EI&S) model, that the river ecosystem is indeed transformed significantly from its natural reference state in many degrees. The river ecosystem condition is regarded to be classed as largely modified from its natural reference state, falling within a D-ecological category which implies that a large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred. Further the catchment importance and sensitivity can be confirmed as of high importance and high sensitivity and from a management perspective will require mindful development which may not further degrade the river system beyond its existing low ecological status quo and should attempt to improve the ecological condition of the river system as far as possible (Table 14).

The synthesis confirms and supports the existing desktop ecological status quo classification as the ecoclassification models were consistent and in range of the desktop findings, albeit that the significant impact of alien vegetation and past vegetation practise has further degraded the river system. Overall the river catchment reach trend is degrading from a C- ecological category to a D-ecological category.

Table 14: Study Site Dwars River Watercourse PES modelled using RDM IHI and EIS

PES Dwars River Watercourse SUMMARY Index of Habitat D-Ecological Category or Largely modified condition Integrity (IHI) A large loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem functions has occurred. Ecological Importance and Moderate to High EIS Sensitivity (EIS) Recommended Maintain and improve existing ecological status quo Ecological (FEPA and Ecological Support Area) Condition

41 4. Impact consideration and DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol provision 4.1 Impact Perspective As part of this study the screening level information was used to inform and provide initial project design input and consideration from an aquatic resource quality management perspective and in respect to resource directed measures (i.e. project area located in a potential fish management zone and should accommodate biota migratory or breeding habitat where available) and to ensure that the catchment sensitivity from a biotic and an extended sensitivity perspective is incorporated in the design planning (i.e. likely erosion vulnerability was captured and informed for during several planning level meetings with the project team at RHDHV offices), as part of ongoing progress meetings and interim project reporting platform.

From an aquatic ecological perspective caution dictates that the proposed development must be mindful and ensure against undue harm to freshwater fish habitat as far as possible, keep disturbance controlled and minimal within the water use activity zone and not to impede fish or amphibian migratory pathways especially during breeding seasons. Similarly instream biota such as invertebrates and natural remnant avifauna habitat (indigenous trees and reeds) should not be disturbed as far as possible and make allowances for habitat and migratory pathways to be conserved during construction periods as far as possible concerning temporary flow diversions or flow alterations as required. Further that where these ecological infrastructure and goods and services are impacted by the proposed development must be restored as far as possible and includes construction based rehabilitation be undertaken concurrent with the construction phase and enhanced during the operations maintenance phases (see EMPr and specialist botanical report).

42 considered as natural to the receiving watercourse regime is largely related to the rivers natural sediment deposition and accretion behaviour which as indicated is largely naturally alluvial and erosive by nature or sensitive. Past catchment pressures and increases in surrounding water uses has further deteriorated the sensitivity of the river integrity and results in the system being regarded as vulnerable.

Impacts from past development such as overgrazing and broad agriculture related is a common theme to the region which includes: • alien vegetation invasion • alien fish invasion • damming of tributaries • straightening of channels • modification and re-shaping of river banks • past river works such as the installation of the existing river bridge and other river crossing • anti-erosion watercouse bank stabilisation works • agricultural runoff impairing watercourse water quality (i.e. ingress of fertilisers) • floodplain agriculture

The identified proposed development related watercourse resource quality risk factors and possible impacts associated to the water use activity and resource quality study currently being undertaken and identified include:  water quality impairment  A temporary impedance and/or diversion of flow (flow modification) during construction activities.  Limited disturbance of freshwater related habitats at the construction sites and possibly for a short distance downstream of the structures. 43  Limited alteration of watercourse habitat, bed and banks  Limited loss of biodiversity  Erosion risk to watercourse  Increased levels of sedimentation

The nuisance impacts of alien vegetation invasion and its residence in the river channel as well as the effect of past catchment land use to the riparian zone of the river supports for a higher degree vulnerability status quo to flow or flood related risks and impacts. Social needs and desirability, services level upgrade provision, access modernisation and integration benefits are regarded as some of the positive impact scopes framing the water use response.

Localised proposed development related risks and potential impacts on the receiving site landscape and in particular specific to watercourse resource quality includes:

 Water quality impairment o Construction based runoff (stormwater) o Dust and turbidity increase o Increased risk of sedimentation o Accidental spillage  Water quantity modification o Impedance and diversion watercourse hydrology (stormwater flow modification) o Alteration of site stormwater situation o Increased risk of sedimentation o Increase risk in site watercourse bank and bed weathering and erosion  Habitat modification o Alteration of watercourse habitat from bridge pylons, earth works, bank infilling and reinstatement and related end use landscaping  Loss of biodiversity o Loss of watercourse biodiversity by site development preparation, clearence of vegetation, earth works, infilling and reinstatement

All risks and potential impacts identified are regarded as potentially significant if not managed against. The proposed development EIA, EMPR and related compliance management (ECO) must ensure that potential impacts are managed against with suitable oversight (Pr.Sci.Nat.) and mitigation. Further the conditions of water use authorisation must be adhered to.

Herewithin follows the provisioning of the DWS (2015) NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol (GN 509 in GG 40229 of 26 August 2016) (spreadsheet available in softcopy):

44 Table 15: Department of Water and Sanitation Impact and Risk Matrix Aspects and Models

Consequence = Severity + Spatial Scale + Duration Likelihood = Frequence of Activity + Frequency of Incident +Legal Issues + Detection Significance \ Risk = Consequence X Likelihood

Table 16: Department of Water and Sanitation Risk Matrix Rating Interpretation Guideline

45 46 Figure 24: Populated DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol (See attached electronic spreadsheet model)

47 Figure 25: DWS NWA Section 21 (c) and (i) water use Risk Assessment Protocol Guideline

48 4.2 Mitigation Perspective

In general, maintenance of a functional, near-natural state aquatic ecological environment is the ideal management goal to strive towards. Some habitat loss may be acceptable in the context of the catchment configuration and that no significant ecological priorities were found within the development footprint for the site receiving aquatic ecosystem, provided the underlying biodiversity objectives and ecological functioning are not compromised (migratory paths and links). All aquatic ecosystems must thus be appropriately buffered. Buffers must be provided for, such that they:

 are adequate for the protection of the ecosystem from the pressures identified above;  maintain the ecosystem in a desired or attainable ecological condition;  allow for future rehabilitation or restoration.

Invasive alien plants must be removed throughout the site and replaced with suitable indigenous vegetation towards the goal of establishing and maintaining a 10m wide vegetation buffer strip within the receiving riparian zone (wetbank zone). The 10m wide indigenous vegetation buffer strip ideal length should consider to include as far up to 50m upstream and 20m downstream of the proposed development area (as far as possible).

The following mitigation recommendations apply to offset the development impact and improve the ecological functioning of the receiving watercourse and thereby improve its resilience and fitness for use (ecological goods and services receiving from the ecological infrastructure:

 Site alien vegetation must be cleared and actively managed.  As far as possible, site revegetation should take place with natural indigenous vegetation characteristic to the ecosystem (cape pondweed, sedges, rushes, reeds, riparian shrubs and trees).  Site vegetation rehabilitation and restoration must be undertaken with the direct oversight of a SACNASP professional biodiversity practitioner, suitably experienced aquatic scientist or suitably experienced botanist.  Construction should take place outside of the rainy or wet season in order to limit undue sediment and debris pollution.

49  Construction must be limited during the early spring season to control against disturbing fish and amphibian migratory and breeding movement within the riparian zone and river causeway (mid-August to mid September months)  Stockpiling should be stored clearly mindful of potential erosion risk (i.e. soil stockpiles should be covered to prevent wind and rain erosion).  Use should be made of existing roads and work surfaces for heavy machinery and material storage, ensuring no undue site pollution  Ensure regular maintenance management of development and associated stormwater systems and discharge effects during and after significant stormwater events and periodically during dry seasons as required (i.e. obstacle blockage maintenance – pollutant traps).  Compliance with stormwater regulations and where possible implementation of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) policy or related where required  No treated sewage and or contaminated stormwater generated within the site should be discharged directly into the aquatic features (upstream WWTW);  Erosion and surface stormwater runoff effects should be managed with discharge dissipaters and related enhanced detention systems (off-channel detention wetlands).  Erosion risk to the proposed development must be managed against as far as possible which relates directly to structural stability and bank erosion protection and reinforcement works where required (embankment toes, river footholds, river bank and bed)  The proposed development site should comprise of natural elements as far as possible and guided by botanical and aquatic professional SACNASP input.  Regular water quality monitoring must be undertaken to manage against undue construction based sediment levels, increased turbidity and stormwater pollution resulting from the proposed development and operations (see water use authorisation conditions).

4.3 Cumulative Impact Perspective With effective implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the condition of the freshwater features within the site could be maintained at the desired level of ecosystem functioning (moderately modified ecostatus towards a fairly modified or less moderately modified ecological condition). This could be achieved by taking a more holistic view of the ecological condition of the freshwater features throughout the site and rehabilitating the degraded areas. In this regard, establishing a 10m wide indigenous vegetation buffer strip (ideal length of 50m upstream and 20m downstream) will aid in both improving the structural

50 integrity of the receiving watercourse and improve the erosion resilience of the receiving watercourse which is regarded as the major development based risk and impact (erosion). The other major development based risk is regarded to development requiring adopting an overall cautious approach with specific care to limit any impact to indigenous fish and amphibian migratory paths and in particular during the spring breeding season (i.e. ESA / FEPA).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The study undertaken informs for characteristics of the receiving site Dwars / Banghoek River watercourse, in terms of its resource quality, importance and sensitivity, as well as for managing potential development impacts and risks to effecting site and catchment level resource quality alteration.

Overall this aquatic study supports the proposed development for development approval.

According to the catchment management configuration classification determined the DWS (DWS 2018), the receiving study site catchment falls within a Class 2 Water Resource Class, which sets the catchment within a moderate utilisation zone in terms of water use management perspective and generally relates to maintenance of existing resource quality status quos above a poor ecological condition state. Further, a suitable resource quality objective or management goal for the study site receiving aquatic ecosystem may however be to achieve and maintain a fair ecological condition from the site current present day poor to highly modified ecological condition. This may be regarded as suitable mitigation against potential development impacts to the receiving site resource quality.

Figure 26: Catchment Water Resources Classes Definitions. Site falls within a Class 2 water resource class (DWS 2017) (See appendix)

51 Importantly confirmation for any contemplated and relevant water uses should be sought from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) Berg-Olifants Catchment Management Agency (CMA). Potential NWA S21 (c) & (i) water use registrations may apply under ambit of General Authorisation as the proposed development will not negatively alter the watercourse current ecosystem status beyond its existing status. In addition to ensure for mitigation suitability, the proposed development associated Environmental Management Programme must be updated and informed by this study undertaken and its findings and recommendations.

In general adherence to appropriate and general environmental controls is highly recommended for the proposed development as far as possible to ensure against significant negative impacts. Further compliance to the conditions of the water use authorisation will also improve the mitigation context for the proposed development undertaking.

As indicated, strict adherence and compliance to the proposed development’s Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) must be undertaken. The EMPr promote environmental management and avoid, minimise or compensate for potential adverse effects and promote conservation, mitigation and rehabilitation of environment affected and impacted by development activity and land use mismanagement (i.e. alien vegetation management, erosion). Activities that may result in significant adverse effects should be avoided where less environmentally harmful alternatives are available. Disposal or spillage of any material which would destroy or degrade ecosystems should be avoided as far as possible and mitigated as far as possible, cognisant of conservation and principles of sustainable development.

52 6. References

Department of Water Affairs. (2013). Guideline to regulate activities/developments affecting wetlands. First Edition. Pretoria

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1999). Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 3: River Ecosystems Version 1.0. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources, Pretoria, South Africa.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2005). A practical field procedure for identification and delineation of wetlands and riparian areas. Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (2008). Updated Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas, Pretoria.

Department of Water and Sanitation, South Africa. (2017). Determination of Water Resources Classes and Associated Resource Quality Objectives in the Berg Catchment: Status Quo Report. Project Number WP10987. DWS Report No: RDM/WMA9/00/CON/CLA/0516

SANBI BGIS (2014) National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas Atlas. South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI): Biodiversity Geographic Information System (BGIS). www.bgis.sanbi.org/nfepa/NFEPAmap.asp

53 7. Appendix DWS Water Resource Management Site Catchment Classification Configuration The study site falls within water resource management zone D8 which is associated with water resource class 2 indicative to moderate levels of utilisation (localised low level impacts allowed, but no significant negative effects which may cause mid to long term ecosystem change).

STUDY SITE LOCATION

Figure 27: Proposed Water Resource Classes for the Berg Catchment, Site Integrated Unit of Analysis zone is D8 and within a Water Resource Class 2 (DWS 2017)

54 Risk Rating Scales for EIA configuration

The potential environmental impacts associated with the project may be evaluated according to its nature, extent, duration, intensity, probability and significance of the impacts (Table 17), whereby:

1. Nature: A brief written statement of the environmental aspect being impacted upon by a particular action or activity.

2. Extent: The area over which the impact will be expressed. Typically, the severity and significance of an impact have different scales and as such bracketing ranges are often required. This is often useful during the detailed assessment phase of a project in terms of further defining the determined significance or intensity of an impact. For example, high at a local scale, but low at a regional scale;

3. Duration: Indicates what the lifetime of the impact will be;

4. Intensity: Describes whether an impact is destructive or benign;

5. Probability: Describes the likelihood of an impact actually occurring; and

6. Cumulative: In relation to an activity, means the impact of an activity that in itself may not be significant but may become significant when added to the existing sensitivity status quo and/or potential impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities or undertakings in the area contributing to an increased vulnerability factor.

7. Significance: Is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics. Significance is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical and time scale, and therefore indicates the level of mitigation required. The total number of points scored for each impact indicates the level of significance of the impact (see significance rating table – Table 18).

55 Table 17: Criteria to be used for the rating of risk CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

National (4) Regional (3) Local (2) Site (1)

EXTENT The whole of South Africa Provincial and parts of Within a radius of 2 km of Within the construction site neighbouring provinces the construction site

Permanent (4) Long-term (3) Medium-term (2) Short-term (1)

Mitigation either by man or The impact will continue or The impact will last for the The impact will either natural process will not last for the entire operational period of the construction disappear with mitigation or occur in such a way or in life of the development, but phase, where after it will be will be mitigated through DURATION such a time span that the will be mitigated by direct entirely negated natural process in a span impact can be considered human action or by natural shorter than the transient processes thereafter. The construction phase only class of impact which will be non-transitory

Very High (4) High (3) Moderate (2) Low (1)

Natural, cultural and social Natural, cultural and social Affected environment is Impact affects the INTENSITY functions and processes are functions and processes are altered, but natural, cultural environment in such a way altered to extent that they altered to extent that they and social functions and that natural, cultural and permanently cease temporarily cease processes continue albeit in social functions and a modified way processes are not affected

Definite (4) Highly Probable (3) Possible (2) Improbable (1) PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE Impact will certainly occur Most likely that the impact The impact may occur Likelihood of the impact will occur materialising is very low

56 Significance Scale

Significance is determined through a synthesis of impact characteristics (Table 18). Significance is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent and time scale, and therefore indicates the level of mitigation required. The total number of points scored for each impact summed indicates the level of significance of the impact.

This evaluation needs to be undertaken in the relevant context, as an impact can either be ecological or social, or both. The evaluation of the significance of an impact relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgment. For this reason, impacts of especially a social nature need to reflect the values of the affected society.

Table 18: The significance rating scale A low impact has no permanent impact of significance. Mitigation measures are Low impact feasible and are readily instituted as part of a standing design, construction or (4 – 6 points) operating procedure.

Medium impact Mitigation is possible with additional design and construction inputs. (7 – 9 points)

The design of the site may be affected. Mitigation and possible remediation are High impact needed during the construction and/or operational phases. The effects of the (10 – 12 points) impact may affect the broader environment.

Very high Permanent and important impacts. The design of the site may be affected. impact Intensive remediation is needed during construction and/or operational phases. (13 – 16 points) Any activity which results in a “very high impact” is likely to be a fatal flaw.

Status Denotes the perceived effect of the impact on the affected area.

Positive (+) Beneficial impact.

Negative (-) Deleterious or adverse impact.

Neutral (/) Impact is neither beneficial nor adverse.

57 Estimated Impact Ratings for EIA configuration

The major aquatic related impact groupings applies to the proposed developments and are assessed for the alternatives provided as part of the EIA requirements.

1. Aquatic biodiversity impairment – clearing of site works area vegetation (temporary impact) with site hard-surface development (bridge structure pylons and embankment stabilisation) 2. Aquatic habitat impairment – soil and sediment removal and infilling activities (as above and includes water quality related impacts – turbidity, erosion) 3. Alteration and loss of ecological processes – associate with channel modification, flow diversion and flow alteration (fish and amphibian breeding and migratory paths) (Site zoned as ESA – Ecological Support Area and is a support FEPA) 4. Cumulative impairment loss – full estimated development impact

Three alternative options for the proposed development is presented in the EIA report which also includes the additional No Go option, which implies that the existing status quo remains.

As indicated in this report the receiving site watercourse is regarded as a moderately to highly impacted watercourse in terms of its present state or ecological condition, is of regional importance and ecologically sensitive and is also naturally vulnerable to erosion. The current status quo indicates that the ecological condition of the watercourse has decreased over the past centuries catchment erosion vulnerability has also increased with past development taking its toll on the receiving watercourse, which now requires active management and intervention to improve and restore its ecological condition and overall value and integrity. The No Go status is thus not regarded as an ideal situation for the watercourse whereas an opportunity to upgrade the development configuration may present an opportunity to improve the watercourse structural integrity, stability and if rehabilitated with some success may result in an improved ecological condition in comparison to the existing watercourse ecological condition status quos.

Herewithin follows the impact and mitigation rating context rating for the EIA:

58 Alternative 1: Preferred alternative: Lanquedoc bridge (new, plus repurposed old) & road upgrade incl. stormwater

Table 19: Significance of impacts during planning, design & development phase (A1)(Construction Phase)

SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE PROBABILITY POTENTIAL INTENSIT RATING OF PROPOSED RATING OF EXTENT DURATION OF STATUS CONFIDENCE IMPACT Y IMPACTS (sum MITIGATION IMPACTS AFTER OCCURRENCE of factors) MITIGATION

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -6 low High Biodiversity rehabilitation

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -6 low High Habitat rehabilitation

Loss /  Post alteration of 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -4 low High ecological processes rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 2 2 2 3 - -9 moderate -6 low High risk EMPr

59 Table 20: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A1)

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High Biodiversity Monitoring and Rehabilitation

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High Habitat Monitoring and Rehabilitation

Loss /  EMPR alteration of compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -4 low High ecological Monitoring and processes Rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 2 2 2 3 - -6 low -6 low High risk EMPr

60 Alternative 2: Lanquedoc bridge (new, realigned) & road upgrade incl. stormwater

Table 21: Significance of impacts during design, planning & development phase (A2) (Construction Phase)

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -2 low High Biodiversity rehabilitation

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -2 low High Habitat rehabilitation

Loss /  Post alteration of 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -4 low High ecological processes rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 2 2 2 3 - -8 moderate -4 low High risk EMPr

61 Table 22: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A2)

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 3 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High Biodiversity Monitoring and Rehabilitation

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High Habitat Monitoring and Rehabilitation

Loss /  EMPR alteration of compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High ecological Monitoring and processes Rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 1 3 2 3 - -6 low -4 low High risk EMPr

62 Alternative 3: Lanquedoc bridge (widen old, no realignment) & road upgrade incl. stormwater

Table 23: Significance of impacts during planning, design & development phase (A3) (Construction Phase)

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -4 low construction -2 low High Biodiversity rehabilitation

 Post Loss of Aquatic 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -2 low High Habitat rehabilitation

Loss /  Post alteration of 1 2 2 3 - -6 low construction -2 low High ecological processes rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 2 2 2 3 - -7 moderate -4 low High risk EMPr

63 Table 24: Significance of impacts during operational phase (A3)

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -4 low -2 low High Biodiversity Monitoring and Rehabilitation

 EMPR Loss of Aquatic compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High Habitat Monitoring and Rehabilitation

Loss /  EMPR alteration of compliance, 1 2 2 3 - -6 low -2 low High ecological Monitoring and processes Rehabilitation

Cumulative  Adherence to development 2 2 2 3 - -6 low -4 low High risk EMPr

64 65